Danielle Marchand

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 7-year-old Indigenous child.

The child had been removed to a place of safety due to concerns regarding the mother's home environment, exposure to conflict and drug use, and significant educational neglect.

The court held that the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families takes paramountcy over the provincial CYFSA, and applied the best interests test under section 10 of the federal Act.

Despite the presumption of placement with a parent, the court found that returning the child to the mother's care was not in the child's best interests due to the ongoing risk of harm.

The child was placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society with generous access ordered for the mother and sibling.

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 applicant father sought to proceed with a scheduled custody and access trial under the Divorce Act, while the respondent mother and the Children's Aid Society sought a stay due to newly commenced child protection proceedings involving allegations of abuse.

The court found that while s. 103 of the CYFSA does not automatically stay Divorce Act proceedings, the court has inherent jurisdiction and authority under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules to grant a stay.

The court ordered the family proceedings stayed pending the completion of the child protection proceedings to avoid duplicity and allow the CAS to complete its investigation.

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.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a legal ruling made by a motion judge who had dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying appeal had already been heard and dismissed, rendering the current motion moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case, noting the lack of an adversarial context, judicial economy concerns, and the fact that the applicant was seeking a broad declaration rather than overturning an order.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her two children in need of protection and making them Crown wards.

The motion judge had also denied access to the younger child and ordered supervised access for the older child.

On appeal, the mother argued there were genuine issues for trial, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the older child's wishes were misrepresented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions regarding the risk of harm, the mother's failure to obtain mental health treatment, and the best interests of the children.

The court also found no merit to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The father of a child in care brought motions to validate the late delivery of his notice of appeal, to stay the trial judge's order making the child a Crown ward with no access, and for access pending appeal for himself and the child's aunt.

The society brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the appeal.

The aunt sought to be added as a party.

The Divisional Court granted the father's motion to extend the time to appeal, finding no prejudice to the child.

The court dismissed the society's motion for summary judgment, holding that the rules do not permit summary judgment on appeals to the Divisional Court.

The court declined to add the aunt as a party or stay the trial decision, and denied the father access pending appeal.

However, the court granted the aunt access to the child pending the appeal, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

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.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought a temporary care and custody order pending disposition of the application, with parental access at the agency’s discretion.

The court considered allegations of parental drug use, domestic violence, and chronic school absenteeism.

While acknowledging reasonable grounds to believe there was some risk of harm due to past illegal drug use, the court found portions of the agency’s evidence—particularly anonymous allegations and claimed falsification of drug screens—lacked credibility or reliability.

The parents had recently provided negative drug tests, engaged in addiction treatment, and cooperated with the agency.

Applying the principle that intervention must be the least disruptive placement consistent with child protection, the court returned the child to the parents subject to a supervision order and strict conditions.