Stephen Michael Pender

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children (I.D., A.D., H.D.) were in need of protection and an order for their placement with the maternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court found the children to be Inuit based on their strong self-identification and cultural participation, despite some uncertainty regarding ancestral connection.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's failure to protect them from a father with sexual offense charges, her emotional dysregulation, and health issues affecting her parenting capacity.

The court ordered the children's placement with the maternal grandmother for six months under Society supervision, emphasizing the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children under the Federal Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection matter concerning E.P., seeking a final custody order for the mother, N.P., with sole decision-making authority, and supervised access for the father, E.P., at a supervised access center.

The mother consented to the Society's request, while the father sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access, and the paternal grandmother sought to supervise the father's access.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody to the mother and supervised access for the father at a supervised access facility, citing the father's extensive criminal history, periods of incarceration, and the need for a neutral third party to supervise given the high conflict between the parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for interim care and custody of baby R. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing concerns about the parents' mental/emotional health, domestic conflict, and non-cooperation.

The parents, K.T. and E.M., opposed the motion, arguing they had made significant progress and that an interim supervision order would adequately protect the child.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a risk of emotional harm to R. if returned without conditions, but ultimately determined that an Interim Supervision Order with detailed terms and conditions, including cooperation with external service providers and the Society, would adequately mitigate the risk.

The motion for Society care was dismissed, and the child was returned to the parents' care under supervision.

The Attorney General appealed an order requiring the production of an entire Crown brief from an ongoing criminal prosecution for use in a pending child protection case.

The motion judge had ordered broad disclosure because the Crown's Wagg Unit requested an indefinite adjournment to review the brief, which would have delayed the child protection trial.

On appeal, the parties reached a consent resolution requiring immediate production of the child's video statement and other witness statements, while giving the Crown 30 days to screen the remainder of the brief.

The Divisional Court approved the resolution and emphasized that a 24-week delay for Wagg vetting is unacceptable in child protection cases, which must be prioritized.

The respondent father brought a contempt motion against the applicant mother, alleging non-compliance with a final parenting order.

The mother argued that the motion should not proceed because the final order contained a mandatory dispute resolution clause requiring mediation/arbitration.

The court held that while it retains exclusive jurisdiction over contempt, contempt is a discretionary remedy of last resort.

The court declined to pass directly to a contempt finding and ordered the parties to proceed to mediation/arbitration as required by their final order, adjourning the contempt motion sine die.

The applicant child protection agency brought a Wagg motion seeking production of the complete Crown Brief regarding pending criminal charges against the respondent father for sexual offences against his child.

The Attorney General opposed production, arguing it could prejudice the ongoing criminal prosecution and taint witnesses.

The court granted the motion, finding that the agency met the test under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and that the rights and interests of the parties in the child protection proceeding outweighed any possible prejudice to the Attorney General in the criminal proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of police and medical records regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents consented to the release of police records but opposed the release of their medical records, citing significant privacy interests related to their complex medical care as transgender individuals.

The court dismissed the motion for medical records, finding no sufficient nexus between the Society's concerns about emotional health and the predominantly endocrinological treatment the parents received.

The court held that the parents' privacy interests and the need to maintain their therapeutic relationships outweighed the probative value of the records at this stage.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and for final custody orders placing them with their maternal and paternal aunts.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding protection, disposition, and access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's severe and longstanding mental health issues, threats of violence, and inability to adequately supervise the children.

The court granted the summary judgment, found the children in need of protection, awarded custody to the aunts, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of MacLeod R.S.J. dated October 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to enforce a final parenting order after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld the children to synchronize their schedule with her partner's children.

The court found that while the mother improperly resorted to self-help remedies, the situation did not meet the strict test for urgency, as there was no real crisis or risk of harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed, but the court ordered make-up parenting time for the father pending an upcoming case conference.

No costs were awarded to discourage the mother's use of self-help remedies.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother, alleging she breached two final orders regarding joint decision-making and alternating weekly parenting time.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the decision-making order, finding it was not clear and unequivocal.

Regarding the parenting time order, the court found the mother deliberately and wilfully breached the order by failing to take concrete steps to require the 14-year-old child to visit his father.

However, the court declined to exercise its discretion to find her in contempt, noting the father had alternate adequate remedies available and a contempt finding would not advance the child's best interests.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent, ex parte motion for interim orders regarding primary residence, sole decision-making, no parenting time for the respondent, and a restraining order.

The respondent was recently charged with breaching his terms of release related to serious incidents of violence against the applicant.

The court granted the restraining order and ordered no parenting time for the respondent to provide an additional layer of protection.

However, the court declined to make urgent orders regarding decision-making and primary residence, finding no immediate need as the child was already residing with the applicant.

A return date for the motion was set for early January 2022.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was the successful party, obtaining judgment for a property claim, child support arrears, spousal support, and parental decision-making.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the respondent made reasonable offers on financial issues that could have shortened the trial.

The court also considered the parties' behaviour, including the applicant's rigidity on parenting issues and the respondent's withholding of funds.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $28,000.00.

The parties separated after a short relationship marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making and restricted parenting time, while the father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time but declined to order equal time or joint decision-making due to the history of poor communication and the child's transition difficulties.

The mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, a lump sum for spousal support, and a share of the proceeds from the sale of his home based on unjust enrichment.

This endorsement addresses the re-opening of a child protection trial due to material changes in circumstances and establishes detailed procedural guidelines for its continuation via videoconferencing.

The court outlines protocols for evidence submission, witness examination, document management, and technological requirements to facilitate a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing upon best practices for remote hearings.

The respondent brought a motion seeking urgent relief for retroactive child support and an order prohibiting the applicant from drawing on a joint line of credit, citing dire financial circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined the matter was not urgent, noting the applicant's consent to interim child support payments and a restriction on the line of credit, and finding insufficient evidence of dire financial need given the applicant's concessions and the respondent's financial statement.

Despite the finding of non-urgency, the court issued interim orders reflecting the applicant's consent.

The children's aid society sought extended society care for three young children and a custody order to a grandmother for the oldest child.

The parents opposed the orders, seeking the return of all four children to their care.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the parents' history of substance abuse, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the children's developmental and medical needs.

The court concluded that returning the children to the parents was not a viable option and that the society's proposed plan was in the children's best interests.

The oldest child was placed in the custody of his grandmother, and the three younger children were placed in extended society care with limited parental access.

At the commencement of a child protection trial, the mother disclosed that her father and paternal grandmother identified with the Algonquin First Nation.

The court adjourned the trial to hear a motion on whether the children were 'First Nations children' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Finding uncontroverted evidence of the children's Algonquin heritage, the court determined they were First Nations children.

The court declared a mistrial to ensure the relevant band was served with notice and given the opportunity to participate, emphasizing the importance of reconciliation and First Nations' rights in child welfare proceedings.

The applicant father brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent mother for allegedly failing to abide by an access order concerning their child.

The mother sought an adjournment to obtain a Voice of the Child Report.

The court granted the adjournment, ordered a Voice of the Child Report, and directed the parties to attend reintegration counselling.

The court declined to order immediate face-to-face access, emphasizing the need for more information and the potential detriment of forcing the child's hand at this stage.

The court also referred the matter to a case management justice.

The respondent father sought costs following a motion for increased interim access and the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court had granted increased access on modified terms and declined the OCL request.

The father claimed success and sought $3000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The applicant mother argued that success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found that success was indeed divided and declined to make any order as to costs.