Danielle Marchand

The Children's Aid Society sought a secure treatment order for a 14-year-old child under s. 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to severe self-harming behaviors linked to mental disorders.

The child and mother opposed, while the father supported the application.

The court found all six statutory criteria for secure treatment were met, including the child's mental disorder, recent serious self-harm, the effectiveness and availability of the proposed program at Syl Apps Youth Centre, and the lack of less restrictive alternatives.

The court also exercised its residual discretion, concluding that secure treatment was in the child's best interests despite the mother's objections and potential limitations on the placement duration.

A 180-day commitment was deemed necessary.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the children to her care, supported by the father.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found the children in need of protection due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence, chronic school absenteeism, and the mother's inability to meet their basic needs.

The court concluded that the mother's plan was not viable and placed the children in Extended Society Care, while granting specified access to the mother, father, and siblings.

The mother sought an adjournment of a care and custody hearing to attend a treatment program.

The Society consented to the adjournment but requested that the existing temporary without prejudice order be converted to a with prejudice order, given it had been in place for over a year.

The court declined to convert the order, finding that the case had been on a particular path until recent events, and emphasizing the remedial nature of the CYFSA regarding First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, which supported allowing the mother to argue her motion under the without prejudice test.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim supervision order regarding a child diagnosed with a seizure disorder and developmental delays.

The parents refused to administer recommended anti-convulsant medication, believing instead that the child suffered from an allergy, and treated the seizures with an Epi-pen.

The court found that the parents' refusal to accept the medical diagnosis and administer the recommended treatment created a significant risk of harm to the child.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child under the interim care of the parents subject to society supervision and conditions requiring them to follow the hospital's medical recommendations.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children who had been apprehended due to allegations of physical and emotional harm.

The parents admitted to using physical discipline but argued it was reasonable and permitted under the Criminal Code.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the children were at risk of likely harm if returned home, citing a history of corporal punishment using objects and emotional abuse.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the children given the parents' lack of insight and refusal to cooperate with the Society.

The motion for temporary care and custody was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought temporary care and custody of two children, D.M. and N.C., and an order for a s. 98 assessment of the mother and children.

The mother sought the immediate return of the children under a supervision order and opposed the assessment.

N.C.'s father sought limited supervised access.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother's care, citing a chronic pattern of unsanitary home conditions, lack of supervision, and the mother's lack of insight and cooperation.

The court dismissed the mother's request for the children's return and N.C.'s father's access motion, granting the Society's request for temporary care and custody and a s. 98 assessment.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, seeking extended society care for 11-year-old E.L. due to the mother's chronic mental health and substance abuse issues.

The mother sought the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found E.L. remained in need of protection, citing the mother's long history of relapses, inconsistent follow-through with treatment, and the significant emotional harm already suffered by the child.

Giving substantial weight to the child's expressed wishes for extended care, the court ordered extended society care with continued access to the mother and sister, rejecting the mother's plan as a "trial run" with the child's life.

This child protection application concerned the future of M.H., a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The father, B.H., sought custody or joint custody with his sister, S.H., or for S.H. to have full custody.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's long-standing and unaddressed drug dependency, dishonesty, and unstable behaviour, which posed a risk of physical harm.

The father's proposed plans of care were deemed unrealistic and insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The sister's late proposal for custody was also rejected due to her lack of insight into the father's issues.

Crown wardship with no access for adoption was ordered, as the relationship between father and child was not found to be beneficial to the child, and access would impair adoption.

The court also commented on the excessive delay in the proceedings.