Nicola Edmundson

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville brought a motion within a status review application seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The mother opposed the motion, supported by the father.

The Society alleged ongoing neglect, unhygienic living conditions, lack of supervision, domestic violence, and non-compliance with previous supervision orders.

However, since being served with the application, the mother had made significant positive changes, including separating from the father, moving to a safer home with a supportive cousin, and engaging with community and medical services for the children.

Applying Section 113(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which requires children to remain in current care unless their best interests "require" a change, the court found that while the Society's concerns were valid historically, the recent improvements meant that removal was not currently required.

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and a final order granting custody to the father with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that a full trial was necessary.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the children were in need of protection, citing the mother's assault convictions and mental health issues.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, finding a genuine issue for trial concerning the parents' abilities to care for the children and the lack of a solid, workable access plan for the mother, particularly given the high hostility between the parents and the children's wishes.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, with the mother seeking the return of the children under a supervision order and the father alleging the Society failed to properly explore a kin placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' failure to protect the children from neglect and domestic violence, the mother's failure to exercise reasonable access, and the father's lack of involvement.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.

The Society brought a protection application regarding a 20-month-old child who suffered inadequately explained severe bruising while in the rotating care of her parents.

The child was apprehended and placed with the step-father's parents.

The mother and step-father complied with all Society recommendations and sought custody.

The father, who struggled with untreated ADHD, chronic pain, and marijuana use, sought sole custody but remained uncooperative with the Society and hyper-vigilant about minor injuries to the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered custody to the mother and step-father, with supervised access to the father conditional on his compliance with treatment and parenting recommendations.

Following a prior summary judgment finding that the children were in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court conducted a disposition trial to determine the appropriate order under ss. 57 and 57.1 of the Act.

The court considered competing plans: returning the children to the mother under supervision, leaving them with the father under supervision, or granting custody to the father.

Evidence included concerns about the mother’s home conditions, limited cooperation with the child protection agency, the influence of a boarder who exercised harsh discipline, and the mother’s difficulty implementing parenting supports.

The children had lived with the father for approximately 18 months and were adjusting well academically and socially.

Applying the best interests factors in s. 37(3), the court concluded that the children’s safety, stability, and developmental needs were best served by granting custody to the father.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access for six children.

The children had been apprehended multiple times due to the mother's historic drug use, exposure to domestic violence, and deplorable housing conditions.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had a new stable relationship and a supervisory job.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother failed to demonstrate she had addressed the issues that led to the children's apprehension.

The court granted summary judgment, making all six children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption.

A father sought leave under s. 65.1(4) and (5) of the Child and Family Services Act to bring an application to review the status of his children, who had been crown wards placed for several years with their maternal grandparents.

The court considered the governing criteria for leave, including bona fides, whether unusual circumstances justified reopening a permanent placement, whether the review would advance the purposes of the Act, and whether the applicant established a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the children were thriving in a stable and nurturing home with their grandparents and maintained a positive relationship with their father.

The father failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or provide a compelling basis to disturb the children’s long‑standing placement.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

In a child protection proceeding, the father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking custody of two children while the child protection agency sought to withdraw its protection application and terminate interim orders.

The court considered whether there were genuine issues requiring trial regarding a protection finding and custody arrangements under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial on the protection finding and concluded that the younger child should remain in the father's custody based on stability and best interests, granting summary judgment on that issue.

However, a genuine issue remained regarding custody of the older child, who had been independently deciding her residence, and that issue was not suitable for summary judgment.

The protection application was permitted to be withdrawn and interim protection orders were terminated.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of four children who had been in care for over two years.

The mother and her common-law partner opposed the motion, arguing that they had made progress and could call witnesses to support their case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a triable issue existed and emphasizing the need for caution before making a Crown wardship order.