Self-represented (C.R.)

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to reduce the mother's access to the child and remove the stepfather's access, while providing access to the paternal great-aunt.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to her care.

The court denied the mother's cross-motion, finding she had not met the high threshold under s. 113(8) of the CYFSA for returning the child to her care, primarily due to her inconsistency and the child's need for stability.

The court granted the Society's motion to vary access, reducing the mother's minimum access to once per week, removing the stepfather's access, and granting the paternal great-aunt access, finding these changes were in the child's best interests, considering both the CYFSA and the augmented best interests test under the Federal Act for Indigenous children.

Parents appealed orders arising from a child protection proceeding in which the children were made Crown wards on a motion for summary judgment.

The mother appealed the denial of a trial regarding her claim for access, arguing procedural unfairness and inconsistent endorsements in the record.

The father appealed the Crown wardship order, alleging procedural unfairness, denial of cross‑examination, and improper reliance on delay and outstanding criminal charges.

The court held that natural justice required that the mother be granted a hearing on the issue of access, particularly given conflicting decisions in the record and questions surrounding the circumstances of her lack of contact with the children.

However, the father failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the wardship decision, and his appeal was dismissed.