Wendy Rogers

This is a status review application by the Children’s Aid Society seeking a custody order for three children in favour of their maternal grandmother, with access to the mother at the grandmother's sole discretion.

The mother sought the children's return under a voluntary service agreement or supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of engaging in violent relationships, domestic violence occurring in front of the children, and drug use.

The court dismissed the mother's plan and granted custody to the maternal grandmother, finding it to be in the children's best interests, emphasizing stability, safety, and the grandmother's ability to meet their needs.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two children were in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The mother consented to statutory findings but opposed the protection and disposition orders.

The court granted summary judgment on the protection issue, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's paranoid personality disorder, frequent moves, and use of physical discipline.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the final disposition, as the mother had recently made significant efforts to improve her parenting and engage in counselling.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the care and custody of the mother, subject to a six-month supervision order.

The mother consented to the order.

The father opposed the motion, arguing against the protection finding and the condition that his access be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting overwhelming evidence of the father's controlling behaviour, parental conflict, and interference with medical care for the medically fragile children.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering them to remain with the mother under supervision, with the father's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.

The Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and a final order granting custody to the father with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that a full trial was necessary.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the children were in need of protection, citing the mother's assault convictions and mental health issues.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, finding a genuine issue for trial concerning the parents' abilities to care for the children and the lack of a solid, workable access plan for the mother, particularly given the high hostility between the parents and the children's wishes.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for two children, I.G. (13) and Z.C. (20 months), who had been in care beyond statutory timelines.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court, utilizing enhanced fact-finding powers under Family Law Rule 16(6.1), determined that both children were in need of protection due to the mother's untreated mental health, lack of cooperation with the Society, and inability to prioritize the children's needs.

Crown wardship was granted for both children.

Access for the mother to Z.C. was denied, while supervised access for I.G. was ordered, contingent on his welfare and desire.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.

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

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a finding of need of protection, a 6-month supervision placement to the mother, and an order that the father's access be supervised at the CAS's discretion.

All issues except the father's access were settled.

The court found that the CAS established a prima facie case for continued supervised access due to the father's problematic behaviour, missed visits, and failure to complete an assessment.

The father failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the father's access to be supervised at the discretion of the CAS.

The Society brought a protection application regarding a 20-month-old child who suffered inadequately explained severe bruising while in the rotating care of her parents.

The child was apprehended and placed with the step-father's parents.

The mother and step-father complied with all Society recommendations and sought custody.

The father, who struggled with untreated ADHD, chronic pain, and marijuana use, sought sole custody but remained uncooperative with the Society and hyper-vigilant about minor injuries to the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered custody to the mother and step-father, with supervised access to the father conditional on his compliance with treatment and parenting recommendations.

A child protection trial involving three Indigenous children apprehended by a children’s aid society following earlier permanent guardianship orders involving seven siblings in another province.

The court examined allegations of parental instability, lack of financial and medical supports, transient living conditions, and the significant influence of the father over the mothers.

Expert psychological evidence raised concerns about the father’s paranoia and control over the family dynamic, and whether the mothers could protect the children from associated risks.

Although the mothers demonstrated appropriate parenting during supervised access, the court concluded the ongoing risks of physical and emotional harm remained significant.

Applying the Child and Family Services Act best‑interests framework and considering Indigenous cultural placement factors, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent mother had a lengthy history of involvement with child protection services in multiple provinces, with documented concerns regarding mental health issues, substance abuse, poor home conditions, and domestic violence.

The court found that the mother had failed to put forward sufficient evidence to dispute material facts and granted summary judgment in favor of the Society, finding both children in need of protection.

The court also addressed the procedural issue of bifurcating the protection finding from the dispositional hearing.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for Crown wardship of a newborn child.

The parents had a history of child protection involvement, with two previous children made Crown wards due to the father's untreated sexual offender history and both parents' substance abuse and neglect issues.

The court applied the summary judgment rules and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and that Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption was in the child's best interests.

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.