Salvatore Garcea

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a four-year-old child.

The society sought a supervision order placing the child with the mother, while the paternal grandmother and father sought custody.

The court found the child in need of protection based on a risk of emotional harm under s. 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA, stemming from the paternal family's high-conflict and alienating behaviours towards the mother.

The court found no risk of physical harm from the mother.

Concluding that the mother was a capable and loving parent who would foster the child's relationship with the paternal family, the court awarded sole custody to the mother and granted specified parenting time to the father.

The respondent mother brought a motion to reinstate her time-sharing with the child, D.J., as per an existing temporary order.

The applicant father had unilaterally suspended time-sharing due to concerns about D.J.'s vulnerability to COVID-19, given his special medical needs.

The court applied the "material change in circumstances" test under the Children's Law Reform Act and found that the COVID-19 pandemic, while serious, did not, by itself, constitute a material change justifying the suspension of in-person parenting time.

The court emphasized that general fears are insufficient and that each parent's ability to mitigate risks must be assessed.

Finding the respondent mother to be a responsible parent who was taking appropriate precautions, the court dismissed the applicant's position and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the respondent's time-sharing as per the original temporary order.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment within a Status Review Application, seeking extended society care for three children (aged 16, 11, and 3) due to the parents' ongoing issues with alcohol abuse, mental health, domestic violence, and inability to meet the children's needs.

The parents failed to file responding materials or attend the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding the children remained in need of protection and that extended society care was in their best interests, with discretionary access for the two older children to the parents and all siblings, but no access for the youngest child to the parents to facilitate adoption.

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children.

The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs.

The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

During a child protection trial involving allegations of sexual abuse, the parents moved for a mistrial after the presiding judge raised concerns that the Society's counsel had inadvertently undermined the credibility of the key witness, a vulnerable 17-year-old complainant, during examination-in-chief.

The judge granted the mistrial, finding that it was impossible to rule out that the witness's subsequent testimony was affected and that a reasonable apprehension of bias would arise if the trial continued, thereby compromising fairness to the parties and the integrity of the court process.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship with no access for an eight-month-old child.

The parents, who both have profound cognitive delays, opposed the motion and sought to have the child returned to their care or placed with the maternal grandparents.

Relying on a previous parenting capacity assessment and current evidence of the parents' inability to safely care for the child, the court found no genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown Ward without access to the biological parents.

The mother opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial, while the father was in default and did not participate.

Applying Family Law Rule 16 and the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Evidence from a parenting capacity assessment and consistent observations of social workers demonstrated that the mother had not developed the ability to safely parent despite extensive services and supports.

The court concluded that the child’s best interests required permanent Crown wardship without access to allow prompt adoption.