Barbara Tuer

This decision clarifies the authority to consent to medical treatment for a child temporarily placed with kin under a supervision order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA).

The court held that while parents retain the right to make medical decisions if available, the kin caregiver who has day-to-day care and is most accessible to medical professionals may consent to treatment if the parents cannot be reached.

The decision distinguishes the authority of the Society when a child is in its temporary care versus when placed with kin, emphasizing the statutory hierarchy and the need for reasonable efforts to consult parents before kin consents.

The ruling provides a practical framework for consent in complex child protection scenarios involving temporary placements with kin.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

A status review application concerning four children of Métis heritage who were apprehended due to neglect, domestic violence, parental cognitive limitations, and transiency.

The parents sought return of the two older children to the mother's care subject to a supervision order, with the father residing separately.

The court found the children in continuing need of protection and determined that extended society care was in their best interests.

The court ordered the two older children placed in extended care with the culturally matched Métis foster family, with minimum three face-to-face visits annually with the parents as access holders.

The Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that returned a 10-year-old child (JJ) to the respondent grandparents.

JJ had been in extended society care with the grandparents for approximately 4.5 years before being temporarily placed with other foster parents.

The grandparents had brought a status review motion.

The Society argued the lower court judge misapplied Section 115(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act by failing to maintain the status quo and by placing the child in an unlicensed resource home contrary to Section 247.

The respondents contended no error occurred and the order should stand based on the child's best interests.

Counsel for the child, appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, supported the child's return to the respondents.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in law regarding the judge's discretion to change care and custody based on the child's best interests, even if the home was unlicensed, and that the judge properly considered the status quo.

A children’s aid society appealed an order granting a mother ongoing access to a child after the child was made a Crown ward under the Child and Family Services Act.

The trial judge had concluded the statutory test for access was met, relying in part on legislative amendments permitting adoption despite existing access orders.

The appellate court held the judge erred in law by assuming that the legislative amendments automatically satisfied the requirement that access not impair future adoption opportunities.

The evidence showed that the only prospective adoptive placement would not proceed if access continued, meaning the statutory test was not met.

The court also found the trial judge misapplied the requirement that the relationship be “beneficial and meaningful” to the child.

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children who had been in the care of their paternal grandparents pursuant to a section 57.1 custody order.

The children were apprehended due to concerns about physical harm.

The paternal grandparents agreed they could no longer care for the children.

The biological parents each sought placement of the children with them, alternatively seeking access.

The court found the children were in need of protection and made a crown wardship order, granting access to the paternal grandparents but denying access to the biological parents.