Stephen Michael Pender

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a trial to have the child returned to her care.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's instability, ongoing substance abuse issues, and failure to present a viable plan of care.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the paternal grandparents and granted them custody, with access to the parents at the grandparents' discretion.

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 children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a one-year-old child, seeking placement with a kin caregiver.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return subject to a supervision order.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm due to the father's domestic violence and alcohol abuse, and the mother's inability to protect the child.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child given the parents' history of non-cooperation with the society and failure to engage in recommended services.

The child was ordered to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the kin caregiver, with specified access for the parents.

The parties, who separated in 2013, sought sole custody of their two children following a breakdown in their shared parenting arrangement.

The trial focused heavily on the parents' inability to communicate and their divergent approaches to their nine-year-old child's gender non-conformity.

The mother supported the child's social transition, while the father believed the gender non-conformity was manufactured by the mother.

The court found the parents' extreme lack of trust and conflict compromised their parenting abilities and precluded joint custody.

Sole decision-making and primary residence were awarded to the mother, with the father receiving alternating weekend access.

The court specifically ordered that decisions regarding the child's gender non-conformity must follow the recommendations of the CHEO Gender Diversity Clinic.

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.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown Wardship without access for two young children.

The mother did not present a plan of care but sought access.

The maternal grandmother's partner presented a plan for a kinship placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the kinship placement, noting it would essentially return the children to the same environment where they suffered neglect.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial regarding access, as the mother's relationship with the children was not beneficial and meaningful.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the children were made Crown Wards without access for the purposes of adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

A child protection trial involving three Indigenous children apprehended by a children’s aid society following earlier permanent guardianship orders involving seven siblings in another province.

The court examined allegations of parental instability, lack of financial and medical supports, transient living conditions, and the significant influence of the father over the mothers.

Expert psychological evidence raised concerns about the father’s paranoia and control over the family dynamic, and whether the mothers could protect the children from associated risks.

Although the mothers demonstrated appropriate parenting during supervised access, the court concluded the ongoing risks of physical and emotional harm remained significant.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act best‑interests framework and considering Indigenous cultural placement factors, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate its supervision order over a young child.

Both parents agreed to the termination but disputed the subsequent custody and access arrangement under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought primary care or joint custody with primary residence, while the father sought sole or joint custody with primary residence.

The court considered the child's best interests, noting the parents' high conflict, the father's pending deportation proceedings, and the child's positive development under the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court ordered joint legal custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the child's attendance at an Ontario school, and granted the mother a restraining order against the father.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking supervised access for the father and findings of contempt for alleged breaches of interim orders relating to insurance, benefits, and payment of an assessment retainer.

The respondent father cross‑moved to enforce the existing access order and sought make‑up parenting time.

The court held that the parties’ highly conflictual access exchanges and the father’s conduct regarding the infant child’s feeding constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to justify a limited variation of the interim order.

The court ordered that parenting exchanges occur at a supervised exchange centre and required the father to follow the mother’s feeding directions for the infant.

The court dismissed all contempt allegations, finding the orders either not clearly breached or not enforceable by contempt.

Following a three‑day family law trial, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $5,560.11 relying on success at trial, alleged reasonableness, and a prior offer to settle.

The court held that success at trial had been divided and that both parties had behaved unreasonably in aspects of the litigation, including disclosure issues.

The purported offer to settle was found invalid under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules because it lacked the party’s signature and contained vague, unenforceable terms regarding child support.

The court also found the offer would have been unreasonable in any event due to missing financial disclosure.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The mother brought a motion seeking interim sole custody and interim spousal support following the parties’ separation after a long-term relationship and marriage.

The father opposed and sought the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that the existing shared parenting arrangement constituted the status quo and that interim changes should only occur where there is clear evidence of danger or a compelling reason.

Finding no evidence that the children were at risk or that their needs were not being met, the court declined to disturb the shared parenting schedule and instead referred the matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The request for interim spousal support was also declined pending further financial disclosure.

The responding parent brought a motion to change a prior consent order granting joint custody with primary residence to him and weekend access to the other parent.

He sought sole custody, while the other parent sought equal time and continuation of joint custody.

The court held that no material change in circumstances had been established with respect to custody under the Children’s Law Reform Act, and therefore declined to vary the joint custody order.

However, the court found a material change regarding access and concluded that the child’s best interests required a simpler and more balanced parenting schedule to reduce parental conflict.

Access was varied to an alternating week‑on/week‑off schedule with detailed parenting provisions and revised child support.