Christopher Severn

This was a child protection status review hearing under the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) concerning the child LCT.

The Applicant Agency and the Respondent Mother asserted that protection concerns no longer existed, while the Respondent Father maintained they did.

The parties sought a deemed custody order, with the Agency proposing joint custody, the father seeking sole custody and primary residence to him, and the mother seeking sole custody and primary residence to her.

The court found that the child was no longer in need of protection and granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, with regular scheduled access to the father.

The court found the father's and paternal grandmother's evidence self-serving and unreliable, noting the paternal grandmother's "invisible litigant" behaviour and its negative impact on the child's relationship with the mother.

The applicant Society brought a motion for temporary care of a newborn child who was apprehended at birth due to concerns regarding the respondent mother's unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she could safely parent the child without medication and seeking a graduated return.

The court found that the mother's deteriorating mental health, refusal to follow medical advice, and recent aggressive behaviour posed a risk of harm to the child that could not be adequately addressed by a supervision order.

The court granted the Society's motion for temporary care, with the child to be placed with the paternal grandparents.

The maternal grandmother sought costs against the child protection agency after successfully moving to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The agency had refused to name her as a party despite her having legal custody of the children under a Voluntary Service Agreement at the time of apprehension.

The court found the agency's conduct to be patently unfair and unreasonable, warranting a costs award against a government agency.

The court awarded the grandmother $3,000 in costs, reducing her claim of $7,474.95 due to excessive time spent and her own poor behaviour prior to the apprehension.

The applicant child protection agency apprehended two young children.

The maternal grandmother, K.D.-M., sought to be added as a respondent and for the children to be placed in her care.

The agency and the children's mother opposed this, advocating for agency care with a plan to return the children to the mother, or placement with the father.

The court found that the agency improperly failed to name the maternal grandmother as a party, as she qualified as a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act due to a Voluntary Service Agreement.

The court also determined that placing the children with the maternal grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was appropriate, as the risk of harm could be mitigated.

The maternal grandmother's motion was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to her care.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child, L.M., in need of protection and placing him in extended Society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents, K.R. (Mother) and M.M. (Father), opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking expanded access.

The court, exercising exceptional caution due to the Charter implications in child protection cases, allowed limited oral evidence and cross-examination of the parenting capacity assessor.

The court found that the parents, both with significant cognitive and emotional limitations and a history of non-cooperation, had not demonstrated any measurable improvement or ability to provide "good enough" parenting.

The assessment concluded no attachment relationship existed between L.M. and either parent, and severing the relationship would have no negative consequences for the child.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding L.M. in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption, subject to sibling access.

The mother brought a motion to determine the primary residence of the parties' two children and for the penalty phase of a contempt finding against the father.

The father had previously been found in contempt for failing to release the children for access, and he brought a preliminary motion requesting the judge recuse himself due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from adverse credibility findings in the contempt decision.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, holding that prior adverse credibility findings do not inherently create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the contempt penalty, the court ordered the father to pay $3,000 in costs on a full recovery basis due to his bad faith.

Regarding primary residence, the court found it in the children's best interests to reside with the mother pending final resolution, citing the father's history of thwarting access and concerns about his ability to promote a positive environment.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The court considered whether any genuine issue for trial existed under the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act.

The evidence showed longstanding instability, domestic violence, mental health issues, and parenting incapacity affecting the parents, as well as sporadic parental contact and delayed paternal involvement.

The court concluded that neither parent established a triable issue regarding placement or access and that the children’s best interests required permanent placement.

Crown wardship orders without access were granted.