3 total
Judicial review granted quashing a Board decision that ordered children moved out-of-province for adoption.
The applicant children's aid society sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board.
The Board had overturned the society's refusal of an adoption plan proposed by the children's paternal aunt and uncle, who resided in another province, and ordered the children placed with them primarily to preserve their native cultural identity.
The society argued the decision was unreasonable as it ignored the children's strong attachment to their foster parents of three and a half years and the oldest child's explicit wish to remain.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Board made palpable and overriding errors by giving undue weight to the cultural heritage factor while ignoring the children's overall best interests, stability, and the negative assessments of the proposed adoptive home.
The court quashed the Board's decision and reinstated the society's approval of the foster parents' adoption plan.
Crown wardship ordered with no parental access due to severe developmental delays and parental medical neglect.
The applicant children's aid society sought Crown wardship of a five-year-old child who had been apprehended due to severe developmental delays and the parents' refusal to seek or accept medical assistance.
The parents opposed the application, seeking the child's return without conditions, and demonstrated a pattern of hostility and non-compliance with child protection workers and medical professionals.
The court found the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, concluding that the parents failed to provide necessary treatment to alleviate the child's emotional harm and developmental delays.
Crown wardship was ordered with no access granted to the parents, as they failed to prove that access would be meaningful, beneficial, and not impair future adoption opportunities.
Temporary custody motion denied due to credible risk of harm to the child.
In a child protection status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of two children pending trial, or alternatively expanded unsupervised access.
One child had been apprehended and placed in foster care, while the other was residing with the father under a supervision order.
The court considered whether the apprehended child should be returned to the mother pursuant to s. 51(2) of the Act and whether a change in the existing supervision arrangement was warranted under s. 64(8).
The court found credible evidence suggesting a risk of harm arising from the mother's lifestyle choices, including concerns regarding drug use, exposure to prohibited contact, and instability.
The motion was dismissed and the existing placement arrangements remained in place pending trial.
