Michael P. O'Dea

A child protection motion for summary judgment on disposition following a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The applicant sought an order for extended society care without access.

The parents consented to the finding of need for protection but failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment on disposition.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended society care without access to the respondent parents, finding that the child remained at risk of exposure to domestic violence and parental instability, and that the parents had failed to demonstrate capacity for meaningful engagement with access.

The applicant child welfare agency brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning twin infants born prematurely and testing positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at birth.

The parents did not respond to the motion.

The court found a prima facie case of risk based on the mother's untreated addiction history and the father's inadequate addiction treatment.

The court granted an order for extended society care (Crown wardship) with placement in a kinship home.

The court declined to grant access to the parents, finding that while the parents demonstrated warmth and affection during supervised visits, the unresolved addiction issues and lack of meaningful progress toward rehabilitation made ongoing access not in the children's best interests.

A status review hearing concerning a child in the protection system where the applicant society sought to place the child with paternal grandparents, while the foster parent sought custody.

The court found that the child had formed a secure and selective attachment to the foster parent and that severing this attachment would cause significant trauma.

The court rejected the society's plan and granted custody to the foster parent under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the child's best interests required maintaining the established attachment relationship.

The decision addresses the tension between family reunification principles and the child's psychological well-being, and clarifies the scope of foster parent rights at the status review stage.

A motion by the maternal grandfather (R.W.) to vary an interim order placing two young children in the temporary care and control of the Children's Aid Society.

The grandfather sought placement of the children in his home.

The court applied the test under subsection 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding a material change in circumstances but ultimately dismissing the motion.

The court found that while the grandfather's application merited consideration, insufficient evidence regarding the children's needs, the grandfather's ability to manage the older child's special medical needs (spina bifida), and unresolved concerns about the grandfather's marijuana use and financial obligations created too much uncertainty to warrant moving the children prior to trial.

The court emphasized the importance of continuity for very young children and the risk of multiple placements.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving an apprehension of three children with developmental delays.

The father challenged the apprehension and sought dismissal of the protection application as an abuse of process, or alternatively, sought placement of the children in his care without supervision.

The court found that the father's inability to manage his emotions while disciplining the children, combined with his refusal to cooperate with services and his inappropriate responses to allegations of sexual abuse, established a real risk of emotional and physical harm.

The court rejected the father's abuse of process arguments and allegations of bias against the child welfare agency.

The children were placed with the mother subject to supervision, and the father was granted supervised access with specific conditions and recommendations for behavioral modification.

This is a disposition hearing in a child protection application following a bifurcated hearing.

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County sought Crown wardship without access for a child born in 2008.

The biological mother sought placement without supervision, while the maternal grandparents sought placement as an alternative.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, mental health issues, and failure to follow protective advice.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption, finding that the child had formed a secure attachment to the foster family and that returning the child to the mother or grandparents would cause significant harm.

The court dismissed the mother's and grandparents' placement plans and denied access to the biological family.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on March 9, 2014.

The court addressed multiple Charter issues including arbitrary stop, reasonable and probable grounds, and rights to counsel.

The court found no breach of section 9 (arbitrary stop), no breach of section 8 (reasonable and probable grounds), and a breach of section 10(b) (rights to counsel) but excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused raised a section 258(1)(d.1) defence (last drinks consumed) but the court rejected the accused's credibility and found the defence not established.

The court convicted the accused.

The applicant sought to change a child support order dated May 25, 2007, whereby she paid table support of $341 monthly to the respondent for their son.

The applicant sought termination of her support obligation and payment of support by the respondent based on the child's change of residence from the respondent's home to the applicant's home in October 2012.

The child had made two temporary moves to the applicant's residence in 2011 and 2012 before permanently relocating in October 2012.

The court found that the child's support obligation transferred from the respondent to the applicant as of October 1, 2012, and that the child withdrew from parental control as of February 1, 2014, upon graduation from his educational program.

A Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and should be made a ward of the Crown without access.

The child's mother consented to the order.

The father did not appear despite having answered.

The court found that the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm due to the mother's substance abuse, violent mood swings, and criminal history.

The father's extensive criminal record and incarceration history rendered him unable to provide care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.

The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of a motor vehicle collision and provide her name and address contrary to section 252(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her section 10(a) and (b) rights.

The court found that police deliberately misled the accused regarding the extent of her jeopardy during a police interview to extract an admission of driving.

The court excluded the accused's statements as a result of the Charter breach.

However, the court convicted the accused on the basis of care and control of the vehicle independent of driving, finding that as the vehicle owner, she had a duty to ensure her name and address were provided at the scene of the collision.

The Children's Aid Society brought an interim motion to change the placement of two children subject to a supervision order during a status review application.

The court applied the test under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, which presumes that a child shall remain in the care of the person having charge unless the child's best interests require a change.

The court found that the mother's cognitive limitations, psychological denial, inability to create a stable home environment, and the children's significant behavioral and developmental needs clearly outweighed their short-term interest in continuity of care.

The court granted the motion and ordered the children removed from parental care, adjourning the matter for an expedited trial.

Cross-motions for interim custody of a child born in 2007 were heard.

The child had been apprehended at birth and placed with paternal grandparents following a 2011 trial.

In June 2013, the parents negotiated a custody/access agreement with joint custody and primary residence with the father.

In August 2013, they entered into a Voluntary Services Agreement with the child welfare agency, which closed its file.

In October 2013, the mother unilaterally removed the child from the father's care and school, leading to an emergency order reinstating primary residence with the father.

The court found that the father had demonstrated continued commitment to the child's welfare through ongoing involvement with support agencies and counselling programs.

The court found the mother had not adequately addressed her mental health issues or demonstrated capacity to parent a behaviourally challenged child.

The court dismissed the mother's claims and reinstated the access regime from the mediated agreement, declining to endorse extended summer access pending further evidence of the mother's ability to maintain consistent routines.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a child from her father's care following allegations of risk.

The father moved for the return of the child and was successful.

The child was returned to the father's care subject to existing supervision order terms.

Subsequently, the father sought costs of the motion.

The court dismissed the father's costs claim, finding that while the applicant's assessment of risk was speculative or premature, the father's conduct in attempting to deny the mother her consented access through intimidation and alleged drug planting constituted bad faith that made the litigation necessary.

The respondent (father) brought a motion seeking Rule 20 questioning directions, amendment of the title of proceedings to reflect the applicant's married name, appointment of a lawyer for the children, and permission to amend his answer to include a hardship claim under section 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The underlying application concerns custody and child support following a separation in 2010, where the parties had executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody with primary residence to the mother and no table support.

The court granted the title amendment, dismissed the request for child's counsel appointment, limited the scope of Rule 20 questioning, and adjourned the hardship claim amendment for a separate motion.

A status review application sought to grant custody of two children to their paternal grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been in the grandparents' care since 2008.

The applicant initially sought consent orders with agreed findings of ongoing risk, but the agreed statement of facts was insufficient.

Subsequently, a summary judgment motion was filed combining consent provisions with summary judgment procedures.

The court refused to endorse the orders, finding that the procedural combination was improper and that certain pre-conditions in the affidavit required formal adoption by the biological parents through their signatures.

The matter was adjourned for a proper consent hearing.

A mother sought a sole custody order against the father following their separation.

The parents had been cohabiting and had agreed to a week-on, week-off shared placement arrangement for their two children.

The mother alleged the father did not trust or respect her as a parenting partner, refused to cooperate, and would not communicate.

The court found that while the shared placement arrangement had worked well for the children, shared parenting decision-making was not viable due to the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother while maintaining the existing week-on, week-off access schedule for the father.

The court also found that the father had made unfounded complaints to Children's Aid Society, including a serious allegation of sexual assault, which demonstrated his unwillingness to legitimately share parenting responsibilities.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and "over 80" and brought a disclosure application regarding the over 80 charge.

The application sought extensive disclosure particulars related to the Intoxilyzer 8000-C breath testing device, including maintenance records, technician qualifications, inspection logs, and operational protocols.

The court considered the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. St.-Onge Lamoureux and the Canadian Society of Forensic Science Alcohol Test Committee recommendations.

The court granted partial disclosure, ordering production of inspection and maintenance logs, manufacturer directives and policies, DAVTECH checklists, and particulars regarding alcohol standard usage, while denying other requests as either irrelevant or speculative.

This is a child protection trial following the apprehension of two children from their parents' care.

The parties agreed to findings under the Child and Family Services Act based on substandard home conditions and parental conflict.

The central issue was disposition: which parent should have care and control of the children subject to supervision.

The court found that the father had successfully remediated his deficits through parenting programs and consistent implementation of learned strategies, while the mother continued to struggle with attention deficits, anxiety, stress, and decision-making capacity.

The court placed the children in the father's care and control subject to supervision, with specific terms addressing monitoring, computer use, relationship disclosure, and parental counselling.