Tshiombo Achille Kabongo

The respondent father moved to set aside a default final order obtained by the applicant mother, which granted her sole custody, supervised access to the father, and ordered child and spousal support.

The father argued he was unable to attend the hearing due to language barriers, delays in obtaining inter-provincial legal aid, and his assigned lawyer's non-attendance.

The court applied Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's reasons satisfactory.

The final order was set aside, and the issues of jurisdiction, custody, and access were adjourned for a full hearing.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the application, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, placement of the eldest child with the paternal grandparents.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and lack of parenting capacity, which resulted in significant emotional and behavioral issues for the children.

The court admitted the children's out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

Concluding that the parents and grandparents could not meet the children's special needs, the court ordered Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.

The applicant father failed to appear at the family law trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody of their four children, child support, supervised access for the father, a restraining order, and authorization to travel with the children without the father's consent.

The court heard evidence of the father's abusive behavior and attempts to manipulate the children.

The court granted all of the mother's requests, imputing an annual income of $16,000 to the father for the purpose of calculating child support.