7 total
A child access holder under the CYFSA may seek an openness order with any person with whom they have a beneficial relationship.
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.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the parents' appeal, upholding the extended care order for their children.
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.
Charter Appeal dismissed
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.
Board has jurisdiction over zoning by-laws but cannot unreasonably exempt farms from mandatory provincial distance guidelines.
The appellant pig farm applied to expand its operations but was denied minor variances from a municipal zoning by-law that enforced minimum distance separation (MDS II) guidelines.
The appellant applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which held it had jurisdiction and exempted the appellant from the doubling factor of the MDS II guidelines.
The Divisional Court overturned this, finding the Board lacked jurisdiction over zoning by-laws.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Board does have jurisdiction to consider zoning by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.
However, applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it directly contradicted the mandatory provincial MDS II guidelines, violating section 9 of the Act.
The appeal was dismissed.
Motion for leave to intervene granted to marketing board in appeal regarding municipal regulation of farming.
The Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board to regulate farming practices versus municipal zoning bylaws.
The appellant consented to the intervention, while the respondent municipality opposed it.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor could provide a broader public interest perspective on the relative rights of the province and municipalities to control farming operations.
Leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions, including no addition to the record and no duplication of the appellant's arguments.
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to excessive and inappropriate interventions by the trial judge.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent one-third of the proceeds of a winning lottery ticket.
The appeal centered on the trial judge's conduct during the trial.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge excessively interrupted the testimony of the parties, asking hundreds of questions, cross-examining the appellants, and making sarcastic and condescending remarks.
The Court held that the trial judge's interventions crossed the line, usurped the function of counsel, and destroyed the image of judicial impartiality.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.
Employer discriminated by terminating employee after a seizure based on stereotypical assumptions; damages awarded.
The complainant, who has epilepsy, was hired to work at a bagel shop.
After suffering a brief seizure at work, the employer terminated her employment, citing concerns that customers would be scared away and that she might injure herself.
The employer did not request medical information or explore accommodation options.
The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability, relying on stereotypical assumptions rather than assessing her actual abilities.
The employer failed to establish a defence under s. 17 of the Human Rights Code.
The Board awarded $3,500 in general damages and $600 in special damages for lost wages, along with pre- and post-judgment interest.
