Cynthia Law

The applicant society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a newborn child with high medical needs.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to their care.

The court found substantial risk of harm to the child due to the parents' history of domestic violence, extreme neglect of their four older children, and inability to follow society directions.

The court concluded that no terms of supervision could adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the society.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The mother had fled with the child to the United States, living in her car and shelters, and exhibiting erratic behaviour and suspected paranoia.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's actions put the child at risk of physical and emotional harm.

The motion was granted, and the child was found in need of protection.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to add W.M., a family friend caring for one of the subject children, as a party to the child protection proceedings and for production of the Society's kin assessments of W.M. The Society opposed production on policy grounds and expressed concern about delay if W.M. were added as a party.

The court granted the motion, finding that W.M. had a legal interest in the proceedings and her participation was necessary to advance a plan of care for both children.

The court also ordered the kin assessments to be produced to the court for review, applying the likely relevance threshold and balancing probative value against privacy interests.

The children's aid society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The parents sought the return of the child subject to society supervision.

The court found that the parents' unaddressed mental health issues, history of child welfare involvement, and relationship instability posed too great a risk to the child's safety and well-being.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

Applying the expanded access test under the CYFSA, the court found that an access order was in the child's best interests as the relationship was beneficial and there was no evidence it would impair future adoption opportunities.

Access was granted at the society's discretion, with a minimum of once per month.