Anne-Marie Tymec

The court ruled that a child who is an access holder under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, is not limited to seeking an openness order only with persons explicitly named in an existing access order.

Instead, such a child may seek openness with any person with whom they have a beneficial and meaningful relationship, provided it is in the child's best interests.

This interpretation aligns with the plain language and purposeful approach of the CYFSA, as well as Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer's argument on jurisdiction for inter-sibling openness was affirmed.

Appeal from a Superior Court decision upholding a Crown wardship (extended care) order for four children.

The parents appealed, seeking return of the children to their care and challenging the access order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the adjournment request based on alleged inappropriate text messages from Society workers, finding that even if the workers were discredited, ample independent evidence supported the protection finding and extended care order.

The court upheld the appeal judge's decision, which maintained the extended care order while granting access to the parents, finding this arrangement best served the children's interests.

The respondent parents brought a constitutional motion challenging the validity of section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, which permits courts to order parenting capacity assessments.

The parents argued the section was unconstitutionally vague, that the adverse inference provision violated the Charter, that the exclusion of foster parents was discriminatory, and that assessments violated section 8 rights.

The court dismissed all constitutional arguments, finding that section 54, read in conjunction with Ontario Regulation 25/07, provides sufficient criteria and guidance for ordering assessments.

The court also found the adverse inference provision reasonable in child protection proceedings and that foster parents are appropriately excluded from assessments at the protection stage.