Family and Matrimonial Law

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion to find the applicant in contempt of a final parenting order.

The applicant sought full recovery costs and an order requiring the respondent to obtain leave for any future court proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $4,000, finding the respondent's contempt motion ill-advised and his behaviour unreasonable.

However, the court dismissed the request for a leave order, noting that a single unsuccessful motion does not constitute numerous motions and that such orders should be exercised cautiously in parenting matters.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for two young children.

The applicant mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making responsibility, and retroactive child support with imputed income for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found the father perpetrated family violence, was controlling, and lacked credibility regarding his finances.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, established a structured parenting time schedule for the father, and imputed income to the father for retroactive child support, citing his blameworthy conduct and failure to disclose financial information.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed evidence of the child's escalating suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviours.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant foster mother sought a review of the Society's decision to remove a special needs child who had been in her care for over seven years.

The Society proposed removal after learning the applicant's teenage sons occasionally cared for the child while the applicant worked.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the application was moot because the applicant had temporarily returned the child under duress; the Board dismissed the motion.

On the merits, the Board found the child's needs were well met by the applicant, there was no evidence of risk, and it was in the child's best interests to remain in the applicant's care.

The Society's decision was rescinded.

The applicant sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two children.

The applicant, a close friend of the children's biological mother, argued she should be considered a kinship placement.

The Society opposed the application, citing concerns that the applicant would not maintain boundaries between the children and the biological mother, who had been denied access due to child protection concerns.

The Board affirmed the Society's decision, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining with their current foster parents, who provided continuity of care, supported their Native culture, and posed no safety risks regarding the biological mother.

The applicant mother filed an application against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear her and provide reasons for its decisions during a four-month child protection investigation.

The investigation was initiated after the applicant received a mental health diagnosis following the birth of her child, but was ultimately closed with no protection concerns found.

At the hearing, the parties reached a consent resolution.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written report detailing the reasons for all of its decisions affecting the applicant during the investigation.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for refusing to write a letter supporting his request for unsupervised access to his children.

The Board held a hearing and reviewed the communications between the parties.

The Board found that the society had met with the applicant, heard his requests, and provided clear written reasons explaining why it required supervised access to assess his parenting capacity and would not support unsupervised access while criminal charges were pending.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the society's decision to remove a special needs child who had been in her care for over seven years.

The society proposed the removal because the applicant's teenage sons were assisting with the child's care while the applicant worked, which the society deemed inappropriate.

The Board found that the child was well cared for, had a strong bond with the foster family, and was not at risk of harm.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicant and rescinded the society's decision to remove the child.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding alleged assaults on his son by his ex-wife's partner and a criminal background check.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met with the applicant, heard his concerns, and provided adequate written reasons for its decisions not to re-open the 2007 investigation and not to take further action on the 2011 allegation.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's investigation of the mother, alleged bias of the family services worker, the Society's actions during his arrest, a lack of written directives, and delays in providing his file.

The Board dismissed most of the complaints, finding the Society had heard his concerns and adequately communicated with him.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to deny the Applicant's request for a new family services worker, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicants sought a review of the society's decision to permanently remove three foster children from their home, later narrowing their request to the return of one child.

The society had removed the children due to verified child protection concerns, specifically a lack of supervision and the primary caregiver's personal problems.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children on numerous occasions and that the primary caregiver's personal challenges prevented her from meeting the child's mental and emotional needs.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests not to be returned to the applicants' home and confirmed the society's decision.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of two children in the care of the Society, filed a complaint alleging the Society failed to listen to her or provide explanations regarding several issues, including the placement of her grandson in a non-Jewish foster home, his removal from a hospital, his drug use, and his school attendance.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons or explanations regarding the foster home placement, the hospital removal, and the drug use allegations, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding treatment participation, disrespectful comments, and school absenteeism.

The 15-year-old applicant applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating high-risk behaviours, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child has a mental disorder, poses a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment is appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicants, former foster parents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Society's decision to remove a foster child from their care.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis of mootness, as the Family Court had subsequently issued a final restraining order prohibiting the Applicants from contacting the child.

The Board found the application moot because it could not order the child's return due to the restraining order.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, citing judicial economy and the child's desire for finality, and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society, alleging the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide explanations regarding six issues, including the children's safety during access visits, her mental health, and her status as a victim of domestic violence.

The Board found that the society adequately addressed her concerns regarding the children's safety during access visits with the father.

However, the Board found in favour of the applicant on the remaining issues, concluding the society failed to provide adequate written reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations to the applicant for those specific issues.

The applicants, who had been foster parents for over 25 years, challenged the Society's decision to remove a 17-year-old foster child with developmental delays from their home.

The Society had decided to close the foster home due to a breakdown in trust arising from disputed mileage claims and conflicts regarding another foster child.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the removal because it stemmed from a foster home closure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

On the merits, the Board determined that the child had bonded with the applicants, made significant developmental progress in their care, and wished to remain with them.

Finding no evidence that the child's needs were unmet, the Board concluded that remaining in the home was in the child's best interests and ordered the Society not to carry out the removal.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had caused or threatened serious bodily harm to herself or others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board assessed whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm to herself and others, including fire-setting, self-harm, and physical altercations.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a four-year-old child with special needs, applied to adopt the child.

The Society refused their adoption application due to concerns about the applicants' ability to meet the child's long-term needs, the foster father's health, and a history of parent-child conflict in the home.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the refusal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the applicants lacked a sufficient understanding of the child's special needs and faced too many stressors, including the foster father's cancer diagnosis, to provide the necessary care into adulthood.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

At the hearing, the Board excluded the admitting psychiatrist's Form 14 and Admission Summary because the psychiatrist was not called to testify, finding that admitting the hearsay evidence would violate the child's right to procedural fairness and fundamental justice.

On the merits, the Board found that the facility failed to prove the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment, or that she had caused serious bodily harm to herself.

As the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.