Amanda Rozario

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel sought extended care for two children, J and M, and specified access for the parents, T.R. and A.S. The parents sought the children's return to their joint care.

The court found the Society's initial removal of the children unjustified, concluding they were not at risk of physical harm in the parents' care.

The court determined that the children had suffered emotional harm due to their prolonged separation and placement in foster care, and that the Society had failed to apply consistent scrutiny to the foster parents' care compared to the biological parents.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the parents' care, subject to Society supervision and Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) involvement, emphasizing the children's best interests and the parents' perseverance.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for the child A.J. and an order for placement with the maternal aunt under Society supervision.

The child's mother and maternal aunt consented to the motion, but the father opposed the placement, advocating for the child to be placed in his care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection, a finding consented to by all parties.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and considering the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court dismissed the father's plan, citing concerns about his undisclosed criminal history, inconsistent living arrangements, and inability to cooperate with the maternal aunt.

The court granted the Society's motion, ordering the child's placement with the maternal aunt, emphasizing the stability and positive care provided by the aunt since the child's birth as the least disruptive alternative.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel seeking temporary care and custody of a child (D.D.) born in 2012.

The child suffered severe injuries on July 19, 2018, while in the care of the mother, inflicted by the mother's ex-partner.

The Society sought placement with the father under supervision with discretionary access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the child to her care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding that the mother's significant lack of judgment in maintaining a relationship with the perpetrator, combined with historical concerns regarding her mental health and parenting abilities, meant the child could not be adequately protected in her care.

The child was placed in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to the Society's supervision, with access to the mother to remain supervised and at the Society's discretion.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision affirming a trial court order making two children Crown wards without access following the death of a third child in the parents' care from complications of vitamin D deficiency and malnutrition.

The appellants challenged the Crown wardship order on multiple grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, abuse of process, and the trial judge's findings regarding the children's need for protection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings that both children were in need of protection and that Crown wardship without access was in their best interests.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to child protection proceedings under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules and section 39(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children were apprehended due to unexplained injuries sustained by the younger child while in parental care.

The court applied the five-factor test from Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H(S) and denied the motion.

While the grandparents had a legal interest in the matter, the court found that adding them as parties was not required in the children's best interests, would not unduly delay proceedings, was not necessary to determine the issues, and critically, the grandparents could not present a viable plan as they remained part of the criminal investigation into the child's injuries.

The grandparents also failed to meet the threshold requirement of section 39(3) as they had not continuously cared for the children in the six months preceding the hearing.