Anthony W. Snider

The Children and Family Services for York Region ("the Society") brought a motion seeking three orders: placing a child (A.G.) in the Society's care, appointing independent legal counsel for the children (A.G. and M.G.), and requiring the father (J.G.) to undergo a sexual behaviours assessment, including phallometric testing.

The motion to place A.G. in care was adjourned by consent for kin assessments.

The court dismissed the request for independent legal counsel, finding it unnecessary and potentially detrimental in a case marked by parental alienation, where the children's views were already known and potentially influenced by the mother.

The court also dismissed the request for a sexual behaviours assessment, ruling it was not "necessary" under section 98(2) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, given the inconclusive nature of the allegations, the intrusive nature of the testing, and the existence of other grounds for protection related to parental conflict and alienation.

The applicant mother brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's welfare while in the father's care.

The mother had reported multiple head injuries sustained by the child during unsupervised access visits.

The Board reviewed the Society's actions, including its investigations, safety checks, and communications with medical professionals.

The Board concluded that the Society had meaningfully engaged with the mother, investigated her concerns, and provided sufficient reasons for its decision not to require supervised access.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her nine-year-old child in need of protection and granting Crown wardship with access.

The child had been apprehended five times due to the mother's serious mental health decompensations and lack of a viable safety plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the predictable interruptions in care caused a risk of emotional harm to the child.

Finding no reviewable errors of fact or law, the court dismissed the appeal.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the mother sought third-party disclosure of school records and therapeutic counselling records relating to the children and the father in order to respond to a pending summary judgment motion.

The court applied Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules governing non-party disclosure and considered whether counselling records were protected by case-specific privilege using the Wigmore test.

While school records and the notes of a psychological associate facilitating therapeutic access were ordered produced, the court held that private therapy records were protected by privilege due to the confidential therapist‑patient relationship and the strong privacy interests of the children.

The request for those therapy records was speculative and constituted a fishing expedition.

The court concluded that disclosure was not necessary for the moving party to make full answer and defence.

The appellant mother brought a motion for directions regarding her appeals of two interlocutory orders made in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent children's aid society brought a counter-motion to quash the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals because the orders were interlocutory and were made under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act at a family court branch, meaning any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

The mother's motion was dismissed and the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion regarding disclosure during a hearing under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant argued that key documents had not been disclosed by the respondent society.

Both parties consented to an adjournment until further disclosure took place and the applicant's complaints were more clearly specified.

The Board ordered the society to make best efforts to locate and disclose specific case notes and records, and ordered the applicant to provide a clear list of enumerated complaints.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to investigate his concerns regarding the abuse and parental alienation of his daughters.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the Court in an access dispute.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that while the Court was dealing with access and the best interests of the children, the Board's jurisdiction pertained to how the Society responded to the father's complaints, which was not a matter before the Court.