Chithika Withanage

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought two protection applications concerning children Iz (6 years old) and J (5 months old), both in the society's temporary care.

The applications alleged the mother's substance misuse, neglect, inadequate supervision, unstable housing, and inability to meet the children's needs, including special needs, alongside concerns related to the disappearance and death of another child, Nv.

The mother sought dismissal of the application for J or, alternatively, a 6-month supervision order for both children in her care, with access.

The court found J to be in need of protection, citing overwhelming evidence of risk of harm due to the mother's serious lack of judgment, dishonesty, and chaotic lifestyle, particularly concerning Nv's death.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a supervision order and access, finding her unreliable and her plan inadequate.

Both children were placed in the extended society care of the Children's Aid Society, with an order for sibling access between Iz and J, and with their other siblings R and A in Peel CAS care.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a temporary order for the placement of a 16-month-old child, W, in the care of his maternal grandmother (C.B.) with Society supervision, and supervised access for the parents (K.B. and O.A.).

K.B. sought W's return to her care or unsupervised parenting time with C.B. O.A. sought expanded supervised access and virtual/phone access.

The court found that the Society met its onus, establishing a real possibility of harm if W returned to K.B.'s care due to serious criminal charges against both parents (including child pornography) and K.B.'s unhealthy relationship with O.A. The court dismissed K.B.'s request for W's return and unsupervised access, and O.A.'s request for virtual access, ordering W to remain in C.B.'s temporary care with Society supervision and fully supervised in-person access for the parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order concerning monthly access to children.

The Society argued that the OCJ lacked jurisdiction to entertain an enforcement motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules after a final order had been made, contending that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 was a complete code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the OCJ retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders, as the definition of "case" in the Family Law Rules explicitly includes "enforcements," and requiring a new proceeding for enforcement would contradict the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Superior Court judge and addressed procedural fairness concerns.

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that Adam T. was a child in need of protection and an order for extended Society care.

The respondent mother, A.T.T., and respondent father, T.M., sought alternative dispositions, including the child's return to their care.

The court found Adam to be in need of protection due to the mother's chronic substance abuse, unstable lifestyle, and lack of candor, and the father's disengagement.

The court granted the Society's request for extended Society care, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for a different disposition, and dismissed the parents' plans for care and access, except for supervised access for the maternal grandmother.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application concerning two children, De. (12) and Da. (11).

The agency sought custody of the children to their father under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with specified access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to her care or, alternatively, generous access, arguing genuine issues requiring a trial.

The father supported the agency's request.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns and the children's settled placement with the father.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, awarding custody to the father and establishing a detailed access schedule for the mother, along with orders for passports and travel without the mother's consent.

The Children’s Aid Society brought a motion to quash a second appeal by the mother in a child protection matter.

The appeal concerned a temporary order that had since expired and was therefore moot.

The court found no reason to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal, as it would not advance the child's interests and ongoing factual issues belonged in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The motion to quash was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto applied for a secure treatment order under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the child SA, aged 13.

The mother supported the application, while the child and father opposed it.

The court first ruled that SA could not attend the hearing due to potential emotional harm.

After hearing evidence, including from a psychiatrist and social workers, the court found that all six criteria under section 164(1) for secure treatment were met: SA had a mental disorder, had caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days, had a history of such harm/threats within 12 months, secure treatment would be effective, appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the order, committing SA to Kinark Child and Family Services, Syl Apps Youth Centre, for 180 days, emphasizing that this was the only way to provide hope for the child's healing given the exhaustion of all other less restrictive options.

Motion by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto to vary a temporary care and custody order placing an 18-month-old child (F.I.) with the father.

The society sought to return F.I. to the mother's care, subject to society supervision.

The mother supported the motion and provided evidence of material changes in her circumstances since the initial placement order.

The father opposed, arguing the mother had not sufficiently addressed her underlying issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered F.I. returned to the mother's care with society supervision, while maintaining the father's access rights.

The father appealed a summary judgment decision that limited his access to his daughter, N.B., to written contact, subject to the child's wishes for further contact.

The father argued that the summary judgment judge improperly considered hearsay evidence and failed to apply principles of justice and fairness.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The court emphasized that the summary judgment judge's decision was child-focused, based on N.B.'s expressed fears and wishes, and that the father had not sought to cross-examine deponents or introduce fresh evidence at the appropriate time.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order finding her child in need of protection due to parental alienation and false allegations of abuse against the father.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's application of the best interests of the child test under the CYFSA, specifically regarding the weight given to the child's views, consideration of relevant risk factors, delegation of future access decisions to the Children's Aid Society, and the issuance of a no-recording order.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the child's views were not independent due to the mother's brainwashing, that the risk of emotional harm to the child if remaining with the mother was overwhelming, and that the discretionary access order and no-recording order were within the court's jurisdiction and in the child's best interests.

A status review application concerning a child in child protection proceedings.

The mother sought an order placing the child in her care subject to society supervision, or alternatively overnight weekend access.

The father sought an order placing the child in his care, or in joint care with his sister, or in his sister's sole care, or alternatively weekend access.

The Children's Aid Society sought to maintain the child in its temporary care and custody.

The court dismissed both parents' motions and ordered the child to remain in the temporary care and custody of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, with access by both parents at the society's discretion.

The court found that neither parent's plan was in the child's best interests due to the mother's lack of meaningful contact with the child and the father's serious criminal history, dishonesty, breach of probation conditions, and role in destabilizing the child's previous placement.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding two young children: a five-year-old autistic boy and an eight-month-old infant.

The society sought placement of both children in its care, citing multiple protection concerns including the mother's apparent mental health issues, failure to meet the children's medical and nutritional needs, inadequate supervision resulting in injuries, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to ensure the older child's school attendance and special needs support.

The father faced criminal charges for assault and was subject to a no-contact order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that supervision orders would be inadequate to mitigate those risks.

Both children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

This is a 15-day child protection trial concerning an 11-year-old child (G) who has been subjected to parental conflict, unverified allegations of sexual abuse by the father, and alienation from the paternal family.

The mother made repeated false allegations of sexual abuse against the father beginning in January 2017, which were investigated by police and the Children's Aid Society but never verified.

Despite multiple court orders for access and attempts at reunification therapy, the mother systematically prevented the child from having contact with the father and extended family.

The court found the child to be at risk of emotional harm due to the mother's alienating behaviour, coaching of the child into false allegations, and refusal to cooperate with therapeutic interventions.

The court ordered the child into interim society care for four months, followed by placement with the father under a six-month supervision order, finding that the mother was incapable of meeting the child's emotional and mental needs and would not support a relationship with the father.

The mother appealed a trial judge's finding that her child was in need of protection due to a risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The risk stemmed from the mother's brother, who lived in the home and was convicted of luring and child pornography offences involving his students.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by making the finding without expert evidence, by rejecting an expert report filed on consent, and by not requiring the risk to be present at the time of the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and upholding the flexible approach to the timing of risk in child protection matters.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection due to risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The respondent mother acted as surety for her brother, who was charged with multiple counts of luring, sexual exploitation, and child pornography involving teenage female students.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on the mother's failure to recognize or protect against the risk posed by the maternal uncle, despite overwhelming evidence of his predatory conduct.

The court made a finding of need for protection but declined to make a further order, noting that the maternal uncle's incarceration had ameliorated the imminent risk.