Charu Smith

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care, with a minimum of three face-to-face access visits per year for the parents.

The parents consented to the extended society care order but the father sought more frequent access.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered extended society care with a minimum of three face-to-face visits per year for both parents, balancing the children's need for stability with their desire to maintain contact with their parents.

The father brought a motion to change the temporary placement of his infant child from the Society to his care.

The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement with her.

The court found that the mother, who has developmental challenges, did not demonstrate a material change in circumstances since the previous order.

However, the father demonstrated a material change by consistently attending access, addressing substance abuse concerns, and maintaining a positive relationship with the foster mother.

The court granted the father's motion and placed the child in his care subject to the Society's supervision.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order to place the child M. L. M. in the care of her biological father, I. B., in Edmonton, Alberta, under terms of supervision.

This motion was brought in the context of a status review application following a final order for interim society care.

The mother, A. M., opposed the motion, while the father, I. B., supported it.

The court considered the child's best interests under section 74(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including her views and wishes, developmental needs, cultural heritage, and the importance of secure attachment and continuity of care.

The court found that the discovery of the biological father constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a review of placement and granted the temporary order for placement with the father, with provisions for maintaining sibling and maternal access.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order to keep a prematurely born child in its care.

The child was apprehended shortly after birth due to the father's history of sexual offences against children and current serious criminal charges, as well as the mother's lack of insight into the risk posed by the father.

Although a transition plan to return the child to the mother was initiated, it was halted when the mother refused to cooperate with Society workers and denied them full access to her home.

The court found a real possibility of harm if the child was returned to the mother and ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the Society.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a four-month Supervision Order placing the 17-year-old child with her father until her 18th birthday.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children should never have been removed from her care in 2006.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's failure to address her mental health issues and the child's clear wish not to have contact with her mother.

The court admitted the child's views through the Society worker's affidavit under the Khan test and granted the Supervision Order.

The moving parties sought a stay of a children’s aid society’s cross‑appeal concerning access to children who had been made Crown wards following a lengthy child protection trial.

The stay was requested pending the disposition of the mother’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from the summary dismissal of her appeal and pending a sibling’s appeal of a legal aid funding denial.

Applying the three‑part test for a stay—serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience—the court found the threshold met, particularly given the serious implications for parental rights and the interconnected nature of the wardship and access issues.

The court held that hearing the access cross‑appeal separately from the wardship appeal risked unfairness and potential prejudice.

A temporary and conditional stay of the cross‑appeal was therefore granted, subject to strict timelines to expedite the appeals process in the children’s best interests.