A. Skuce

A child protection trial involving six children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that all children were in need of protection and sought Crown wardship for the four oldest children and a supervision order for the two youngest twins.

The respondent parents denied virtually all allegations.

The court conducted a complex hearsay voir dire regarding children's out-of-court statements and ultimately found all six children in need of protection based on evidence of harsh, authoritarian parenting, excessive physical discipline, emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court made three of the four oldest children Crown wards and ordered the youngest child returned home under intensive supervision, with the second-oldest child also returned home under supervision to maintain sibling bonds.

This is a ruling on a voir dire in a child protection application brought by the Society seeking a finding that four children are in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act due to physical abuse and risk of physical and emotional abuse, and seeking an order of Crown wardship without access.

The court considered the admissibility of numerous statements made by the children to third parties, applying both the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and the principled exception for hearsay evidence.

The court admitted certain statements meeting the threshold reliability test while rejecting others that failed to meet the required criteria.

A child protection application brought by the Family & Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin concerning four children.

The Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection under clauses 37(2)(a), (b), and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act due to physical and emotional abuse and risk of physical abuse, with a disposition of Crown wardship without access.

The respondent mother sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the children to her care subject to supervision.

The court found the children were in need of protection under clauses 37(2)(b) and (g) based on exposure to domestic violence, inadequate supervision, and alcohol consumption issues.

However, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to be returned to the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with specific terms and conditions, rather than making them Crown wards.