5 total
The court appointed independent legal counsel for a non-subject sibling in a child protection proceeding.
The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought a motion to be appointed to represent the child A.C. in a child protection proceeding concerning her twin brother, J.C. The biological parents, D.C. and N.C., opposed the motion, arguing they could adequately advocate for A.C. The court granted the OCL's motion, emphasizing A.C.'s right to independent legal representation under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The court found that A.C.'s interests, particularly regarding sibling access with J.C. and her communication difficulties, necessitated independent counsel, as the parents' advocacy, however well-intentioned, could not substitute for the child's own voice, especially where their interests might diverge.
The court ordered limited supervised access to maintain the child's cultural and racial identity.
This case concerns a status review application and focused hearing to determine an access regime for a child, J.N., who was placed in extended society care with Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin.
The respondent father, M.M., sought placement of the child in his care or with extended paternal family to support cultural heritage, but failed to attend subsequent hearings or provide evidence.
The court assessed the child's best interests, considering the child's struggles, inconsistent access history with the father, and the importance of maintaining cultural and racial identity.
The court ultimately ordered a limited, supervised access schedule for the father and mandated the Society to facilitate the child's connection with his paternal cultural heritage.
Supervised access ordered for parents of child in extended society care to maintain meaningful relationship.
The Society sought an order placing the child in extended society care with no access by the parents.
The court previously placed the child in extended society care but adjourned the issue of access to trial.
The court found that despite the parents' inconsistencies and personal struggles, the child had a positive and meaningful relationship with both parents.
The court ordered a minimum of three supervised direct access visits per year for each parent, along with email updates, finding that this would maintain the child's connection to her birth parents and indigenous heritage without unduly impairing her future opportunities for adoption.
Summary judgment granted placing child in extended society care; trial directed for father's access.
The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in extended society care.
The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return or access, while the father consented to the protection finding but opposed the disposition and access orders.
The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's substance abuse and the father's unresolved anger and mental health issues.
The court ordered the child placed in extended society care, granted the mother access at the Society's discretion, and directed a trial on the issue of the father's access.
The court found six children in need of protection, ordering partial Crown wardship and supervision.
A child protection trial involving six children where the Children's Aid Society sought findings that all children were in need of protection and sought Crown wardship for the four oldest children and a supervision order for the two youngest twins.
The respondent parents denied virtually all allegations.
The court conducted a complex hearsay voir dire regarding children's out-of-court statements and ultimately found all six children in need of protection based on evidence of harsh, authoritarian parenting, excessive physical discipline, emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence.
The court made three of the four oldest children Crown wards and ordered the youngest child returned home under intensive supervision, with the second-oldest child also returned home under supervision to maintain sibling bonds.
