Caroline Suzan Handelman

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision not to approve her as a kinship placement for her grandson.

The Board heard evidence that the society communicated its concerns regarding the applicant's child welfare history and her lack of cooperation.

The Board concluded that the society provided sufficient oral and written reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

The parents appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their appeal of a Crown wardship decision for delay.

The parents argued the motion judge failed to consider the merits of their appeal and breached their right to a fair hearing by denying an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge should have explicitly addressed the merits, a review of the record showed the parents' appeal raised only factual disputes with no palpable and overriding error.

Given the lack of merit and the child's need for stability, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of the appellant’s children in child protection proceedings.

The appellant alleged violations of Charter mobility rights arising from the disclosure of information by a child protection authority to authorities in the Netherlands after the family relocated there.

The court held that the disclosure was made to assist foreign authorities in determining the children’s best interests and did not breach the appellant’s Charter rights.

The court also addressed complaints about reliance on hearsay evidence and comments by the motion judge regarding the appellant’s request for a bilingual proceeding.

Although the appeal court found the motion judge erred in questioning the appellant’s French language ability, the appeal was dismissed as moot and without merit.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended on July 22, 2012.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order with no access.

The parents opposed the application and sought return of the child to their care, alternatively with supervision.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to abandonment by the mother, emotional unavailability of the father, exposure to domestic violence, excessive physical discipline, and neglect of the child's physical and emotional needs.

The court made a crown wardship order and granted the child (rather than the parents) a right of access to the parents once monthly for two hours, fully supervised by the society.