4 total
Appeal of Crown wardship order dismissed; Charter challenge to CFSA definitions failed for lack of evidence.
The appellant maternal grandparents appealed an order making their two grandchildren Crown wards.
They argued that the definitions of 'Indian' and 'native community' in the Child and Family Services Act violated s. 15 of the Charter by excluding non-status Aboriginals, and that they should have been awarded custody.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to establish a s. 15 Charter disadvantage and upholding the trial judge's conclusion that Crown wardship with access was in the children's best interests due to concerns about the grandparents' health and ability to provide permanent care.
The court dismissed motions to change a four-year-old child's temporary placement before trial, emphasizing continuity of care.
A 4-year-old child, B., was apprehended and placed with her maternal grandmother under a temporary supervision order.
The Children's Aid Society (CAS) initially sought a supervision order to the grandmother but later amended its application to seek a 6-month supervision order to the father.
The CAS and father then moved for a temporary placement with the father, while the mother sought placement with her.
The court dismissed the mother's request and, after reserving on the father's request, ordered that the child remain with the maternal grandmother under the temporary supervision order, pending final determination of the amended application.
The decision emphasized the importance of continuity of care and the high threshold ("require") for changing a child's placement before a final determination, and highlighted the need for adherence to statutory timelines in child protection cases.
Motion to set aside dismissal of appeal granted; constitutional challenge regarding native status warranted appellate review.
The grandparents brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed their appeal for delay.
The underlying child protection case involved a constitutional challenge to the definition of 'Indian or native person' under the Child and Family Services Act.
The Divisional Court panel found that the motion judge erred by not considering the merits of the constitutional challenge, which had been properly included in the trial judge's reconsideration.
The panel concluded the appeal had a real chance of success and set aside the order dismissing the appeal, allowing the grandparents to perfect their appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal for delay granted as the proposed appeal lacked merit.
The respondent children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay.
The appellants brought a cross-motion to extend the time to perfect their appeal, citing delays in obtaining Legal Aid funding.
The court found that while the delay was not caused by the appellants, the proposed appeal had no chance of success.
The appeal raised a constitutional challenge regarding the definition of 'Indian' or 'native person' under the Child and Family Services Act, which the court found irrelevant as the children did not fall within the applicable definitions.
Given the lack of merit and the prejudice of further delay to the children, the court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.
