Sandra Grant

This child protection case involved an interim motion by the respondent mother to vary a temporary access order for her 8-year-old child, A., who resides with his maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought to lift supervision and expand parenting time, including weekend visits.

The court denied the mother's request for expanded unsupervised access, citing concerns about the child's diagnosed special needs, the mother's mental health, her inconsistent attendance at visits, and the aunt's rigid stance threatening to place the child in care if weekend access was ordered.

The court ordered the continuation of supervised and therapeutic access, emphasizing the need for all parties to cooperate and implement professional recommendations for the child's best interests and long-term stability.

The applicant children's aid society brought a temporary care and custody motion regarding an 8-year-old child following allegations of sexual abuse by the respondent father.

The father argued the court lost jurisdiction because the society effectively removed the child by suspending his parenting time but failed to bring the matter to court within five days as required by the CYFSA.

The court found that while the society's actions amounted to a removal, it did not complete the process of taking the child to a 'place of safety', resulting in an irregularity rather than a loss of jurisdiction.

The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the mother, with the father's parenting time to be supervised, finding reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned to a shared parenting schedule.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, seeking to suspend the father's parenting time due to allegations of sexual abuse.

The society initially withheld the specific allegations and evidence from the parents and the Court, citing an ongoing police investigation.

The Court held that the society had no legal basis to withhold relevant evidence, emphasizing that fundamental fairness, the legislative framework, and Charter principles require full and early disclosure.

The Court strongly cautioned against proceeding ex parte or withholding evidence to protect a police investigation, noting the severe consequences of child protection proceedings.

The Applicant sought to adjourn a trial scheduled for October 2016 to March 2017, primarily to pursue further disclosure and potentially amend her claims to set aside a 1999 consent divorce judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the request amounted to a "fishing expedition" to fundamentally change the nature of the proceedings, was made too late, and was not adequately supported by medical evidence.

The court emphasized balancing fairness to both parties and the Respondent's right to a timely resolution after four years of litigation on the Motion to Change.

The trial was confirmed for October 2016 with strict time limits for each party.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship with access for the child.

The child had been in care for over four years following multiple apprehensions due to neglect and a physical incident involving the father's partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the disposition of Crown wardship, relying on a parenting capacity assessment that concluded the father and his partner lacked the ability to meet the child's needs.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the specific terms of access and ordered a focused trial on that issue.