The respondent mother, J.N., brought an urgent motion to reinstate her parenting time with her three children, which had been suspended by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) due to a blanket no in-person access policy implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CAS supported the mother's request, but the respondent fathers, A.F. and M.S., opposed it, citing historical concerns about the mother's mental health, substance abuse, and alleged non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.
The court applied principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright* and other cases, emphasizing that a blanket suspension of access without alternative measures is inconsistent with a child's best interests and that the onus is on the party seeking to restrict access to provide specific evidence of risk.
The court found no evidence that the mother would put the children at risk and determined it was in the children's best interests to resume face-to-face contact.
The motion was granted, reinstating the mother's pre-pandemic access schedule with agreed-upon terms regarding substance use and COVID-19 protocols.
