Antonio Circelli

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of property for Russell DeForest, an incapable 20-year-old receiving ODSP benefits.

While all parties agreed Russell was incapable, his mother, Ms. Kindred-DeForest, opposed the application, asserting she was managing his funds.

The PGT argued guardianship was necessary because Ms. Kindred-DeForest had not used accumulated funds for Russell's current benefit and had failed to access other available funding.

The court granted the PGT's application, finding it necessary to ensure Russell could access his funds for a decent quality of life.

The applicant, a psychiatrist, sought an order to commit a 17-year-old youth, J.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Family & Children’s Services and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer representing J.P. The court dismissed the application, finding that while J.P. had a mental disorder and a history of substantial threats, the strict statutory criterion requiring evidence of serious bodily harm caused or attempted within 45 days immediately preceding the application was not met.

The court emphasized that secure treatment is an extraordinary measure with significant liberty interests at stake, and the "best interests" of the child, while paramount in general child protection proceedings, is not the test for committal to secure treatment.

The applicant maternal grandmother sought an order under s. 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to have her granddaughter brought before the court for child protection, alleging the child was not adequately protected in her father's care.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe the child was in need of protection due to a pattern of neglect by the father and that court intervention under the CYFSA was necessary, as protection could not be adequately achieved through existing Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) proceedings.

The court ordered that the threshold tests for a protection application were met, an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) order be made, and the CLRA proceedings be stayed.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the custody of their mother.

The father, who was facing criminal charges related to his older daughter and had bail conditions preventing contact with the children, opposed the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection cases and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the father's unavailability and the risk of emotional harm.

The children were placed in the custody of the mother, with access to the father and their half-sister to be at the children's wishes and the mother's discretion.

The father (D.R.) and paternal grandmother (C.L.) appealed a trial judge's decision regarding access to the children (K.R., S.R., C.R.) who were in the extended care of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington Country (F&CS).

The trial judge had barred access for the father to two daughters, granted limited access to the son, and granted limited supervised access to the grandmother, making the children the access holders.

The appellants sought more liberal access, reunification therapy, and a stay of adoption proceedings.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the children remained in need of protection due to emotional harm risks, primarily from the paternal family's denial of sexual abuse allegations and lack of support for the children's trauma stories.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal principles, including the refusal to order reunification therapy without the children's consent and a detailed therapeutic plan.

A child protection motion for summary judgment on disposition following a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The applicant sought an order for extended society care without access.

The parents consented to the finding of need for protection but failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment on disposition.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended society care without access to the respondent parents, finding that the child remained at risk of exposure to domestic violence and parental instability, and that the parents had failed to demonstrate capacity for meaningful engagement with access.