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.

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 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.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order to place A.S. in the custody of his father, L.S., in Calgary.

The mother, K.F., opposed the motion and sought custody or a supervision order.

The court denied K.F.'s request for an adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to parent due to persistent mental health issues and an unstable lifestyle.

While finding that A.S.'s removal from K.F.'s care was necessary and that placement with L.S. was in A.S.'s best interests, the court deferred a final order pending an updated assessment of L.S.'s family by Calgary Child Welfare Services.

An interim order was made placing A.S. in the temporary care and custody of L.S.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.