Diana Castillo

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld an Ontario Court of Justice order concerning monthly access to children.

The Society argued that the OCJ lacked jurisdiction to entertain an enforcement motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules after a final order had been made, contending that the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 was a complete code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the OCJ retained jurisdiction to enforce its orders, as the definition of "case" in the Family Law Rules explicitly includes "enforcements," and requiring a new proceeding for enforcement would contradict the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Superior Court judge and addressed procedural fairness concerns.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion.

The respondent mother, F.G., sought to retract her consent to a final custody order placing her 21-month-old son with the maternal grandmother, D.N., which had been made pursuant to an agreed statement of facts.

The court denied the mother's request to retract consent, finding that her arguments did not meet the criteria under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules for setting aside an order, and the alleged "new evidence" was not a valid ground.

The court also found that the Society met the test for summary judgment under Rule 16(6) of the Family Law Rules, as there was no genuine issue for trial regarding disposition and access.

The final order for custody with the maternal grandmother remained in effect, and the final order regarding access to the mother was granted as sought by the Society.

The local children's aid society brought a motion to transfer a child protection proceeding to the Toronto children's aid society under s. 91(3) of the CYFSA.

The parents had a long history of family law litigation in Toronto, and the Toronto agency had extensive prior involvement investigating repeated, unverified allegations of sexual abuse raised by the mother.

The court found that the preponderance of convenience and the child's best interests favoured transferring the matter to Toronto, as the Toronto agency and courts were more familiar with the family's history of high conflict and coaching concerns.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking an order to prohibit the respondent mother from making public social media postings related to the society's involvement with her children, the children's fathers, caregivers, and society employees, and to compel the removal of existing posts.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the orders, finding that the mother's postings violated subsection 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, by identifying children and parties to the proceedings.

The court also relied on its inherent power to control its own process to protect participants from cyberbullying and maintain the integrity of child protection proceedings.