David P. Miller

This is a ten-day trial involving a status review application for three children and a protection application for a fourth child.

The court determined that all four children should be placed in the custody of the mother under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The father's access was ordered to be supervised, occurring every other week for two hours at a Supervised Access Centre.

The court found that the children were at risk of harm while in the father's care, that the father had engaged in a campaign to undermine the mother's relationship with the children, that the children had thrived in the mother's care since March 2018, and that the father lacked insight into his shortcomings and was ungovernable by court orders or the child protection agency.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and placement in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal or alternatively placement in her own care.

The court found credibility issues regarding the history predating the protection application and the circumstances of the child's placement with the maternal grandmother.

The court determined that the maternal grandmother's evidence, which formed the foundation of the society's case, could not be properly scrutinized on a summary judgment motion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a focused trial to hear evidence from the maternal grandmother and the mother on the issue of whether the child is in need of protection, with disposition to be determined if a finding of need is made.

In a child protection trial, the court determined the mother's access to her child and whether a restraining order should be issued against her.

The mother suffered from severe, long-standing schizoaffective disorder, resulting in unpredictable violent outbursts and a finding of not criminally responsible for past assaults.

The court found that in-person access posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and was not in the child's best interests, ordering only indirect access via cards and letters subject to the grandmother's approval.

The society's request for a restraining order was dismissed because the society lacked jurisdiction as the applicant under the Children's Law Reform Act, the grandmother did not fear for the child's safety, and the mother lacked the moral blameworthiness required for a penal restraining order.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application seeking custody of two children (M.B. and K.B.) to be granted to their maternal aunt and uncle (J.C. and Je.C.), with specified access terms for the mother and father of K.B. The mother opposed the motion, arguing genuine issues required a trial.

The court granted the custody order on a summary basis, finding the mother had failed to address serious protection concerns over 22 months, including her ongoing conflictual relationship with K.B.'s father, inconsistent attendance at supervised visits, and lack of engagement with support services.

However, the court found that access issues required a focused hearing due to insufficient evidence regarding the children's current wishes and disagreement among parties regarding appropriate access terms.

This is a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young boys in the care of the Children's Aid Society since birth.

The Society sought a Crown wardship order with no access to the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought the return of the children to her care under Society supervision.

The court found that the mother has significant cognitive limitations, has failed to demonstrate meaningful change since a prior Crown wardship order involving her third child, and continues to resist working cooperatively with the Society and other professionals.

The court granted the Society's application for Crown wardship with no access, while making the siblings access holders to each other to preserve their relationship.

The father appealed a disposition order from Justice R. Spence, which made his two children crown wards with no access, after a finding that the children were in need of protection.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's factual findings in five areas: the history of domestic violence, the mother's inability to separate from the father, the characterization of missed medical appointments, the health of one child prior to apprehension, and the mother's capacity to engage with healthcare providers and the Children's Aid Society.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the facts, emphasizing the high degree of deference owed to trial judges in child protection cases.

A child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving two young children (K.P., born 2013, and A.P., born 2014) where the applicant society sought findings of need of protection and Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents, both with significant cognitive disabilities (father with FASD and frontal lobe damage; mother with intellectual disability), opposed the application and sought various supervision orders.

The court found the children in need of protection based on actual physical harm, risk of physical harm from pattern of neglect, and failure to address developmental delays.

The court rejected all proposed supervision orders due to the parents' lack of insight, poor judgment, inability to self-regulate, and demonstrated unwillingness to cooperate with the society.

Crown wardship without access was ordered as being in the best interests of the children.

A focused trial concerning access arrangements for a child born in 2009.

The applicant (biological father) sought to terminate or reduce the respondent's (mother) supervised access.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to be gradually increased to alternate weekends and holiday access.

The child was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society in May 2014 and placed in the father's care in October 2014.

The mother had been exercising supervised access at APCO since May 2015.

The court found that while there was a positive attachment between the child and mother, the mother's behaviour during supervised visits remained problematic and not child-focused.

The court ordered continuation of supervised access with conditions requiring the mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and counselling before any future variation of the order.

A nine-day trial concerning a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that a three-year-old child was in need of protection and sought a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father opposed this and sought placement of the child in his care, subject to a supervision order.

The mother supported the father's plan.

The court found the child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Act based on the mother's past parenting history, her current level of functioning following a severe aneurysm, the father's insistence on parenting with the mother, and the father's failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency.

The court ordered crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the father's pattern of non-compliance, dishonesty, and inability to work cooperatively with professionals regarding the child's complex medical and developmental needs, including autism.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking orders that three children be found in need of protection and made crown wards without access for adoption purposes.

The parents consented to the eldest child being made a crown ward.

During the hearing, the parents also consented to the two younger children being found in need of protection.

The mother did not oppose the balance of the motion, but the father opposed it and proposed a plan for the children to be placed with him subject to supervision.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the society's motion, making the two younger children crown wards without access for adoption.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking to make two children crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought an expedited trial, arguing she had made sufficient changes to warrant the children's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the society had met its onus of demonstrating no genuine issue requiring trial.

Despite the mother's engagement in some services and completion of an anger management program, her recent conduct demonstrated a persistent inability to control her impulses, manage her relationships with abusive partners, and prioritize the children's emotional needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking a finding that two young children (D.L., age 3, and A.L., age 2) were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The children had been in care since May 2014.

The parents opposed the application, seeking dismissal and return of the children, or alternatively, return under a supervision order.

The court found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act due to: (1) missed critical medical appointments for a child with severe developmental disabilities; (2) exposure to domestic violence between the parents; (3) the mother's inability to protect the children from the father's assaults; (4) both parents' dismissive attitudes toward the Canadian medical system; and (5) the father's demonstrated pattern of breaching court orders and his hostile, uncooperative attitude toward medical professionals.

The court rejected both a supervision order with both parents and a supervision order with the mother alone, finding that neither arrangement would adequately protect the children given their complex medical needs and the parents' lack of insight and cooperation.

The court made an order for Crown wardship with no access to the parents.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother sought trial costs of $21,919.39 against the Catholic Children's Aid Society.

The court found that while the society's overall conduct did not warrant a full costs award, the society engaged in serious unfair dealing by injecting unsubstantiated risk factors (alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness) into its risk assessment documents regarding the mother.

The court awarded partial costs of $5,000 to the mother, finding that this misrepresentation constituted a "smearing" of the parent that violated principles of fair dealing required under child protection law.

The court emphasized that child protection agencies must maintain proportionate intervention, provide fair disclosure, and avoid manipulating risk calibration through false information.

A focused trial was held regarding custody of a six-year-old child.

The applicant father served trial affidavits within ordered timelines.

The respondent mother did not file affidavits and advised on May 21, 2015 that she would not oppose the father's requests for custody and government documentation, with some restrictions on international travel.

Final orders granted custody to the father, authority to obtain government documentation without respondent consent, and permission to travel with the child outside Canada for vacation purposes.

The father sought costs of the focused hearing.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother acted unreasonably in requiring the father to prepare for trial.

Costs were awarded to the father.

In a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined temporary care and custody of two children following a mental health crisis involving the mother and subsequent placement with the father.

The mother sought to regain custody after demonstrating significant mental health improvements and completing treatment programs.

The father opposed the motion, relying on the status quo of the children's placement with him for over seven months.

The court found that both parents had "charge" of the children at the time of intervention and applied the two-part test under subsection 51(3) of the Act.

The court determined that supervision terms would be adequate to protect the children in the mother's care but inadequate in the father's care due to documented neglect of the children's academic needs, concerns about physical discipline, and inadequate housing and provisions.

The children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother subject to society supervision, with generous overnight access for the father.

A motion to change custody and parenting arrangements concerning a six-year-old child, Zara Karima Demirdache.

The father sought to transfer the child from a French-language public school (École élémentaire Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau) to either a French Immersion program or an English-language public school, citing his inability to communicate in French and concerns about exclusion from the child's education.

The mother opposed the transfer, seeking to maintain the child's enrollment at the French school.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the child was thriving at the French school, had developed strong friendships, was making excellent academic progress, and that the father had successfully maintained meaningful involvement in the child's education despite the language barrier.

The court ordered the child to remain at the French school for the 2013-2014 academic year and imposed conditions requiring the mother to provide translations of report cards and advance notice of school events.

The father brought a motion to strike ten paragraphs from the mother's Amended Response to Motion to Change, arguing that paragraphs describing his difficulties working with professionals involved with the family were irrelevant, inflammatory, and would prejudice a fair trial.

The mother agreed to strike three paragraphs but opposed striking the remainder.

The court found that evidence regarding the father's ability to communicate and cooperate with professionals was highly relevant to the issues of joint custody and shared parenting, as these abilities directly relate to the father's capacity to co-parent effectively.

The court struck only the three paragraphs to which the mother consented and dismissed the balance of the father's motion.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking crown wardship of four children who were apprehended due to severe physical abuse by their mother and her boyfriend.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was still time within the statutory limits to address her parenting deficits.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's deeply entrenched deficits, her failure to engage in meaningful remediation for 15 months, and the children's specialized needs.

The motion was granted and the children were made crown wards.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to make four children crown wards.

The children had been in care since November 2010 following the arrest of the mother and her boyfriend on charges of assault with a weapon.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there remained a genuine issue for trial and time to address protection concerns.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the mother's parenting deficits were deeply entrenched, she had failed to engage in meaningful remediation over 15 months, and there was no realistic likelihood she could address the serious protection concerns within the remaining statutory timeframe.

The court granted the motion and ordered the children to be made crown wards.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection.

The mother had experienced marijuana-induced psychotic episodes.

The younger child had been living with his father since apprehension, while the older child, who suffered from severe anxiety and selective mutism, was in foster care.

The court found both children in need of protection.

The younger child was placed in his father's custody subject to supervision.

The older child was made a Crown ward.

The court ordered ongoing access between the mother and the older child, finding the relationship beneficial and meaningful, and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities.