Clem Nabigon

Following a motion where the court ordered a child returned to Ontario after the father's unauthorized relocation to New Brunswick, the kin caregiver sought costs against the father and the Children's Aid Society.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and the Society's failure to properly assess the relocation plan and file required evidence irresponsible.

The court ordered the father and the Society to each pay $5,000 in costs, and held them jointly and severally liable for $2,349.15 in travel costs incurred by the kin caregiver to retrieve the child.

This Status Review proceeding involved a motion by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the father (S.M.) to permit the father to relocate with his 3-year-old child (A.M.) from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The kin caregiver (C.C.) opposed the relocation and sought temporary care and custody of A.M. in Ontario.

The court found the father's unilateral departure from Ontario with the child improper and questioned his credibility, compliance with orders, and willingness to facilitate the child's relationship with the kin caregiver, especially in light of an outstanding criminal warrant for an alleged assault in A.M.'s presence.

The court also noted the Society's incomplete assessment and lack of a detailed interjurisdictional access plan.

Applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and relocation principles, the court dismissed the Society's and father's motions, ordering A.M. to remain in C.C.'s temporary care and custody in Ontario.

Following a previous decision regarding an adjournment request in a child protection matter, the court selected a lawyer from a list provided by Legal Aid Ontario to act as amicus curiae.

The child welfare agency sought an adjournment of a protection application involving an Indigenous youth with complex needs, intending to withdraw the application in favour of a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement once the youth turned 16.

The court noted significant delays, multiple placement breakdowns, and a failure by the agency to implement recommendations from a psychological assessment.

While the court granted the adjournment due to the agency's failure to prepare for the trial scheduling conference, it imposed strict trial directions and appointed amicus curiae to ensure the court receives the necessary evidence and submissions regarding available services and the child's best interests.