Peter S. McCullough

The applicant mother sought the immediate return of her child, K, in accordance with an existing temporary order, alleging the respondent father was withholding the child.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary custody of K, citing concerns about the mother's non-compliance with Covid-19 protocols, hygiene, and home maintenance.

The court found both motions had urgent aspects related to Covid-19 but dismissed the father's non-Covid-19 related concerns as not urgent.

The court ordered the continuation of the existing temporary order, requiring the father to return the child to the mother, and mandated both parties to comply with Public Health Covid-19 protocols.

The respondent's motion for temporary custody was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested trial seeking custody of the parties' child after relocating from Newfoundland to Ontario.

The respondent father had commenced his own parenting application in Newfoundland.

The court declined to make the substantive orders sought, finding insufficient evidence that the child was habitually resident in Ontario or that the statutory tests for jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act were met.

The court ordered the applicant to personally serve the respondent and file the Newfoundland application materials before adjourning the matter for a further hearing.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship for four children.

The parents opposed, seeking the return of the children or a period of Society wardship.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition, as the parents lacked insight and had not made sustained progress to meet the children's complex needs, and granted Crown wardship.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the statutory presumption against access, ordering sibling access and access between the parents and the children, with further submissions required for the youngest two children.

The Respondent mother brought a motion to change a consent order regarding custody and access, seeking increased time with the child and other variations.

The Applicant father brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and reduced access for the mother.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify a change in custody or significant changes in access, dismissing the father's motion for sole custody.

While the mother's request for 50% time was denied, the existing order was clarified and varied to allow for Monday morning returns after weekend access and additional time on PA days/holidays.

Several other minor changes regarding holiday schedules, telephone access, and communication methods were made by consent or court order.

In a child protection summary judgment motion, the Society sought Crown wardship without access for two special-needs children who had been in care well beyond the statutory time limits.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the mother conceded the children remained in need of protection, the history of chronic neglect and parental incapacity was longstanding, and the evidentiary record established no realistic prospect of reintegration.

The court further held that access could not be ordered under the governing statute because it would impair the children's future adoption opportunities.

Crown wardship without access was granted.

A parent brought a status review application seeking reinstatement of access to three children who had previously been made Crown wards without access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court applied s. 59(2.1), which requires proof that the relationship between the parent and the child is beneficial and meaningful and that access would not impair the child’s prospects for adoption.

Expert evidence indicated that renewed access risked emotional harm and could undermine adoption prospects.

Despite evidence that the parent had improved her parenting circumstances with other children, the court found the statutory test was not met for any of the children.

The application to restore access was therefore denied.

The appellants appealed from judgments of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the sequence of sentences for escaping lawful custody.

The Court of Appeal had reversed the sequence to make new sentences consecutive to the escape sentences.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals from the bench, finding no error in the majority judgments of the Court of Appeal.