S. King

The Society brought a status review application regarding a young child who had been in interim society care.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care, while the Society, the father, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported placement with the paternal grandparents.

The court found that the child continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing issues with intimate partner violence, adult conflict, mental health, and poor decision-making, including involvement in a serious car accident.

The court concluded that the mother could not provide a stable and safe environment and ordered the child placed in the care of the paternal grandparents under a six-month supervision order, with specified access for both parents.

The applicant grandmother brought a motion for alternate weekend access to her five-and-a-half-year-old grandchild.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to dismiss the grandmother's pleadings and leave contact to her discretion, having cut off contact a year prior.

The child's father was incarcerated and not involved.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding triable issues.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found a longstanding positive relationship existed between the grandmother and child, which the mother arbitrarily imperiled over a dispute regarding service of litigation documents.

The court ordered temporary contact of two full Saturdays per month to gently reintegrate the grandmother into the child's life.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash the discharge of the respondents on various criminal organization and conspiracy charges following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional errors by failing to consider the evidence as a whole, failing to test the evidence against the essential elements of the offences, and improperly weighing competing inferences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly assessed the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and that any alleged errors in assessing sufficiency were within his jurisdiction and not subject to prerogative review.