Colin Tobias

The Jewish Family and Child Services (JFCS) brought a summary judgment motion for extended society care of the child D.S. and for specific access terms with the mother, Z.Y. The mother, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, did not oppose extended care but made submissions on access.

The father, B.S., was in default.

The court granted the JFCS's request for extended care, finding no genuine issue for trial given the mother's persistent untreated mental health issues and the child's thriving in care.

The court also granted access at the society's discretion, with the child as the sole access holder, and allowed the society to obtain legal documents for the child without parental consent.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children with special needs who have been in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found that all three children remain at risk of physical harm due to the father's serious and long-standing alcohol addiction, his inability to maintain sobriety, his lack of honesty and cooperation with the society and community supports, and allegations of inappropriate physical discipline.

The court ordered that one child be placed in extended care of the society and the other two children be placed in the custody of their paternal aunt, with access arrangements to be supervised.

This is a costs decision arising from the respondent father's motion to enforce an access order dated December 17, 2019.

The mother did not comply with the access order due to health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties resolved the matter by consent order on August 12, 2020, with the access order remaining in full force and the parties agreeing to comply with COVID-19 health protocols.

The court awarded costs to the father, finding that the mother acted unreasonably in denying access for over two months and imposing unreasonable pre-conditions for resumption of in-person contact.

The court ordered the mother to pay $900 in costs, payable at $50 per month starting October 1, 2020.

This is a Status Review proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning an 8-year-old child.

Following a trial on the issue of paternal access, the court ordered no access and directed the appointment of an assessor to determine how and when the child should be informed of her father's identity.

The motion addresses the appointment of Dr. Rex Collins as the assessor and concerns serious disclosure failures by the Society and its counsel, who failed to disclose that the mother had told the child about her father and disclosed traumatic information about the mother's past, contrary to the court's findings that the child did not know her father's identity.

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to find an 8-month-old child in need of protection.

The central issue was whether the child qualified as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that the child met the threshold for identification as a Métis child based on information from the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother, despite the lack of identified Métis communities in provincial regulations.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered interim society care with a kinship assessment to proceed.

A child protection society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for extended society care of two children, with no access to their mother, and access to their maternal uncle.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care.

The court found that the mother suffered from serious untreated mental health issues, including amphetamine-induced psychosis, and had engaged in concerning behaviour including violating court orders, posting confidential information on social media, and attempting to undermine the children's foster placement.

The court granted the society's motion for extended care, denied the mother's request for access, and granted access to the maternal uncle at the society's discretion.

A child protection society sought a summary judgment order denying a father access to his seven-year-old daughter following his criminal convictions for serious offences against the mother, including sexual assault and human trafficking.

The father had been ordered supervised access by the Quebec Superior Court but the mother subsequently moved to Ontario with the child.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's access, including conflicting evidence about why the Quebec access order was not implemented, insufficient evidence about the impact of access on the mother's mental health and parenting capacity, and concerns about the father's lack of insight into his conduct.

The court ordered a focused trial on the access issue while placing the child in the mother's care subject to society supervision.

A motion for summary judgment in a child protection status review application seeking to make a child a crown ward.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with supervised access to the parents.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care or unsupervised access.

The child had been in care since 2012 due to neglect and had experienced multiple placement breakdowns.

The child had significant behavioral, emotional, and developmental challenges requiring specialized care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted crown wardship with weekly supervised access to both parents.

The court also addressed sibling access issues and made reciprocal access orders to preserve the child's voice in future adoption proceedings.

A motion for temporary care and custody of three young children apprehended by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The father sought placement of the children in his care, while the society sought to maintain temporary custody.

The court found that despite the father's efforts and family support, the children could not be adequately protected in his sole care due to longstanding concerns regarding domestic violence, inadequate home conditions, failure to meet developmental needs, poor school attendance, inability to arrange appropriate services, and the parents' intellectual limitations.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with supervised access to both parents.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking permission for three children in its care to travel to Jamaica for an extended access visit with their paternal grandmother, with the intention of assessing the viability of a permanent placement arrangement.

The mother supported the motion, but the Office of the Children's Lawyer (representing the oldest child), the biological father of the oldest child, and the maternal grandmother opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed Jamaica plan was not in the best interests of the children.

The court identified numerous obstacles, including concerns about the father's involvement and his relationship with the mother (whom the society deemed unsuitable), the grandmother's limited financial resources and passive demeanor, the absence of meaningful relationships between the children and the proposed caregivers, and significant jurisdictional and enforcement complications arising from placing the children in a foreign country.

Motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order for crown wardship without access.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The father consented to the orders sought.

The court found that the mother's cognitive limitations, inability to provide adequate instrumental care, difficulty meeting her own needs, and lack of demonstrated improvement despite years of involvement with child protection services established a clear case for crown wardship.

The mother's plan for care, involving a recently engaged partner whom she had known for only a few months, lacked credibility and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted summary judgment and made the child a crown ward without access.