Ms. Towlson

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.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support and sought to fix arrears dating back to January 1, 2015.

The respondent father argued that arrears should only be calculated from June 2016, when the mother first raised the issue.

The court applied the fourfold test from D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and determined that the effective notice date was June 2016, not January 1, 2015.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father, who had complied with all court orders and provided income information to the mother.

The court fixed arrears at $10,259.13 from June 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018, to be paid at $350 per month.

The court declined to order the father to pay for orthodontic treatment as a section 7 expense due to insufficient information regarding necessity and reasonableness.

A foster parent sought expanded rights of participation in a child protection proceeding at the access stage following a crown ward order.

The foster parent requested disclosure of the Society file (excluding the Kin Assessment), the ability to attend trial, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions, and the ability to participate in arguments regarding admissibility of evidence.

The maternal grandmother opposed the motion, arguing that expanded participation was akin to party status and would be procedurally unfair.

The court granted the motion, finding that at the post-finding stage, a less restrictive approach should apply to foster parent participation, particularly where the foster parent is the identified permanency plan and has a legal interest in the outcome.