Nicola Edmundson

This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of two Indigenous children, R.W. and K.D., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The court considered competing plans for the children’s placement: the applicant society (DBCFS) and the Western Cree Tribal Council (on behalf of Horse Lake First Nation) sought placement in a group home in Alberta to facilitate cultural and family reunification, while the respondent, L.S., sought their return to her care or, alternatively, continued care in Ontario.

The court found that L.S. had exposed the children to harm and failed to maintain their cultural connections as required.

Applying both provincial and federal legislation, the court ordered the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS, with placement in Alberta, and set out terms for supervised access by L.S.

The court considered a motion for temporary parenting time between Bryce Alexander MacDonald and Kara Michelle Harris regarding their son, Brayden.

The parents had a prior agreement about parenting time and transportation, which the mother later refused to follow.

The court found that the agreement, while not a binding domestic contract under the Family Law Act, reflected the parties’ intentions and should be respected unless contrary to the child’s best interests.

The court determined that the mother’s unilateral actions and refusal to facilitate the father’s parenting time were not in Brayden’s best interests.

A temporary order was made granting the father parenting time for three weekends each month, joint decision-making, and specific arrangements for sports and transportation.

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for the child L.K.D. to be placed in the custody of his father, L.D., with discretionary access for the mother, A.N. The child had previously been found in need of protection.

The mother opposed, seeking the child's return to her care and attempting to overturn the prior protection finding.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on disposition or access, concluding that placing the child in the father's custody with discretionary access for the mother was in the child's best interests, given the child's consistent wishes and the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, specific parenting time, child support, and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making, continuation of shared parenting, and determination of school.

The court found both parents contributed to family violence and conflict.

A final parenting order was made establishing parallel decision-making (mother for medical/dental, father for education/extra-curricular), primary residence with the father, and a 2/2/5/5 shared parenting schedule.

The mother's claim for a restraining order was dismissed, and child support was deferred pending further evidence.