Virginia Mendes da Costa

In a child protection status review, the biological father (E.J.) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking primary care and custody of two children, S.J.M. and L.J. The Children's Aid Society and Six Nations Child and Family Services supported the father's request, while the biological mother (S.M.) opposed it, seeking the children's return to her care.

The court granted the father's motion for custody, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding placement, as the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or responsibility for past protection concerns.

However, the court determined that the issue of the mother's access with the children presented a genuine issue for trial and ordered it to be set for a trial management conference.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two Indigenous children were in need of protection and an order for their placement in the care and custody of their father, with discretionary access for the mother.

The mother conceded the protection finding but opposed the summary judgment, arguing for joint custody and a shared parenting regime.

The court granted the Society's motion in part, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the children's primary placement with the father, due to the mother's lack of insight into past protection concerns and ongoing conflict.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's access, determining it should not be left to the father's discretion and required judicial determination.

This motion for summary judgment concerned the placement of A.M., an Indigenous child, in extended society care.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended care, while the biological mother opposed it, advocating for A.M.'s return to her care.

The court emphasized the "last resort" nature of extended care, particularly for Indigenous children, and the statutory priority for family and community placements under federal legislation.

The Society failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue for trial, specifically lacking evidence of exhaustive efforts to find permanent family or community placements.

The motion was dismissed, preserving the possibility of A.M.'s return to her mother's care after a full trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking continued protection findings for the child T.E.H., an order for deemed custody to the paternal aunt L.H., specific access orders for the mother and siblings, no access for the mother's partner, and discretionary access for the father.

The court found T.E.H. to be in continuing need of protection due to risk of emotional harm.

It granted deemed custody to the paternal aunt, L.H., prioritizing the child's best interests and Indigenous cultural identity.

The court made temporary access orders for the mother and siblings, but declined to make a "no access" order for the mother's partner or a discretionary access order for the father, emphasizing the court's obligation to impose specific terms and conditions for access.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking to place the child in the permanent care and custody of his great aunt and uncle.

The maternal grandmother, who previously had custody, opposed the motion and sought the child's return to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the child continued to need protection due to the grandmother's unaddressed mental health challenges and delusional beliefs.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child with the kin caregivers and ordering limited access for the grandmother via text communication.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings due to persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure orders in a family law proceeding involving spousal support and equalization of net family property.

Despite multiple court orders, extensions, and escalating daily penalties, the respondent had only selectively provided disclosure, deliberately withholding information deemed relevant.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance willful and egregious, noting that basic financial disclosure required by the Family Law Rules remained outstanding over two years into the litigation.

While acknowledging the severity of striking pleadings, the court granted the respondent one final, time-limited opportunity to comply with a detailed list of disclosure requirements and pay outstanding costs, failing which his answer would be struck without further argument.

The court also ordered that any unproduced documents related to excluded property, date of marriage assets, or valuation date debts could not be used at trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that child A.T. was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order of Crown wardship with no access to the child by the respondent parents.

The respondent mother B.H. opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively placement with the paternal grandmother under a supervision order or deemed custody order.

The respondent father K.T. was noted in default.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's unresolved drug use, mental health issues, harmful relationship with the father, housing instability, and inability to work cooperatively with the Society.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward with no access, finding adoption by the family that had adopted the child's two siblings was in the child's best interests.