Rasim (Sam) Misheal

The Children's Aid Society sought to vary a temporary access order to suspend in-person visits between a 16-month-old child and his parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, proposing to replace them with video access only.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that the Society was applying a blanket policy inappropriate to their specific circumstances.

The court found that while COVID-19 constituted a significant change in circumstances, the Society failed to establish that complete suspension of in-person access was proportionate.

The court granted the motion in part, permitting in-person access to continue under strict COVID-19 safety protocols, while suspending the weekday visits at the Society's offices and replacing them with video access.

The appellant mother, L.M., appealed a summary judgment decision from the Ontario Court of Justice that granted Crown wardship of her three children without access.

The appeal raised seven grounds, including errors in applying the legal test for summary judgment in child protection cases, reversing the onus of proof for post-wardship access, improper judicial notice, palpable and overriding factual errors regarding the child's time in care, failure to consider the continuing need for protection, and insufficient reasons for admitting hearsay evidence.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact by the motion judge, and affirmed the lower court's decision to grant Crown wardship without access.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Halton Children's Aid Society sought an order that a 13-year-old child remain in the temporary care and custody of her maternal grandmother, subject to supervision and conditions prohibiting the maternal grandfather from being left alone with the child and from sleeping in the family residence at night.

The grandfather faced criminal charges for historical sexual offenses involving multiple alleged victims.

The grandparents sought to have the child remain in their joint care without supervision or with minimal conditions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather based on credible hearsay evidence of multiple allegations, the pattern of alleged abuse, and the child's age falling within the grandfather's apparent victim profile.

The court rejected a proposed bedroom lock condition as placing inappropriate responsibility on the child and granted the Society's motion, ordering the child to remain in the grandmother's temporary care and custody subject to supervision and the requested conditions.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $7,500.00 against the respondent father in a motion to change child support and access arrangements.

The respondent had failed to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure and a prior costs order.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the respondent's non-compliance was serious, security for costs was not appropriate in a family law matter involving custody and access where the best interests of the child are paramount.

The court noted that the respondent was defending rather than pursuing the litigation and that ordering security would likely prevent the court from hearing evidence on what access arrangements would be in the child's best interests.