Pauline El-Tenn

The Children's Aid Society was involved with a special needs child who had been placed in the legal custody of a kin caregiver.

The sole issue at trial was the frequency of the mother's supervised access visits.

The mother sought weekly access, while the Society and the kin caregiver proposed access once every three weeks due to the child's fragile health, strict routine requirements, and the mother's history of inconsistent attendance and alcohol use.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court ordered supervised access once every three weeks for two hours, with strict conditions regarding the mother's sobriety and attendance.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules in an Amended Status Review Application concerning the child H.L. The Society sought a final order granting custody to the child's kin, with the father having discretionary access and the mother's access to be determined after mediation.

The respondent mother resisted, seeking the child's return to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent sobriety efforts were insufficient to warrant a return to her care or delay the decision, prioritizing the child's best interests and stability in the kin placement.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the Respondent father successfully sought an order for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to decline jurisdiction over custody and access issues, but failed to obtain an order for the children's return to Lebanon.

The court considered the father's mixed success, the mother's conduct in removing the children from Lebanon and non-disclosure, and the mother's financial circumstances and the potential impact on the children.

The court awarded the father partial costs, significantly less than requested, along with disbursements and translation costs.

The mother secretly removed the children from Lebanon to Ontario without the father's consent.

The father commenced proceedings in Lebanon and brought a motion in Ontario asking the court to decline jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the children's habitual residence remained in Lebanon, as their removal without consent did not alter it.

The court declined jurisdiction over custody and access but refused to enforce the Lebanese order returning the children because the mother had not received reasonable notice of that proceeding.

The father brought a motion to change a 2007 joint custody order, seeking primary residence of the two children.

The mother opposed and sought sole custody.

The court found that the escalating parental conflict constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the court concluded that changing primary residence or granting sole custody would not address the core problem of parental conflict.

The court dismissed both parties' claims to change custody and primary residence, maintaining joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

The court ordered both parents to attend counseling to assist them in co-parenting and made minor modifications to the access schedule.