6 total
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as parents had not exhausted internal school board appeal remedies.
The appellants appealed to the Ontario Special Education (English) Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of a pupil.
The respondent school board argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants had not exhausted their appeal remedies, specifically the Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) process, which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal found that the failure to hold the SEAB meeting was due to the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and did not deprive the appellants of their substantive right to the process.
The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the appellants had not exhausted their appeal rights under section 57(3) of the Education Act.
Extension of time to file response granted in part; school board given until September 11.
The respondent school board requested an extension of time until October 23, 2020, to file its response to a notice of appeal regarding a special education placement, citing summer vacations and COVID-19 disruptions.
The appellants opposed the length of the extension, arguing it was unreasonable and prejudicial.
The Tribunal noted that while an emergency order suspended limitation periods, the requested delay was excessive.
The Tribunal granted the extension in part, ordering the respondent to file its response by September 11, 2020, balancing the administrative disruptions with the appellants' interest in a timely process.
The court awarded full indemnity costs against a Children's Aid Society for unreasonably opposing a mother's motion for state-funded counsel.
This costs endorsement follows a successful motion by L.M. for state-funded counsel to appeal a summary judgment that made her three children Crown wards with no access.
The Children's Aid Society (CAS) opposed the motion, arguing the appeal lacked merit, despite L.M. meeting all other criteria for state-funded counsel.
The court found the CAS's opposition unreasonable, particularly given the low merit threshold for such applications and L.M.'s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The court awarded L.M. costs on a full recovery basis, totaling $12,482.49, emphasizing that costs orders serve to sanction unreasonable conduct and promote access to justice, especially when a reasonable offer to settle was rejected.
The court granted the Society temporary care of a newborn due to parental incapacity.
The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for an order placing a newborn child in extended society care pending determination of a protection application seeking Crown wardship.
The child had been apprehended two days after birth due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health issues, transiency, parenting ability, and prior child protection involvement, as well as concerns regarding the father's substance use and inability to present a care plan.
The mother sought return of the child to her care, asserting she had addressed her mental health issues and secured appropriate accommodations.
The court found that the Society had met its burden under section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, even with conditions.
The motion was granted, placing the child in the interim care of the Society with access at the Society's discretion.
Custody Motion dismissed
The maternal grandparents moved to be added as parties to a child protection application concerning their grandchildren, D.C. and E.C., and sought access.
The children had been removed from the mother's care due to severe sexual abuse by her boyfriend and deplorable living conditions.
The Catholic Children's Aid Society and the father opposed the motion, arguing the children were thriving with the father, adding parties would cause delay, and the grandparents lacked insight into the abuse.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandparents was not in the children's best interests, would increase conflict, and their proposed plan was not realistic given the children's current stable placement with their biological father.
The court granted summary judgment for Crown wardship without access, finding the proposed caregiver's plan inadequate.
The Catholic Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion for Crown wardship without access for the child P-J.S-M. The mother, M.S., supported the paternal grandmother's (K.N.) plan of care, while the father, R.M., was noted in default.
The Society argued K.N. was unsuitable due to her history of non-cooperation and inability to protect the child from R.M.'s violent behavior.
K.N. contended the Society failed its duty to conduct a kin assessment.
The court found the Society had justifiable reasons not to conduct a kin assessment, citing R.M.'s aggressive behavior, K.N.'s past defense of him, and the inadequacy of her safety plan.
The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that access would impair the child's future adoption opportunities.
