Christine Elizabeth Doucet

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adan McIntosh’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vary a parenting order.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a variation, emphasizing the ongoing risk of wrongful removal of the children to Australia and Mr. McIntosh’s failure to pay support and costs.

The court also addressed the children’s preferences, the financial and emotional impact of the litigation on Ms. Kim, and the principles governing variation of parenting orders.

The applicant, a 12-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the admission was justified due to the child's history of behavioural difficulties and threats of self-harm.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The evidence provided was largely historical, hearsay, or from professionals who had not assessed the child at the time of admission.

Consequently, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order committing a youth to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The trial judge found that the youth had attempted to cause serious bodily harm within the preceding 45 days based on a threat to jump off a bridge, ingestion of an unidentified quantity of methamphetamine, and an involuntary hospital admission for suicidal ideation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law because the incidents amounted to mere threats or lacked evidence of actual harm or risk of serious bodily harm.

The secure treatment order was set aside.

A mother sought to vary an order placing her son in extended society care by obtaining increased and unsupervised access.

The child, who sustained an acquired brain injury resulting in physical and cognitive impairment, severe attention deficit, and behavioral challenges, had been made a Crown Ward in 2015.

The mother proposed expanded access for rehabilitation purposes, claiming the foster parents were not adequately addressing the child's physical rehabilitation needs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mother had not demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation.

The mother continued to lack insight into the child's behavioral needs, focused exclusively on physical impairments while dismissing the child's own preferences, and had not demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with the child's caregivers or recognize the risks posed by unsupervised access.

In a child protection matter, the paternal aunt sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to support her custody plan earlier than January 2018.

The Society had initially pursued a supervision order with the children remaining in the aunt's care, but later amended its application to seek a permanent custody order under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the Society did not act in a patently unfair or indefensible manner and that it properly fulfilled its statutory mandate to assess competing plans fairly and with an open mind.

A child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young daughters, Lucy and Sophie.

The children were placed in the care of their aunt, K.GU., following a crisis on January 20, 2016, when the mother, K.M., became emotionally dysregulated.

The Society sought a custody order placing the children with K.GU.

The mother sought return of the children to her care with Society supervision.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the mother's mental health concerns, ongoing conflict between the parents, failure to follow professional recommendations, and past marijuana use.

The court determined that placement with K.GU. was in the children's best interests, given the mother's persistent failure to address protection concerns, her inability to manage extended visits with the children, and the stability and continuity provided by K.GU.'s care.

The court granted a custody order to K.GU. with specified access to the mother and father.

The mother appealed a decision dismissing the Children's Aid Society's motion for leave to withdraw its child protection application.

The Society had sought to withdraw the application as there were no ongoing protection concerns and all parties consented.

The motion judge dismissed the request, focusing on parallel domestic custody proceedings.

The Superior Court granted the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider the uncontradicted evidence of no protection concerns, the consent of the parties, and the reasons for withdrawal.

The motion for leave to withdraw the protection application was granted.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order placing a child in the custody of her maternal grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with no access to her mother.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding the child's placement and access.

The court found no genuine issues requiring trial and granted the Society's motion.

The child had been apprehended following the mother's arrest for assault.

She was placed with her grandparents in British Columbia and received therapeutic treatment.

Electronic contact between the child and mother caused significant emotional distress, manifested in nightmares and behavioral problems.

The child consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother or return to her care.

The court found the mother had not taken responsibility for her abuse, had not engaged in appropriate treatment for her mental health issues, and had engaged in abusive and threatening behavior toward the grandparents and service providers.

The court ordered custody to the grandparents with no access to the mother, subject to the child's future wishes.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order of Crown wardship for a child who had been in temporary Society care for over 30 months, exceeding the statutory 12-month limit.

The respondent parents sought return of the child under supervision or, alternatively, a 6-month extension of Society wardship.

The court found that despite the Society's arguments regarding serious protection concerns—including the mother's seizure disorder, the father's substance abuse and criminal history, domestic violence, and both parents' mental health issues—there remained genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

The court noted significant developments, particularly the mother's successful brain surgery resulting in seizure freedom and improved mental health.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was directed to trial.