Elaine Deluzio

A young person was jointly charged with his mother and her boyfriend with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution at their residence.

The Crown conceded the production charge was weak and it was dismissed.

At trial, the Crown proved that marijuana plants, packaged marijuana, digital scales, and plastic baggies were found in the accused's bedroom.

The accused testified that the bedroom was a recreation and laundry room used by the entire family, not his bedroom, and that he slept on couches in the living room.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible, internally inconsistent, and manufactured.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, finding he had knowledge of and control over the drugs in his bedroom and was either a principal or aider and abetter in the criminal enterprise.

The applicant Society sought an order of Crown wardship with no access for two children.

The respondent parents conceded the children were in need of protection due to their ongoing struggles with drug addiction but requested the children be returned to their care under a supervision order.

The court found that the initial apprehension of the children was not justified by the evidence and that the Society had unreasonably restricted the parents' access and failed to support their rehabilitation.

Despite the parents' ongoing addiction issues, the court found they had a stable, supportive relationship, strong extended family support, and a deep bond with the children.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be returned to their parents' care pursuant to a reintegration plan and a strict supervision order requiring drug testing and treatment.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two children based on parental drug use and alleged protection concerns.

The court found that while both parents struggle with long-standing drug addictions, the Society's apprehension of the children was not justified on the evidence presented.

The court determined that the children should be returned to parental care pursuant to a supervision order with a reintegration plan, finding that the parents' drug addictions, while a legitimate concern, did not preclude their ability to parent with appropriate support and monitoring.

The court was critical of the Society's restrictive approach to access and lack of support for the parents' rehabilitation efforts.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter where the respondent father sought costs against the Hastings Children's Aid Society following a 14-day trial.

The Society had brought a protection application alleging the children were at risk of sexual and emotional harm from the father.

The court found the father had not posed a risk of sexual harm and dismissed the Society's application on that ground.

Only the older child was found to be at risk of emotional harm, unrelated to the father's actions.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 against the Society, finding it had failed to conduct a thorough investigation, relied almost exclusively on the mother's allegations, and failed to meet its ongoing obligation to investigate and present all relevant facts to the court.