Rebecca E. Rosenstock

The mother brought a motion for the return of her infant child to her temporary care and custody pending the final disposition of a child protection application.

The child had been removed by the children's aid society due to concerns regarding the mother's alcohol consumption and the child's exposure to domestic conflict with the father.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned without supervision.

However, the court concluded that the risks could be adequately mitigated by a supervision order with strict terms, including the full-time presence of an approved supervisor in the home.

The child was ordered returned to the mother's care subject to the society's supervision.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing three children in the temporary care and custody of their father, subject to a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children would be at risk with the father due to his history of domestic violence and substance abuse, and requested the children remain in foster care until she could secure housing.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother due to her unmanaged mental health and substance abuse issues, and that a supervision order would not provide adequate protection.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, who had demonstrated sobriety and the ability to provide a safe home.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' two children in an uncontested trial.

The mother had moved to Ottawa with the children in 2017.

In May 2018, during a visit to Halifax, the respondent father withheld the older child and refused to return him to the mother.

The younger child remained with the mother in Ottawa.

The court granted the mother final sole custody of the younger child.

Finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the mother temporary sole custody of the older child and ordered his return, subject to the father's right to file responding materials.

The Crown sought to admit portions of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony under the principled approach to hearsay.

Jill Gil, the grandmother of accused Marcus Gil, was unavailable to testify at trial.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay was met due to her unavailability, the threshold reliability was not established.

The court also determined that the Crown's cross-examination of Jill Gil at the bail hearing was primarily a discovery mechanism, which was improper and would render the admission of such evidence unfair to the accused.

Consequently, the court ruled against the admission of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony.

The mother contested the father's request for unsupervised access to their child, who has autism spectrum disorder.

The father had a history of domestic conflict, erratic behavior, and mental health issues requiring psychiatric treatment.

The court ordered that the father's access remain supervised by his mother until he provides an updated medical report from his family physician confirming his compliance with mental health treatment and medication.

Following an emergency motion and cross-motion regarding child custody, access, and support, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The applicant father had sought the return of the child and sole custody, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and a restraining order.

The court found divided success, as the father secured the child's return and access but not sole custody, while the mother retained primary care but failed to obtain a restraining order or supervised access.

Given the divided success, the unreasonable positions taken by both parties, and the absence of any offers to settle, the court made no order as to costs.

The Applicant father brought an emergency motion seeking the return of the child to Ottawa, temporary sole custody, and primary residence, along with other parenting relief.

The Respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary sole custody, a restraining order, and child support, requesting no or supervised access for the father.

The court found both parties' allegations lacked full credibility and made an interim order based on the child's best interests.

The child was to remain in the mother's primary care, with the father granted unsupervised access.

Travel restrictions were imposed, passports were to be held in trust, and communication was limited.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed.

Interim child support of $500 per month was ordered for the mother, based on an imputed income for the father due to insufficient financial disclosure.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 final order, seeking joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule for her 7-year-old daughter, H.M.C. The respondent father opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances and that contact was not in the child's best interests.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's demonstrated progress in counselling, stable parenting of her other children, and cooperation with the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

While denying joint custody, the court ordered gradual supervised access for the mother through the Supervised Access Program, emphasizing the child's best interests, the need for professional guidance during reintegration, and the importance of sibling contact.

The applicant, Julie Green, brought a motion seeking interim custody, child support, a restraining order, and supervised access for the respondent, Andrew Green, following their separation.

The respondent had a history of inappropriate communication and mental health concerns, and had minimal contact with their two young children.

The court granted the applicant sole interim custody, ordered the respondent to pay child support retroactively and ongoing, imposed a communication restraining order, and mandated supervised access for the respondent for six months.

The applicant was also awarded costs of the motion.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

Child protection motion concerning the temporary care and custody of five children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The child protection agency sought an order placing the children in its temporary care for six months following allegations of domestic violence, physical discipline, and instability in the parental home.

The father opposed the motion and sought immediate placement of the children with him.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer physical or psychological harm if returned to the father and concluded that supervision orders would not sufficiently protect them.

The court maintained the children in the agency’s temporary care and appointed an independent psychologist to conduct a parental capacity assessment under s. 54 of the Act.