Andrew A. Sudano

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order granting Crown wardship without access following summary judgment under the Child and Family Services Act.

She argued the motions judge failed to review video evidence of access visits and erred in not extending statutory timelines to permit reunification efforts.

The appeal judge reviewed the same evidentiary record and concluded that even accepting the video evidence as favourable to the mother, it did not address her ability to resume parenting within the statutory timelines.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, no procedural unfairness, and no misapplication of the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order remained in place.

The appellant mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting Crown wardship of her child without access following summary judgment in child protection proceedings.

She argued the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding improvements in her parenting, failed to consider extending statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act, and gave insufficient weight to her efforts to complete counselling and parenting programs.

The Superior Court held that the motion judge carefully reviewed the evidence and made no palpable and overriding error.

The court found there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s program participation translated into improved parenting capacity and that extending statutory timelines would not be in the child’s best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The Society sought to make the children crown wards without access for adoption purposes.

The maternal grandfather brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceeding and to obtain temporary access to the children, with the intention of proposing that they be placed in his care.

The mother opposed the Society's crown wardship application and proposed placement with her parents as her primary plan.

The court granted the maternal grandfather's motion to be added as a party, finding that his plan merited consideration despite the late involvement and the precarious relationship between him and the mother.

The court also granted a graduated access schedule for the maternal grandfather while noting concerns about the children's adverse reactions to visits.

The appellant father appealed a decision ordering ongoing and retroactive child support for an adult child with severe disabilities.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the child qualified for support under s. 31 of the Family Law Act because her participation in an adapted educational program constituted full-time education in light of her medical limitations.

The court also upheld the retroactive support award based on the father’s blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose income increases, consistent with the principles in DBS v. SRG.

However, the court held that the impact of the adult child’s Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the quantum of support had not been properly analyzed and required further evidentiary consideration.

That issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for determination while the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

This is a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making the child a crown ward for adoption purposes.

The mother sought return of the child on a supervision order or, alternatively, crown wardship with access.

The child had been in continuous care of the society since November 2010 following apprehension due to inadequate parenting and safety concerns.

The mother had agreed to a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The court found that the mother had significant intellectual and adaptive functioning deficits that prevented her from reading and responding appropriately to the child's cues, demonstrated poor judgment regarding child safety, missed a substantial portion of access visits, exhibited housing instability, and lacked meaningful support systems.

The court concluded that a supervision order was not in the child's best interests and that crown wardship with access could not be ordered as the mother failed to establish that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.