Candice Barbara Sadie Pilgrim

Following a successful application for judicial review that set aside a Children's Aid Society decision due to procedural unfairness, the Society sought directions on whether it was required to conduct a fresh investigation.

The Divisional Court clarified that the Society is not obliged to commence a new investigation, but if it chooses to do so, it should be conducted by another agency with appropriate procedural safeguards.

The applicant, a Roman Catholic priest, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society decision 'coding' him as a risk of sexual and emotional harm to children following allegations from female students regarding discussions during confession.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the CAS breached mandatory procedural requirements set out in the Ontario Child Protection Standards by making the verification decision before examining the scene, immediately after interviewing the applicant, and without a proper verification conference.

The decision was set aside and a fresh investigation by a different CAS was ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The court had previously raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board.

After reviewing additional materials filed by the parties, the court concluded the matter should proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file an amended factum over the respondent's objection, and set a schedule for further filings.

At the outset of a judicial review, the Divisional Court raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Review Committee and the Child and Family Services Review Board under the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court directed that this preliminary issue be determined prior to the hearing on the merits and adjourned the matter for submissions.

Following an 11-day trial regarding parenting arrangements, the successful applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent argued for a nominal award of $2,000 due to his limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and the respondent's conduct unreasonably lengthened the trial.

Despite the applicant's full indemnity costs approaching $90,000, the court accepted her request for $10,000 as appropriate given the respondent's limited means.

The court also ordered that the respondent cannot initiate new proceedings without leave if he defaults on the first $2,000 installment.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and restricted parenting time for the father, citing a history of family violence and the father's untreated mental health issues.

The father sought joint or parallel decision-making and expanded parenting time, including overnights.

The court applied the newly amended Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the father had perpetrated significant family violence and struggled with emotional regulation.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and ordered that the father's parenting time remain restricted to daytime visits until he obtains a psychiatric assessment and demonstrates sustained compliance with a mental health treatment plan.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought an application under sections 119 or 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to youth records of an adult respondent.

The records were sought for use in a Superior Court family law divorce proceeding concerning parenting and decision-making.

The court determined that section 123 of the YCJA applied, as the access period for the records had expired.

After conducting a private review of the records, the court dismissed the application, finding that none of the records met the stringent test for access, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in mental health records, the lack of probative value, and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

The court also issued additional orders prohibiting future unlawful references to youth records in the family proceedings and mandating the immediate redaction of existing references in pleadings and documents.

The Children's Aid Society appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that set aside a Crown wardship declaration and directed the matter proceed to trial.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Superior Court order was interlocutory, not final.

An order directing that a matter proceed to trial, even when it sets aside a prior final order, does not itself constitute a final order for appellate jurisdiction purposes.

The appeal was quashed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.