Treena Watts

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application concerning three children.

The Society sought extended society care for the eldest child and custody for the two younger children with their maternal grandparents.

The mother opposed, requesting the children's return to her care.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's history of physical harm, failure to engage with recommended services, and inconsistent access.

The motion was deemed suitable for summary judgment.

The court granted extended society care for the eldest child and custody of the two younger children to the maternal grandparents, with specified access arrangements for all parties.

This Crown wardship trial concerned two children, A.S-P. and A.B., whose parents (A.S., C.P., J.B.) were largely in default or not participating.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton sought custody for A.S-P. with paternal grandmother N.S. and Crown wardship for A.B. Paternal grandmother A.H. (not a formal party) presented a plan for A.B., which the court considered.

The court found both children in need of protection.

It granted custody of A.S-P. to N.S. with discretionary access for parents.

A.H.'s proposal for A.B. was rejected due to credibility issues, wilful blindness to past abuse, and inability to ensure the child's safety from the father.

A.B. was made a Crown ward without access, as no beneficial and meaningful relationship was established with any family member, and access would impair adoption opportunities.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a two-year-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of severe mental health issues, inconsistent compliance with treatment, and limited insight into her condition, sought the return of the child under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother could not consistently meet the child's needs and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother-child relationship was not meaningful and beneficial enough to justify access, which could impair the child's future adoption opportunities.

At a temporary care hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined interim placement for four children following a protection application arising from high-conflict parental separation.

The evidence revealed prolonged parental conflict, mutual allegations, school disruption, and significant emotional and behavioural concerns affecting the children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe that two of the children would likely suffer harm if placed with the father, even under supervision, but that they could be adequately protected if placed full‑time with the mother under supervision.

The court also determined that the parents were incapable of maintaining a workable equal time‑sharing arrangement due to persistent conflict and instability.

A structured interim arrangement was ordered with Society supervision and discretionary access provisions.