Stephen J. Andari

This decision addresses a motion by the Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) seeking full, unredacted disclosure of child protection files held by Linck Child, Youth, and Family Supports concerning Indigenous children under their care.

The court reviews the applicable legislative framework, including the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, and the Family Law Rules.

The judge emphasizes the paramount importance of Indigenous children's best interests, cultural continuity, and the duty of consultation with Indigenous communities.

The court rejects the child protection agency's redactions and limitations on disclosure, finding that full disclosure to the First Nation is necessary to enable meaningful participation in care planning and to uphold Indigenous rights and reconciliation principles.

The motion is granted with orders for unredacted disclosure and restrictions on use to protect privacy.

This decision concerns a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving serious sexual offence charges against the father, Dr. RW, unrelated to his own children but occurring in the family home.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the admissibility and reliability of evidence from police and society workers, rejecting double hearsay and parental testimony about children's views.

The court emphasized the paramountcy of children's best interests and protection, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk if placed in joint parental care.

The interim order places the children with the mother under society supervision and restricts the father's access to supervised visits, denying unsupervised access or cohabitation due to the risk of sexual and emotional harm.

The applicant sought an interim parenting order for joint decision-making and graduated parenting time with the child.

The respondent mother filed a cross-motion to file a domestic contract, stay the applicant's motion, and amend the child's birth certificate to identify the biological father.

The court granted interim contact time to the applicant, ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, directed the filing of the domestic contract, and dispensed with the applicant's consent to amend the birth certificate.

The court found a strong, positive relationship between the applicant and the child, and largely dismissed the respondent mother's arguments against contact.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a significant increase in the respondent father's income.

The court found a material change in circumstances, as the father's income had increased from $96,000 to over $290,000.

Child support was varied retroactively to 2015 due to the father's failure to disclose his increased income.

Spousal support was also increased, but only retroactively to the date the application was commenced, with a minimum-wage income imputed to the mother.

A custody application brought by the mother against the father involving their child born in 2011, with the complication that the mother faced deportation to Hong Kong on April 30, 2012.

The father cross-claimed for custody and child support or, alternatively, specified access.

The court found that the father had engaged in domestic violence, confinement, assault, and threats against the mother, and demonstrated poor parenting practices.

The mother was granted sole custody of the child.

The father was granted supervised access twice per week for two hours per visit, which would terminate upon the mother's deportation.

The non-removal order was terminated as there was no evidence that either parent intended to voluntarily remove the child from the jurisdiction.

The moving party sought to change a prior child support order and requested access to a child with significant medical and developmental needs after several years without contact.

The court declined to order access at that time, finding insufficient evidence that renewed contact would be in the child’s best interests given the child’s medical conditions and the parent’s limited understanding of those needs.

The court directed the moving party to consult the child’s pediatrician to obtain medical guidance before any future access request.

The court also addressed child support, imputing income to the moving party due to voluntary unemployment and rejecting a request for credit for alleged overpayments, although current support was suspended due to receipt of social assistance.

The court remained seized regarding the access issue for potential future review.