Salim J. Khot

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody of the parties' two children and supervised access for the respondent father.

The father had previously been granted primary residence of the older child on a without prejudice basis, but circumstances had materially changed, including the father facing new criminal charges and the release of a highly concerning Report of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to reside with the mother in her sole custody, and ordered supervised access for the father pending his completion of counselling and a drug test.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship for three children.

The parents, who arrived as refugees and faced significant intellectual and physical disabilities, struggled to provide adequate care despite extensive community support.

The court granted summary judgment for Crown wardship, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the parents' inability to care for the children.

However, the court found the society failed to establish that there was no triable issue regarding access between the parents and the children, and ordered a trial on the issue of access.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.

The applicant child protection agency brought an application regarding three children, while the parents concurrently sought a divorce, custody, and property division.

Following a 154-day trial, the court dismissed the protection application, finding that the mother had made false allegations of domestic violence against the father and had a significant, unacknowledged alcohol problem.

The court awarded sole custody of the youngest child to the father, with restricted access for the mother, and ordered the mother to pay child support for all three children.

The court also determined that funds in the father's offshore account were held in a resulting trust and excluded from his net family property.

During a highly complex and lengthy child protection trial, the oldest child turned 18.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to vary the order appointing a lawyer for the child and to remove the OCL as his legal representative, arguing that the child was no longer a 'child' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while the child aged out of the statutory provisions, fairness and due process required his continued legal representation.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the child's lawyer continue to represent him and that the OCL continue to fund the representation until the completion of the trial.