Terese Ferri

The applicant grandmother brought a motion for temporary contact with her 7-year-old grandchild after the respondent parents suspended contact in February 2020.

The parents, who share joint residency, opposed the motion, citing concerns about inappropriate behaviour and parental autonomy.

The court dismissed the temporary motion, finding insufficient evidence to conclude the parents acted arbitrarily under the Chapman test.

However, the court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for a s. 112 assessment to assist in determining the child's best interests.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to her primary care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld the child following a medical incident.

The father alleged the mother had substance abuse issues, but a Children's Aid Society investigation did not verify these concerns.

The court found that the father engaged in inappropriate self-help by altering the established status quo without a compelling reason.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's primary care, restored the previous parenting schedule, and permitted the mother to return the child to his original school.

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition of a child protection matter involving a First Nations child.

While the parties agreed the child should remain in the custody of maternal kin, the respondent mother opposed the father having joint decision-making and unsupervised parenting time, and opposed a formal contact order for the paternal extended family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court ordered that the child remain with the maternal kin, granted supervised parenting time to the father, and made a specific contact order for the paternal extended family to ensure the child remains connected to his Algonquin heritage, given the father's inconsistent involvement.

The moving party brought a motion for a temporary reduction of his spousal support obligation pending a full hearing on his Motion to Change, citing his medical release from the military and reliance on pension income.

The responding party brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

Applying the test for interim variation, the court found the moving party failed to establish urgency or hardship, and noted his failure to provide accurate and ongoing financial disclosure.

The motion for a temporary reduction in support was dismissed, and both parties were ordered to provide updated financial disclosure.

The appellants appealed a decision ordering Crown wardship with access to the maternal grandmother for two Aboriginal children.

The children had been apprehended and placed with a non-Aboriginal foster family for several years.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the children's First Nations status.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while Aboriginal heritage is an important consideration under the Child and Family Services Act, it does not override the paramount consideration of the children's best interests.

The court upheld the finding that removing the children from their established foster family would be damaging, and that their cultural connection could be maintained through access visits.

In this child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two Native children were in need of protection and made orders regarding their placement.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with placement in a non-Native foster family (the S.D. family), while the maternal grandmother and the Algonquin Nation sought placement with the grandmother with CAS supervision.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to the grandmother's inability to protect them from unsupervised contact with their mother, who had a significant criminal history, and the grandmother's ongoing struggles with alcohol and dishonesty with authorities.

Despite the importance of cultural connection for Native children, the court prioritized the children's established attachment to their foster family, their expressed wishes to remain in that home, and their emotional security and stability.

The court ordered Crown wardship with the children remaining in the S.D. family's care, with reasonable access for the grandmother twice per year while the foster family resided in the United Kingdom.