3 total
The court granted a temporary supervision order, emphasizing that severe school absenteeism constitutes a serious child protection concern.
The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking a temporary order placing two children (ages 7 and 12) in the mother's care subject to society supervision, due to substantial school absenteeism over three years.
The motion proceeded on consent after the mother ensured consistent school attendance.
The court granted the order with conditions for both parents and the society, emphasizing that educational neglect is a serious child protection concern that societies must address promptly.
The court has jurisdiction to grant custody to out-of-province grandparents under child protection legislation.
The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion on a status review application seeking to place a child in the care of her grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.
The respondent mother challenged the court's jurisdiction to make such an order, arguing that because a section 57.1 order is deemed to be made under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court must satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of that Act, including that the child be habitually resident in Ontario.
The court rejected this argument and found it had jurisdiction to make the order, holding that the deeming provision does not restrict the court's authority to make the initial custody order and that the Legislature would have explicitly stated such a restriction if intended.
Grandfather's motion to be added as a party was dismissed because the child refused contact.
A motion by a maternal grandfather to be added as a party to child protection proceedings, or alternatively to have specified rights to participate.
The child, a 15½-year-old girl, had been in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society for one year following allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the mother and failure to protect by the father.
The grandfather proposed a plan for the child's placement in his care.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the grandfather had a legal interest in the proceedings and had proposed a carefully thought-out plan, the child's clear and consistent rejection of contact with him rendered the plan unlikely to be viable.
The court noted that the child's views and preferences are an important factor in determining best interests for a child of this age, and that the parents' counsel could adequately present the grandfather's plan without him being added as a party.
