Ms. A. Williams

The applicant mother sought an urgent order for the immediate return of her two children, who had been unilaterally retained by the respondent father after an access visit.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the factors from *Thomas v. Wohleber*.

The court strongly condemned the father's self-help actions, noting his failure to seek judicial intervention despite serious allegations and his attempt to gain an advantage during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's care and granted a police enforcement order, emphasizing that unilateral changes to a long-standing status quo are not in the children's best interests.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 suspension of court operations to reinstate his access to his two children, aged 9 and 11.

The mother had unilaterally terminated a long-standing joint custody and access arrangement, citing the children's concerns about COVID-19 and a recent trip to Mexico.

The Children's Aid Society had previously closed a file regarding unverified allegations against the father and expected the family to follow the existing order.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was potentially urgent due to the sudden interruption of a generous timesharing arrangement.

The motion was allowed to proceed, with timelines set for the mother to file responding materials.

The judge emphasized the overwhelming caselaw presumption that parenting arrangements should continue during COVID-19 unless health or safety issues are proven.

This is a triage endorsement concerning an urgent motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic to liberalize access to the parties' child, including overnight visits and driving privileges, based on a psychiatrist's report.

The applicant mother opposed, challenging the report and seeking disclosure from the father's psychologist.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the specific issues of liberalizing access were not urgent, being complex matters without significant prejudice if delayed.

However, the court clarified that any reduction in the father's existing time-sharing arrangement would be presumptively urgent.

The father's motion to proceed was not authorized at this time, without prejudice to future urgent requests if existing access was threatened.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship without access for the child J.B. The Mother, P.B., opposed the motion, arguing she deserved a chance to parent.

The court reviewed the Mother's history, including four other children not in her care, concerns about substance abuse, domestic violence, lack of follow-through with counselling, and missed access visits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determined the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(i) and (g) of the CFSA, and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.