Walter Wintar

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a 14-year-old child was in need of protection, placement of the child with the father under a six-month supervision order, and access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

The mother opposed the protection finding and the access terms but failed to file responding materials.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in child protection cases and found no genuine issue for trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the mother's inability to meet his needs and manage his behavioural issues.

The court ordered the child placed with the father and granted access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the father's care under supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care and a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's failure to ensure the child's school attendance, her high-conflict relationship with the society and the father, and the resulting emotional harm to the child.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, placed the child with the father for six months under supervision, and limited the mother's access to written letters.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care, with a minimum of three face-to-face access visits per year for the parents.

The parents consented to the extended society care order but the father sought more frequent access.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered extended society care with a minimum of three face-to-face visits per year for both parents, balancing the children's need for stability with their desire to maintain contact with their parents.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that three First Nations children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the custody of their maternal aunt in Alberta.

The father sought the return of the children to his care or placement with his family under a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the father's ongoing housing instability, mental health challenges, and substance use issues.

Applying the augmented best interests test under both provincial and federal legislation, the court concluded that placement with the maternal aunt was the least disruptive alternative that would protect the children and foster their cultural identity.

The court granted custody to the maternal aunt and ordered specified access for the father.

The father brought a motion to change the temporary placement of his infant child from the Society to his care.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement with her.

The court found that the mother, who has developmental challenges, did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances since the previous order.

However, the father demonstrated a material change by consistently attending access, addressing substance abuse concerns, and maintaining a positive relationship with the foster mother.

The court granted the father's motion and placed the child in his care subject to the Society's supervision.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to change the placement of a 21-month-old Métis child from foster care to a kin-in-care placement with the father of the child's older half-siblings.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in her care under supervision.

The court applied an augmented best interests test, incorporating factors from both the CYFSA and federal Bill C-92.

The court found that placement with the kin caregiver was the least intrusive option, offering stability, a strong sibling bond, and protection from the risks associated with the mother's precarious housing and history of severe domestic violence.

The Society's motion was granted.

The children's aid society brought a motion within a status review application to vacate a previous statutory finding that a child in extended society care was not a First Nations child.

The society sought a new finding that the child is a First Nations child based on new evidence of the paternal aunt's self-identification as Indigenous.

The foster parents and maternal grandfather opposed the motion, arguing the previous finding could not be varied.

The court held that a child's identity is fluid and can be revisited on a status review application if new evidence arises and it is in the child's best interests.

The court accepted the paternal aunt's self-identification and declared the child a First Nations child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order to place the child M. L. M. in the care of her biological father, I. B., in Edmonton, Alberta, under terms of supervision.

This motion was brought in the context of a status review application following a final order for interim society care.

The mother, A. M., opposed the motion, while the father, I. B., supported it.

The court considered the child's best interests under section 74(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including her views and wishes, developmental needs, cultural heritage, and the importance of secure attachment and continuity of care.

The court found that the discovery of the biological father constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a review of placement and granted the temporary order for placement with the father, with provisions for maintaining sibling and maternal access.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find two children in need of protection and to place them with their respective fathers.

The mother, who suffers from severe and chronic mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered the children placed with their fathers.

The court declined the society's request to delegate access discretion to the fathers, holding that a court cannot delegate its statutory duty to determine access based on the best interests of the children, and instead ordered supervised access with specific parameters.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to place three children with their father under a six-month supervision order, with the mother's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The father consented, and the mother did not actively oppose the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, screened the evidence for admissibility (including business records and children's hearsay statements), and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded that the children continued to be in need of protection and that the proposed order was in their best interests.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be placed in extended society care with no access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection and placement in extended care, noting the mother's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to engage in services.

However, the court found that material facts were in dispute regarding the quality of access visits and ordered a focused hearing to determine the issue of access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care and custody motion for three children (M.T., C.P., and G.Z.) due to exposure to parental conflict and domestic violence.

The Society sought to place two younger children with the mother and the eldest with the father, subject to supervision.

The mother sought placement of all children with her, while the father sought placement of all children with him.

The court considered the children's views and preferences, which were consistent and independently expressed, and the parents' lack of cooperation and insight into the impact of their conflict.

The court ordered the placement of the two younger children with the mother and the eldest child with the father, both subject to the Society's supervision and specific terms and conditions, finding this to be the least intrusive and disruptive placement.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning two children who were apprehended in November 2015 following serious injuries inflicted by the mother's partner.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or placement with her mother.

The Society sought an order for extended care to facilitate adoption by the current kinship placement.

The court found that the mother had not adequately addressed the protection concerns despite significant support and services over 26 months.

The court ordered extended care of both children with the Society, with the children holding access rights to the mother at the Society's discretion.

A child protection trial concerning three children where the Children's Aid Society sought protection orders.

The central issue was determining who had "charge" of the two younger children immediately before intervention.

The mother had legal custody but the father had provided full-time care for approximately 66.6% of the ten months preceding the apprehension.

The court found the father had charge of the younger children and made custody orders accordingly, placing the eldest child with the mother and the two younger children with the father, with reasonable access provisions for both parents.