Sophie Côté Langlois

The Applicant, Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for extended society care for the child B.J.M.O., who had previously been found in need of protection.

The respondent parents opposed, arguing for a trial on disposition and access, proposing custody to kin or interim supervision.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It ordered extended society care for the child, with access to parents at the Society's discretion (due to criminal no-contact conditions and a broken relationship) and sibling access as determined by the Society.

The decision emphasized the child's best interests, stability, and the unsuitability of other options.

K.R. appealed an order finding her in contempt of court for allegedly violating a temporary order concerning supervised visits for her child with the father.

The original order granted Valoris discretion to remove supervision if no longer necessary.

K.R. refused to allow visits at the father's home, insisting they remain at Valoris's office due to concerns about the child's behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the original order insufficiently clear regarding visit location or K.R.'s obligation to support a gradual transition plan.

It also noted that Valoris had not yet made a final decision to remove supervision.

The court emphasized the need for clear orders in contempt proceedings and the importance of considering the child's best interests and less severe remedies in family law disputes.

The appeal was allowed, the contempt order quashed, and the contempt motion dismissed.

The applicant child protection agency brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for refusing to comply with a temporary order granting the father supervised access that could transition to unsupervised access at the agency's discretion.

The mother refused to allow visits at the father's home despite investigations into abuse allegations being closed without charges.

The court found the mother in contempt, as the order was clear, her disobedience was deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also modified the prior order to implement a gradual schedule for unsupervised access at the father's home.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship of the child, V.T., without access, for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, C.A.T., sought the child's return to her care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the mother's inability to prioritize the child's needs, lack of insight into parenting deficits, and inappropriate conduct during supervised access, including delusional thoughts and threats related to the mafia.

Despite the mother's community integration and efforts to improve her lifestyle, the court determined that the risks of returning the child were real and that a supervision order would be unworkable due to the mother's lack of cooperation with the Society.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding it to be in the child's best interests for permanent placement through adoption.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to allow a witness to testify via videoconference at an upcoming trial.

The witness suffered from severe back pain and had limited ability to travel or remain seated for long periods.

The court granted the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured videoconference testimony and that any concerns regarding cross-examination or assessing credibility could be addressed by the court's directions.

In a child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a Crown wardship order for two young children with a view to adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care with assistance from the maternal grandmother, while one father supported that position and alternatively requested an extension of statutory timelines.

After hearing extensive evidence from agency workers, foster parents, and family members, the court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to persistent concerns regarding parental capacity, safety of the home environment, substance use, and lack of cooperation with the agency.

The court concluded that the proposed family care plans were not realistic and would expose the children to continued instability and risk.

The children were therefore made Crown wards without access, enabling adoption planning to proceed.

Child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act seeking a temporary care and custody order.

The court considered evidence of chronic school absences, unsanitary living conditions including mold, concerns about supervision, sexualized behaviour by one child, and a positive hair follicle drug test for amphetamines/methamphetamines by the father.

The court found the father had not demonstrated the ability to protect the children from ongoing harm and instability.

It concluded that supervision would be insufficient to protect the children.

A temporary order placing the children in the care and custody of the child protection agency for six months was granted.