Ed Rice

This decision concerns a first appearance following the warrantless removal of three children to a place of safety by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS).

The court granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the children in NCFS care, with fully supervised access for the parents.

The decision highlights extensive historic child protection concerns, including multiple reports of physical and emotional abuse, family violence, and unsafe living conditions spanning several years.

The court emphasized the failure of NCFS to bring the matter to court earlier despite ongoing risks and injuries to the children, underscoring the importance of judicial oversight in child protection matters.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent all three children to ensure their interests are protected.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought to withdraw life support for a critically ill infant in its temporary care without court authorization, believing it had the authority under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The infant died after life support was withdrawn, but before an emergency court hearing could proceed.

The court, at the parties' request for future guidance, ruled that a children's aid society cannot withdraw life support for a child in its temporary or interim care without explicit court authorization, especially in the absence of parental consent, emphasizing procedural fairness and judicial oversight in such profound decisions.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

This temporary motion concerned parenting arrangements for 2.5-year-old twin boys.

The applicant, the paternal grandmother, sought primary residence, while the respondent maternal grandmother sought equal time.

The father is incarcerated and consented to the paternal grandmother caring for the children.

The maternal grandmother had unlawfully removed the children from the paternal grandmother's care.

The court validated irregular service on the maternal grandmother and found her allegations against the paternal grandmother to be untruthful.

Based on the children's best interests, the court ordered the children to remain in the primary care of the paternal grandmother, with the maternal grandmother having supervised contact, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a relationship with the maternal family while warning against future breaches.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's face-to-face access with their seven-and-a-half-year-old child during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeking to replace it with video conferencing.

The child suffers from asthma and severe allergies.

The father's last access visit occurred on April 26, 2020, during which he took the child to multiple stores without proper protective equipment and without the required supervision of the paternal grandmother, contrary to the existing court order.

Following this visit, the child and household members exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and self-isolated for fourteen days.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that temporary suspension of face-to-face access was in the child's best interests, replacing it with weekly video access pending review at a case conference.

The applicant sought permission to relocate her daughter from Toronto to Barrie to live with her fiancé, which would exceed the 40-kilometer limit specified in a prior consent order.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought expanded access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the applicant had a strong probability of success at trial.

The court granted a temporary order permitting the relocation to Barrie while establishing expanded access arrangements for the respondent, including alternate weekends and potential mid-week visits.

The court declined to impose a police enforcement clause for access.

A motion by a biological parent seeking an order requesting that the Children's Lawyer appoint a legal representative for an 11-year-old child in a custody and access dispute.

The child had been removed from the biological parent's care due to neglect and domestic violence concerns, and was subsequently placed with the other biological parent and their partner.

The biological parent sought custody or, alternatively, access.

The court declined to appoint a lawyer for the child, finding that reliable evidence of the child's wishes was available through therapeutic reports and that appointing a lawyer would cause additional anxiety to the child without sufficient offsetting benefit.

In a family law motion heard in the Integrated Domestic Violence Court, the applicant sought temporary custody of two young daughters with a 50/50 parenting schedule, while the respondent sought to maintain primary custody with supervised access for the applicant.

The court considered evidence of domestic conflict, anger management issues, marijuana use, and parenting capacity.

The court found that the respondent had been the primary caregiver and that the applicant had not addressed behavioral issues despite recommendations from child protection services.

The court awarded temporary custody to the respondent with continued supervised access for the applicant on the existing schedule, conditioned on the applicant's completion of a parenting program and abstinence from marijuana use with regular testing.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, but no spousal support was awarded.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child in care of the Children's Aid Society.

The child was placed in care due to parental drug addiction and related neglect.

The Society sought a final order of crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

Both parents sought return of the child under supervision orders, with access as an alternative.

The court found that both parents had uncontrolled long-standing drug addictions, engaged in a dysfunctional and violent relationship, and lacked the capacity to provide adequate care.

The father exhibited severe behavioral and emotional control issues.

The court determined that crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests, as neither parent could provide the stability and support the child required.

A child protection case in which the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child (W.R.) was in need of protection and an order making the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and presented alternative plans for the child's care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society's motion, making the child a Crown ward.

The court declined to grant access to the parents, finding that they had not met the statutory test for access to a Crown ward.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that two young children are in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access.

The court found both children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the risk of physical harm resulting from the parents' failure to adequately care for and protect the children.

The court granted the motion and ordered crown wardship without access, finding that the mother's parenting capacity remained inadequate, the father had a history of violence and criminal behaviour, and the mother had demonstrated poor judgment regarding her relationship with the father.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a parenting capacity assessment as untimely and found no genuine issue for trial.