Andreas Solomos

This Status Review proceeding involved a motion by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the father (S.M.) to permit the father to relocate with his 3-year-old child (A.M.) from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The kin caregiver (C.C.) opposed the relocation and sought temporary care and custody of A.M. in Ontario.

The court found the father's unilateral departure from Ontario with the child improper and questioned his credibility, compliance with orders, and willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the kin caregiver, especially in light of an outstanding criminal warrant for an alleged assault in A.M.'s presence.

The court also noted the Society's incomplete assessment and lack of a detailed interjurisdictional access plan.

Applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and relocation principles, the court dismissed the Society's and father's motions, ordering A.M. to remain in C.C.'s temporary care and custody in Ontario.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to transfer a child protection case involving four children to Native Child and Family Services (NCFS) based on the grandmother's claim of Metis heritage.

The court found that while it had implied jurisdiction to order such a transfer to accomplish the statutory purpose of recognizing Aboriginal heritage in child protection proceedings, the motion was dismissed because the transfer would cause unacceptable delay and disruption at an advanced stage of the case.

The court treated the children as Aboriginal for purposes of the proceeding and noted that the Society could still provide culturally appropriate services while retaining the case.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking statutory findings, a protection finding, and an order making two young children (ages 2 and 1) wards of the Crown.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The respondent father did not participate.

The court found no triable issue on the statutory findings and protection finding, granting summary judgment on those issues.

On disposition, the court found the mother had a long history with the society, significant unaddressed mental health and medical issues, a pattern of missing access visits and Plan of Care meetings, and had not demonstrated any meaningful change.

The father was found to be disengaged and unreliable.

The court granted summary judgment on crown wardship as the least disruptive order in the children's best interests.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the access issue, finding insufficient evidence to fairly determine whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The matter was adjourned for a structured hearing on access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children: M.M. (age 13, non-verbal with global developmental delay), and twins A.B.1 and A.B.2 (age 5).

The respondent mother, C.D., opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care, with or without supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to C.D. due to her history of physical discipline, lack of insight into protection concerns, and inconsistent parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing M.M. in the Society's temporary care and the twins in their father G.B.'s care subject to Society supervision.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking statutory findings that four children were in need of protection and orders making three children crown wards with no access for adoption purposes, and one child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding her positive changes and ability to parent.

The court found overwhelming evidence of need for protection based on the mother's history of inadequate supervision, failure to follow through with services for children with special needs, exposure to domestic violence, and inability to manage children's behaviour even during supervised access visits.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order for two boys (ages 10 and 9) following a finding of need of protection under the "consent inability to care" ground.

The mother opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under specified conditions.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in managing her alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder, she remained unable to provide full-time parenting without jeopardizing her own mental health and the children's wellbeing.

The court granted Crown wardship orders and adopted the society's foster parent adoption plan, finding that the children required continuity of care that the mother could not provide.

No access order was attached to the Crown wardship.

This is a child protection status review application involving a two-year-old child with a complex history of multiple placements and three separate child protection agencies.

The mother brought a motion for return of the child to her care or increased access.

The paternal great-aunt brought motions for party status and access.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary care order.

The court granted the paternal great-aunt party status and access, finding her plan merited consideration as an alternative placement option.