Ayana Hutchinson

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship for four children.

The parents opposed, seeking the return of the children or a period of Society wardship.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding disposition, as the parents lacked insight and had not made sustained progress to meet the children's complex needs, and granted Crown wardship.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the statutory presumption against access, ordering sibling access and access between the parents and the children, with further submissions required for the youngest two children.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother brought a motion seeking an order dispensing with service of a society wardship application on the child’s father, citing serious safety concerns and the father’s history of sexual offences and absence from the child’s life.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Child and Family Services Act governing notice to parents in wardship proceedings.

The court held that the legislation strictly limits the circumstances in which service on a parent may be dispensed with and generally requires notice before a wardship order exceeding thirty days can be made.

While sympathetic to the mother’s concerns, the court concluded it lacked authority to fully dispense with service.

Service was temporarily dispensed with for thirty days under s. 39(7) of the Act pending further review after the Office of the Children’s Lawyer considered the matter.

In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.

The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.

The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).

Child protection trial concerning a one‑year‑old child apprehended at birth.

The child protection agency sought Crown wardship, alleging the child was in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of harm in the mother’s care.

Evidence included prior child protection proceedings, psychological and parenting capacity assessments, concerns regarding the mother’s cognitive limitations, inconsistent access, and instability in her proposed caregiving plan involving a new partner.

The court found the child to be in need of protection and concluded that less disruptive alternatives, including supervision orders, would not adequately protect the child.

Crown wardship was ordered and the mother failed to meet the statutory test for post‑wardship access.

Child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act where the applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with a view to adoption for a young child who had been in foster care with paternal relatives for more than two years.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to earlier neglect, poor parental decision‑making, and developmental concerns.

However, the evidence showed significant improvement by the mother, including stable housing, consistent participation in services, and successful unsupervised access visits.

Applying the CFSA principle that the least intrusive order consistent with the child’s best interests must be made, the court concluded Crown wardship was premature.

The child was returned to the mother’s care under a 12‑month supervision order with detailed conditions and continued oversight by the society.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether two children previously found to be in need of protection should be returned to the mother under a supervision order or made Crown wards without access.

The evidence demonstrated persistent substance use, untreated mental health issues including borderline personality disorder, hostility toward the child protection agency, refusal to cooperate with services, inconsistent participation in access visits, and inability to meet the children’s needs.

The court emphasized the statutory requirement for timely permanency planning and the lack of viable kinship placements.

Concluding that the mother could not safely parent the children and was unable to work with service providers, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The applicant children's aid society apprehended the respondents' newborn child at birth and sought Crown wardship with no access, relying heavily on the parents' history of having previous children made Crown wards and an older parenting capacity assessment.

The parents opposed the application, arguing they had made significant positive changes, engaged in extensive prenatal and parenting programs, and were supported by community resources.

The court found the child in need of protection due to historical risks but rejected the society's plan for Crown wardship, finding the society had taken a monofocal view and ignored recent evidence of the parents' capacity.

The court ordered the child returned to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order.