Peter Stieda

The respondent father brought a motion for DNA paternity testing under s. 17.2 of the Children's Law Reform Act, alleging the children may have been conceived through commercial sex work.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for child support.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that a paternity test was not in the best interests of the children, would serve no useful legal purpose as the father intended to continue acting as a parent regardless of the results, and appeared to be motivated by a desire to humiliate the mother.

The court ordered the father to pay table child support based on his recent income, rejecting his claim of undue hardship.

This case concerns a child protection matter focusing on access between a child, B., and her mother, S.D., following a summary judgment finding B. in need of protection and awarding joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother.

The trial addressed the extent and conditions of the mother's access, including supervision and location.

The court considered the mother's personality disorder, her inability to regulate emotions, and her "victim's stance" as well as her cannabis use and history of conflict.

The court ultimately increased the mother's access duration from the status quo but denied overnight visits and a rotating three-week schedule, allowing home visits only after CAS inspection.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, the need to reduce conflict, and the mother's lack of insight into her issues.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought temporary care and custody of two children, D.M. and N.C., and an order for a s. 98 assessment of the mother and children.

The mother sought the immediate return of the children under a supervision order and opposed the assessment.

N.C.'s father sought limited supervised access.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother's care, citing a chronic pattern of unsanitary home conditions, lack of supervision, and the mother's lack of insight and cooperation.

The court dismissed the mother's request for the children's return and N.C.'s father's access motion, granting the Society's request for temporary care and custody and a s. 98 assessment.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother, with supervised access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the child to her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing the mother's emotional dysregulation, conflictual relationships, and lack of cooperation with the applicant.

The court also found no genuine issue regarding the disposition, granting joint custody to the father and maternal grandmother with primary residence to the father.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the extent and supervision of the mother's access, ordering a mini-trial to resolve that issue.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to exercise access to his four daughters following allegations of sexual touching that had led to the suspension of access.

The children had been interviewed by child protection authorities and police, but no criminal charges were laid and the evidentiary record before the court was limited.

The court found the situation troubling due to the prolonged restriction of access and unresolved factual disputes, including potential concerns about alienating behaviour.

The court ordered therapeutic counselling for the children and directed that a social worker supervise a series of structured community visits between the father and the children, followed by continued supervised access.

The matter was scheduled for further case management and the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was noted.