Diane B. Skrow

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Halton Children's Aid Society sought an order that a 13-year-old child remain in the temporary care and custody of her maternal grandmother, subject to supervision and conditions prohibiting the maternal grandfather from being left alone with the child and from sleeping in the family residence at night.

The grandfather faced criminal charges for historical sexual offenses involving multiple alleged victims.

The grandparents sought to have the child remain in their joint care without supervision or with minimal conditions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather based on credible hearsay evidence of multiple allegations, the pattern of alleged abuse, and the child's age falling within the grandfather's apparent victim profile.

The court rejected a proposed bedroom lock condition as placing inappropriate responsibility on the child and granted the Society's motion, ordering the child to remain in the grandmother's temporary care and custody subject to supervision and the requested conditions.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving a crown wardship application.

The respondent father, who is self-represented and receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, sought a legal aid certificate to retain counsel for trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to issue a certificate.

The court held that the father has a constitutional right to counsel under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. are satisfied.

The court adjourned the hearing to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General to make submissions on the court's motion to appoint publicly funded counsel.

The applicants alleged that the Halton Children's Aid Society discriminated against them on the basis of age and family status, and engaged in reprisal, by interviewing the minor applicants without parental consent during a child protection investigation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The minor applicants did not meet the Code's definition of 'age' (18 years or more) for the provision of services, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' actions to family status or demonstrating a reprisal for claiming Code rights.

The appellant mother appealed an order quashing her appeal from an openness order regarding her biological daughter, who had been in protection for six years and placed for adoption.

The appellant sought to challenge the adoption placement and have the child placed with extended family.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that placement cannot be determined at an openness hearing, the child consented to the adoption and the openness order, and the appellant was attempting to relitigate previously determined issues.

A motion by a third party seeking intervenor status, amicus curiae status, or party status in a child protection proceeding.

The movant, a religious leader and founder of a public accountability organization, sought to intervene on behalf of the respondent mother.

The court dismissed the motion on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice to grant amicus curiae status to public interest groups, failure to meet the criteria for intervention, and concerns about delay and prejudice to the child.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child with significant medical and developmental needs.

The child was apprehended from the mother's care due to substance abuse and neglect.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care, subject to society supervision, or alternatively, expanded unsupervised access.

The court found that the society met its onus to establish that the child's best interests required remaining in the care and custody of the society.

The court dismissed the maternal grandmother's application, finding concerns regarding her ability to follow court orders and society directions, protect the child from the mother, and meet the child's complex medical and developmental needs.

A child protection summary judgment motion wherein the Children's Aid Society sought to place a child in the custody of the father pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with access to the mother in the discretion of the father.

The child had been a Crown ward since 2008 following a status review trial.

The father had demonstrated stability and cooperation with the Society, while the mother had failed to address serious mental health issues and remained homeless.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the protection concerns regarding the mother that existed in 2008 continued to exist and had worsened.

This is an openness application brought by counsel on behalf of a 14-year-old child in Crown wardship, seeking to establish ongoing contact with both biological parents following the child's proposed adoption by a mentor family.

The child had been in continuous care of the Children's Aid Society since 2008 and was made a Crown ward in 2010.

The child expressed a desire to be adopted by her mentor family while maintaining contact with her parents.

The mother opposed the adoption and sought to have the child returned to her care, but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the child's best interests required the adoption to proceed.

The court approved an openness order permitting supervised direct contact and indirect contact between the child and her biological parents, with specific arrangements to be determined by the child and her adoptive parents.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The mother consented to the finding through an agreed statement of facts.

The father contested the application.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of physical harm while in the father's care, including: the father's misuse and abuse of prescription medications (particularly oxycodone), his involvement in a dangerous driving incident while impaired by drugs with the children in the vehicle, his pattern of "doctor shopping" to obtain controlled substances, and his physical and verbal abuse of the mother in the presence of the children.

The court made a finding that the children were in need of protection and ordered a parenting capacity assessment to proceed.

The respondent father sought to extend the time to serve and file an Application for an Openness Order following receipt of a Notice of Intention to Place a Child for Adoption and Notice of Termination of Access.

The father was served on December 11, 2012, with a 30-day deadline to file.

He attended court on January 10, 2013, still within the deadline, but did not file the application.

He subsequently filed a Form 14B motion on February 10, 2013, requesting an extension.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to extend the prescribed 30-day time limit under the Family Law Rules and dismissed the motion.

The court noted that the father received inadequate legal advice from duty counsel at the Family Law Information Centre and should have been directed to immediately serve and file the application on January 10, 2013.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (M.) who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 38 months following apprehension due to severe physical abuse of his half-sister (F.).

The mother was criminally convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats.

The parents sought return of M. to their joint care under supervision; the society sought a crown wardship order without access to facilitate adoption by M.'s paternal great aunt and uncle, with whom he had been placed since age two.

The court found M. continued to be in need of protection, rejected the parents' denial of responsibility for F.'s injuries, and determined that crown wardship without access was in M.'s best interests given his secure attachment to his current caregivers, the parents' lack of insight and cooperation, and the risk of harm if returned to parental care.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order making them Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the finding but agreed to Crown wardship with access.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to exposure to domestic violence and parental substance abuse.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The children were made Crown wards without access, as the mother failed to meet the statutory test for access to Crown wards under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking an order that three children be made Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking dismissal and arguing for a trial where she would seek custody of the children.

The court found that the Society had met its onus of establishing no genuine issue for trial.

The children had been apprehended due to emotional harm from witnessing domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and mental health issues.

Despite nearly two years of involvement and multiple opportunities for the mother to address her issues, she failed to comply with court orders, continued substance abuse, demonstrated poor parenting judgment, and was unable to provide emotional safety for the children.

The court granted the motion and made all three children Crown wards without access, though noting the Society retained discretion to permit contact if in the children's best interests.

A motion hearing regarding the respondent mother's legal aid certificate in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother's lawyer was removed as counsel of record in February 2012 due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, six months before the scheduled trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused the mother's request for a new lawyer, citing that a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship is not sufficient grounds for a change of counsel.

The court found that the respondent mother has a constitutional right to counsel and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. appear to be satisfied.

The matter was adjourned to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario to make submissions on whether the court should appoint publicly funded counsel.

A motion by the respondent mother for disclosure of all records relating to the child from the Children's Aid Society, the child's psychiatrist, a counselling agency, and the family doctor.

The applicant society initially opposed disclosure of third-party records without consent, but the court found that the mother was entitled to full disclosure of society records including third-party records in its possession.

The court also ordered disclosure of non-party records held by the psychiatrist, family doctor, and counselling agency, subject to privilege claims and restrictions on use.

The court granted the mother's motion with modifications, recognizing the paramount importance of disclosure in child protection proceedings while protecting the child's private therapeutic communications.