Ryan Jean Daniel Lindenbach

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to sever the case involving the child Z.O. from an existing child protection application and transfer the matter to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, an Indigenous child welfare agency.

Z.O.'s father (J.K.) and Serpent River First Nation, along with Nogdawindamin, consented to the motion.

The mother (A.B.) and step-father (M.O.) opposed the transfer, arguing that Z.O.'s half-sibling (A.O.) should also be transferred to keep the siblings together, or that the severance should be denied if A.O. was not included.

The court granted the severance and transfer of Z.O. to Nogdawindamin, emphasizing the legislative purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which support Indigenous child welfare agencies providing culturally appropriate services.

The court declined to transfer A.O., as she was not identified as First Nations, Inuit, or Métis, but noted the importance of reciprocating sibling access.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma sought summary judgment in a child protection matter, requesting a finding of need for protection, deemed custody for the mother, and supervised access for the father.

The mother consented to the Society's proposals.

The father agreed to the protection finding and custody for the mother but contested the requirement for supervised access to default to a supervised access centre.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the child in need of protection, awarding custody to the mother, and ordering supervised access for the father with the contested default provision, citing the history of domestic violence and the father's probation.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion under section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for a psychosexual assessment of the respondent father, A.L.-S., due to his history of sexual assault convictions and concerns about risk to the child.

The maternal grandmother supported the motion, while the father opposed it, arguing it was unnecessary, invasive, and infringed his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society failed to demonstrate the assessment was "necessary" as required by section 98, noting that the father's criminal record was already before the court and his insight could be tested via cross-examination.

The court also expressed uncertainty about the assessment's methodology, particularly the reliance solely on phallometric testing, and its relevance given the existing evidence.

A maternal grandmother sought interim access to her two grandsons (ages 2 and 10 months) pending trial.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for dismissal.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion for interim access, finding insufficient compelling circumstances relating to the children's best interests, a genuine issue for trial, and reliance on the parental autonomy approach established in Chapman v. Chapman.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion for dismissal and awarded her costs.