Avi Baratz

The parents appealed an extended society care order, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the strengths of placing the children with a former foster parent.

The appeal court found that the trial judge had properly considered the proposed plan and made factual findings that contradicted the alleged strengths.

The trial judge's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence, with no palpable and overriding error identified.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a mid-trial consent order that would have automatically returned the child to the parents' care following a six-month interim care order.

The child, who had legal representation and party status under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, opposed the consent order.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The court held that the trial judge erred in law by making a final order based on consent when the child opposed it, thereby disregarding the child's statutory participatory rights.

The court further held that the trial judge's failure to provide reasons for the decision constituted an independent error of law.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion on jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought a transfer to another region.

The court granted the applicant's motion and denied the respondent's motion.

Following the decision, the parties consented to a temporary order for access and child support.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than full recovery, considering the absence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent, the lack of an offer to settle, and the respondent's limited financial means.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault and incest of his four-year-old daughter, as well as making, possessing, and distributing child pornography depicting the abuse.

The offences occurred between January 2011 and November 2015.

The accused had sole custody of the victim and exploited this position of trust to sexually abuse her repeatedly and document the abuse through photographs and videos, which he distributed online to strangers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, reduced to 7.5 years after pre-sentence custody credit of 2.5 years.

Ancillary orders included forfeiture of the cell phone, lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA sampling, and a section 161 prohibition order restricting internet access and proximity to the victim.

In this child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two young children were in need of protection and a disposition order for crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents had engaged in domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect.

The court found the children were in need of protection but rejected the society's crown wardship plan.

Instead, the court placed the children in the joint care and custody of the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt under a supervision order, with limited supervised access to the parents.

The court rejected placement with the father due to his criminal history, lack of insight into risk factors, and ongoing credibility issues.

This is an evidentiary ruling in a child protection trial concerning the admissibility of a letter from the Children's Aid Society of Sudbury and Manitoulin summarizing historical involvement with the respondent father and his parents.

The applicant society sought to admit the letter under section 50(1)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act to establish the paternal grandmother's historical inability to protect children.

The respondent father opposed admission, arguing the letter contained multiple hearsay, unidentified sources, and opinion evidence without proper foundation.

The court denied admission, finding that threshold reliability had not been met and that the letter was not an appropriate vehicle for introducing historical evidence as a substitute for sworn testimony subject to cross-examination.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother opposed the motion; the respondent father did not file material.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the protection findings or the disposition.

The children had been in temporary Society care for over 23 and 21 months respectively following apprehension due to a home invasion.

The court found the children at risk due to the father's involvement in a lifestyle associated with street-level violence and the mother's history of domestic violence, untreated mental health issues including depression and self-harm, and unstable living circumstances.

The mother's plan lacked detail and corroborative evidence.

The father presented no viable plan.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards.