Aisha Ghafoor

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking to continue the placement of a child, N., with the Father, with Mother's parenting time at the Society's discretion.

Mother sought an equally shared parenting arrangement.

The court determined that Father was the primary caregiver before the Society's intervention, and as there were no protection concerns with Father, N. must remain in his care according to the mandatory placement hierarchy under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court found Mother's mental health and past impulsive behaviours, including incidents witnessed by the child, posed risks, and her proposed shared care plan lacked sufficient detail and safety measures.

The Society was granted discretion over Mother's access, with parameters for future review based on Mother's progress.

This motion concerned the long-term placement of a four-year-old child, Marie, who had been in extended society care and living with foster parents (Mr. and Mrs. Jones) since birth.

The foster parents sought to be added as parties to the litigation and to retain Marie in their care permanently.

The Children's Aid Society advocated for Marie's placement with her biological maternal uncle and aunt, who were already caring for Marie's brother.

The court granted the foster parents party status, acknowledging their significant role and the child's bond with them.

However, after a holistic assessment of Marie's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, particularly considering her cultural heritage and the importance of sibling connection, the court ordered Marie's immediate placement with her biological uncle and aunt.

The court gave minimal weight to Marie's expressed views due to her age and inconsistent statements.

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 sought a finding that the child was in need of protection due to the mother's volatile behaviour, severe mood swings, and history of making false allegations of physical abuse against the father's partner.

The mother had also breached publication bans by posting videos and writing a book identifying the child.

The court found the child in need of protection under the CYFSA due to the risk of physical and emotional harm in the mother's care.

The child was placed with the father for six months under Society supervision.

The court declined to order access at the Society's discretion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to delegate such discretion, and instead ordered specific supervised access for the mother.

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 sought a final order for statutory findings regarding the child K.M.U. and placement in interim Society care.

The respondent parents were noted in default and did not participate in the hearing.

The court, treating the "uncontested hearing" with the same caution and evidentiary scrutiny as a summary judgment motion in child protection, screened the evidence for admissibility.

It found that the child was in need of protection under sections 74(2)(b)(i) and 74(2)(b)(ii) of the CYFSA due to the parents' inability to prioritize her needs, lack of fixed residence, and failure to present a suitable plan of care.

The court granted the order for interim Society care for six months, emphasizing that no less disruptive alternative was available.