Stephen L. Zap

The applicant father brought a motion to change a previous parenting order, seeking primary residence and decision-making for the parties' two children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's illicit drug use, undisclosed Children's Aid Society involvement, and failure to communicate or comply with the right of first refusal.

Applying the best interests of the child factors under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court issued a temporary order granting primary residence and final decision-making authority to the father, while ordering supervised parenting time for the mother pending an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child, who was born with drug withdrawal symptoms, continues to be in need of protection and should be placed in extended Society care.

The respondent parents, who struggled with ongoing substance abuse and failed to attend access visits, did not file responding materials or attend the motion.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and that it was in the child's best interests to be placed in extended care for the purpose of adoption.

The applicant Society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for a 20-month-old child.

The respondent parents opposed, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found the child in continuing need of protection due to the parents' ongoing domestic conflict and inability to remain separated despite extensive services.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding the parents' plan for joint custody unrealistic.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the presumption against access, ordering access at the Society's discretion (minimum once per month) as it was meaningful, beneficial, and would not impair future adoption.

In a parenting dispute between unmarried parents of a young child, the court considered whether the father’s access should remain supervised at a supervised access centre and addressed child support.

Allegations concerning the father’s sexual behaviour and a psychological assessment suggesting prudence regarding unsupervised caregiving tasks were examined.

The court found no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child and concluded that continued highly restricted access was not in the child’s best interests.

Applying the Children’s Law Reform Act and the principle of maximum contact, the court ordered a graduated expansion of supervised access outside the supervised access centre with conditions preventing the father from bathing or changing the child.

The court also ordered prospective child support based on the father’s modest income and declined retroactive support.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether a father’s access to his four children should remain supervised.

Evidence established that the children enjoyed visits with their father, but his untreated delusional disorder raised concerns about risk and judgment.

The treating psychiatrist recommended continued supervision due to the father’s fixed delusional beliefs and uncertainty regarding treatment compliance.

The court concluded that unsupervised access was not presently safe and rejected a proposal to shift supervision responsibilities to a third‑party organization.

The court ordered continued supervised Sunday access by the society, cancelled mid‑week visits due to their burden on the children, and directed that future reconsideration of access depend on psychiatric treatment progress.