Shadrach McCooeye

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their child during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The child suffers from hypotonia (floppy baby syndrome) with respiratory issues and other underlying conditions.

The mother sought to suspend all in-person access until deemed safe by a medical professional.

The court found that while COVID-19 constituted a material change in circumstances, it was insufficient on its own to justify suspension of the existing access order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that appropriate compliance with public health directives could mitigate risk.

Access was permitted to recommence after April 24, 2020, subject to specified safety precautions.

This appeal concerned the determination of a child's Indigenous background under section 90 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The motions judge had found the child to be a First Nations person based on the father's self-identification and his maternal grandfather's identification.

The appellant, Batchewana First Nation, argued that this evidence was insufficient and that a simple statement of self-identification could not establish band affiliation for the purposes of the Act.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the motions judge erred in law by relying solely on self-identification without a sufficient evidentiary foundation connecting the child to the community, and made a palpable and overriding error by overstating the evidence regarding the lack of contradiction.

The appeal was granted, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection on grounds of risk of physical harm and risk of emotional harm, a disposition order of deemed sole custody to the mother, and an order for supervised access to the father.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society had not established a genuine issue requiring trial on either ground for finding.

The court noted that while the father exhibited difficult behaviour, there was no credible evidence of a mental health disorder causally connected to risk of physical harm, and no evidence of emotional harm to the children.

The court also expressed concerns about the disposition sought and the practical feasibility of the proposed access arrangement.

This is a child protection matter involving a motion to strike evidence filed by the respondent father in a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society.

The society sought deemed custody to the mother and restricted access to the father of two children, ages 7 and 6.

The father moved to strike affidavit material and documentary evidence that he contended would not be admissible at trial, relying on guidance from the Kawartha decision.

The court addressed procedural issues including late-filed motions, the scope of the motion to strike, and the proper application of evidentiary rules on summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

This is a temporary care and custody hearing in a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

The society sought placement of five children with their mother subject to society supervision and twelve conditions for twelve months.

The mother opposed the motion and sought placement with no supervision or conditions, alternatively with less restrictive conditions.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the principles governing temporary care and custody orders.

The court found that the father of the two youngest children posed minimal risk given his current circumstances, including house arrest and criminal charges.

The court granted temporary care and custody to the mother for three of the children without supervision or conditions, granted limited supervision and conditions for the two youngest children, and made no order regarding one child pending further evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to determine whether a child born in 2018 is a First Nations child and, if so, whether the child identifies with the Batchewana First Nation.

The motion also sought orders to add the Batchewana First Nation as a party respondent and to transfer conduct of the proceeding to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services.

The court found that the child is a First Nations child based on the father's self-identification as an Aboriginal person with Batchewana First Nation heritage and his maternal grandfather's Aboriginal ancestry.

The court granted the motion, adding Batchewana First Nation as a respondent party and substituting Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services as the applicant.

This is a decision under section 90(2)(b) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) regarding the identification of a child's First Nations status and band affiliation in a Status Review Application.

The child, age 6, was previously identified under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) as not being an Indian or native child.

The court determined that the child is a First Nations child based on the mother's identification of the child as such, and identified the child's band as Michipicoten Band based on the mother's indication that the child identifies with that band through maternal family ties.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma for production of records from the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police, and Ministry of Community Safety and Corrections regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The mother did not oppose production; the father opposed.

The court granted production from the Sault Ste.

Marie Police Service for the period following a prior production order, finding the relevance test under section 130 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act was met.

The court declined to order production from the other two record holders due to insufficient evidence of relevance.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma seeking a temporary care and custody order under section 51(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society sought to place three children in the care of their mother subject to society supervision and numerous terms and conditions.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an order under section 51(2)(a) with no supervision or conditions.

The father of the youngest child supported the society's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm based on evidence of alcohol abuse, domestic discord, violence, questionable caregiver arrangements, and inadequate supervision.

The court granted the society's motion but modified several proposed conditions, finding some to be unreasonable or overly intrusive for a temporary order.

The applicants sought child support from the respondent parents for E.G., who was 18 years old at the time of trial and had been living with Janet McGonegal since March 2011 when she was 16.

The applicants sought retroactive child support from April 1, 2011, ongoing child support, and coverage of extraordinary expenses for E.G.'s continued education.

The respondents argued that E.G. had voluntarily withdrawn from their parental control at age 16 and therefore were not obligated to provide support under section 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that E.G. had withdrawn from parental control voluntarily and that the withdrawal was not involuntary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.