Sonia V. Khemani

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the court removed the respondent's counsel of record due to a pattern of non-attendance and non-compliance with court orders.

The court also addressed its jurisdiction to compel the attendance of a Children's Aid Society worker.

Given the verified risk of emotional harm to the children and the parties' failure to meet their statutory duties, the court ordered the primary Society worker to attend the next appearance with their records to ensure the court had complete information to determine the children's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application seeking a temporary supervision order for two children residing with their mother and stepfather.

The Society raised concerns regarding educational neglect, inadequate supervision, and the presence of an adult sibling with a history of sexually abusing one of the children.

Despite the Society seeking only a supervision order, the court found that the children could not be safely maintained in the mother's care due to ongoing risks and her lack of insight.

The court ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel sought extended care for two children, J and M, and specified access for the parents, T.R. and A.S. The parents sought the children's return to their joint care.

The court found the Society's initial removal of the children unjustified, concluding they were not at risk of physical harm in the parents' care.

The court determined that the children had suffered emotional harm due to their prolonged separation and placement in foster care, and that the Society had failed to apply consistent scrutiny to the foster parents' care compared to the biological parents.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the parents' care, subject to Society supervision and Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) involvement, emphasizing the children's best interests and the parents' perseverance.

A custody and access dispute between unmarried parents regarding their eight-year-old son.

The applicant sought sole custody while the respondent sought sole custody and primary residence.

The court found that the applicant had failed to meet the child's academic, social, and developmental needs, including allowing excessive school absences without adequate medical justification, failing to comply with court-ordered psychological assessments, and exposing the child to parental conflict.

The respondent demonstrated a stable home environment and a commitment to the child's welfare.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the respondent, with structured access to the applicant.