Vasu Naik

This endorsement implements a direction from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which remitted the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice to alter a final parenting order.

The court ordered that the father may request a review of the parenting time provisions, including supervised access terms, within 12 months of February 24, 2025.

This review will proceed via a Motion to Change under the Family Law Rules without requiring the father to demonstrate a material change of circumstances.

Any subsequent requests to vary the parenting time orders will require demonstrating a material change of circumstances, sensitive to the fact that the case involves an adult child who cannot withdraw from parental charge.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to place the child, K, in the custody of her paternal great-grandmother, D.L., pursuant to section 102(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

K's parents, E.K. (Mother) and O.K. (Father), opposed the motion, while D.L. supported it.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding that the parents had not made significant progress to address protection concerns since a previous order, and that it was in K's best interest to remain in D.L.'s care, ensuring a safe, stable environment and continuity of care, especially given K's serious medical needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order for the child, L.S., in favour of his paternal great-aunt, with supervised access to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding either the custody disposition or the access arrangements.

The mother had failed to take meaningful steps to address the Society's concerns, and the child was thriving in the great-aunt's care.

The court granted the custody order to the great-aunt and set conditions for the mother's supervised access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for permanency.

This case involved two consolidated applications under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, where two parents each sought to be appointed sole guardian of property and personal care for their adult son with autism.

The court found the son incapable of managing his property and personal care (except clothing).

The decision focused on determining which parent was more likely to fulfill the duties of a guardian, including fostering contact with family and friends, consulting with supportive individuals, and promoting the son's independence.

The court gave limited weight to the son's expressed wishes due to concerns about their independence and potential influence.

Ultimately, the court appointed the mother as the sole guardian, concluding that it was in the son's best interest and that she was more likely to fulfill the guardian's duties effectively.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to reduce the mother's access to the child and remove the stepfather's access, while providing access to the paternal great-aunt.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to her care.

The court denied the mother's cross-motion, finding she had not met the high threshold under s. 113(8) of the CYFSA for returning the child to her care, primarily due to her inconsistency and the child's need for stability.

The court granted the Society's motion to vary access, reducing the mother's minimum access to once per week, removing the stepfather's access, and granting the paternal great-aunt access, finding these changes were in the child's best interests, considering both the CYFSA and the augmented best interests test under the Federal Act for Indigenous children.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

The applicant brought an application seeking to manage the personal care of her elderly mother, challenging the validity of recent powers of attorney granted to the mother's husband and son.

The applicant alleged the mother lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence, and alternatively sought to be appointed guardian and requested ordered visits.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of incapacity or undue influence to invalidate the powers of attorney.

The court also declined to appoint a guardian or order visits, noting the mother was not found incapable of personal care and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction was not warranted.

This motion concerned the temporary care and custody of two children, E.-L. and Z.P., following their apprehension due to ongoing adult conflict between the mother and Z.P.'s father.

The Family and Children's Services sought placement with the maternal grandfather, while the mother sought return of the children or placement with kin caregivers (the L.'s), and Z.P.'s father sought placement of Z.P. with him.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the persistent conflict.

It determined that the children could not safely remain with the mother.

The maternal grandfather was deemed unsuitable due to lack of assessment and negative reports.

The court ordered E.-L. to be placed in the temporary care of the L.'s and Z.P. to be placed in the temporary care of her biological father, Mr. P., conditional on him securing suitable housing.

The L.'s were also added as parties to the child protection proceedings.

The applicant paternal grandmother sought contact with her grandson.

The respondent mother agreed to a gradual resumption of contact, while the respondent father supported the application but did not otherwise participate.

The father had previously commenced a divorce proceeding in Perth, which automatically stayed the grandmother's application under s. 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court lifted the stay, finding no bad faith, prejudice to the mother if the stay remained, and a waste of court resources if the matters were not dealt with together.

A consent order for grandparent contact was issued, and the mother's claims against the father were directed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order to place the child in extended society care.

The mother, who has significant developmental and mental health challenges, opposed the motion and sought the child's return.

The child has complex medical needs requiring specialized care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the mother was unable to safely parent the child.

The court granted the motion, placing the child in extended society care with access at the applicant's discretion.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's evidence consisted of bare denials and failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding her history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting deficits.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted summary judgment, making the children Crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards for the purposes of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother lacked the capacity to parent the children due to her anger management issues, inability to manage finances, and refusal to cooperate with professionals or accept medical treatment for the children's special needs.

The children were thriving in foster care.

The court ordered the children made Crown wards for the purposes of adoption, with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.