Arthika Srivarapathy

The Jewish Family and Child Services (JFCS) brought a summary judgment motion for extended society care of the child D.S. and for specific access terms with the mother, Z.Y. The mother, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, did not oppose extended care but made submissions on access.

The father, B.S., was in default.

The court granted the JFCS's request for extended care, finding no genuine issue for trial given the mother's persistent untreated mental health issues and the child's thriving in care.

The court also granted access at the society's discretion, with the child as the sole access holder, and allowed the society to obtain legal documents for the child without parental consent.

The Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto brought a motion to declare the respondent Z.Y. a "special party" under subrule 2(1) of the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as her representative.

Z.Y., the mother of the subject child, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the legal framework for determining mental incapacity, including provisions from the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and relevant case law.

Based on evidence of Z.Y.'s severe mental health decline, disorganized thinking, and inability to understand the proceedings or appreciate the consequences of her decisions, the court found that Z.Y. met the criteria for a "special party" due to mental incapacity.

The motion was granted, and the PGT was appointed as Z.Y.'s representative to protect her interests and ensure proper presentation of information for the child's best interests.

The Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 9-year-old child, D.S., due to concerns about the mother, Z.Y.'s, deteriorating mental health, which manifested as paranoid delusions impacting the child's safety, well-being, and academic/medical needs.

The mother denied mental health issues and sought the child's return without supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm if returned to the mother's care, and that supervision terms would be inadequate.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the society's temporary care, with access to the mother at the society's discretion, considering the child's needs and the mother's mental health.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.