Stephen Zap

The parties separated and the mother relocated from Kingston to Welland.

The father sought primary residence of the three children in Kingston, while the mother sought primary residence in Welland.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, including the relocation factors under the Children's Law Reform Act, and determined that the children should reside primarily with the father in Kingston to maintain stability.

The court also imputed income to the mother based on full-time minimum wage for the purpose of calculating retroactive and ongoing child support.

The child protection agency sought an order placing a young Indigenous child in the custody of extended family members, while the parents sought the child's return to their care.

The child had been apprehended as an infant due to failure to thrive.

The court found that the mother, who has cognitive limitations, would be overwhelmed caring for three young children.

The court ordered that the child remain in the custody of the extended family members pursuant to section 102 of the CYFSA, with supervised access for the parents.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship of two children for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children subject to society supervision, while the father was noted in default.

The court found that the mother's ongoing struggle with illicit substance abuse and her inability to maintain sustained abstinence posed a significant risk to the children, particularly given one child's developmental delays.

The court also noted concerns regarding ongoing contact with the abusive father.

The children were made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with the mother granted access at the society's discretion and the father denied access.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.

The mother, who has a significant global intellectual delay, opposed the motion and sought a trial to have the child returned to her care under supervision.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's intellectual limitations prevented her from safely parenting the child, who also has special needs.

The motion was granted, the child was made a Crown ward, and no access was ordered.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment on all family law relief sought in her application, including child support, equalization, and access.

The parties settled equalization and ongoing child support during the hearing.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the father's access, dismissing the mother's request for an order of no access and requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court also determined the amounts owing by the father for retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and joint line of credit payments, declining to impute income to the father for alleged under-employment due to drug use, but imputing income for the period he was incarcerated.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship without access for two young children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she needed more time to stabilize her mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent relapses demonstrated an inability to provide a permanent and stable home.

The court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards with no access, prioritizing their need for a permanent and stable placement.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking to terminate a supervision order and direct the father's access to a supervised access facility.

The mother supported the motion.

The father, who suffers from an untreated delusional disorder, opposed the motion and sought continued access at his family farm supervised by the society.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as there were no protection concerns regarding the mother's care of the children.

The court terminated the supervision order, reinstated the mother's sole custody, and ordered the father's access to be supervised at a facility, noting that the society's resources should not be used indefinitely for supervised access when no protection concerns exist.

In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.

The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.

The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).