Eric Smith

The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo was ordered to pay costs to the respondent mother, J.P., following a successful motion by the mother for child placement.

While the Society's position on the underlying motion was deemed reasonable, the court found several procedural failings on its part, including inadequate information gathering regarding the father's incarceration, improper delegation of decision-making to another CAS, insufficient assessment of the proposed placement plan, and failure to disclose the father's partner's child protection involvement.

These failings were deemed "patently unfair and indefensible," justifying the costs award.

The mother brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a temporary order to place the child with former kin caregivers.

The child had been placed with the father, but the father was recently incarcerated and denied bail.

The children's aid society sought to keep the child in the care of the father's partner.

Applying the augmented best interests test for an Indigenous child, the court found that placement with the kin caregivers was more stable and in the child's best interests, despite historical concerns regarding the kin's ability to foster the child's cultural identity, which could be mitigated through supervision and education.

The Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for their Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The children are Métis and were adopted by the adoptive parents.

The motion addressed whether the Openness Application could proceed despite alleged failures by the Society to properly serve the Métis Nation of Ontario and an unidentified First Nation band, as required by the CYFSA.

The court found that formal service and notice to the Métis community were not required for the Openness Application to proceed, as the Métis Nation of Ontario is not a "listed community" under the Act, and the determination of a child's community for statutory notice purposes is a ministerial, not judicial, function.

The court ordered the Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 and expedited the trial management conference and openness hearing.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought an early status review application concerning the child E. The mother, A.H., brought a motion for in-person access in her home, which was opposed by the Society and the father, K.T. The court granted the mother's motion for in-person access, subject to extensive supervision and conditions, including prohibitions on alcohol use while caregiving, contact with her ex-partner Mr. P., and adherence to COVID-19 guidelines.

The court found that the mother had not been transparent about her relationship with Mr. P. and had not strictly adhered to COVID-19 protocols, but that identified risks could be mitigated by supervision.

The mother brought a motion for the return of her infant child to her temporary care and custody pending the final disposition of a child protection application.

The child had been removed by the children's aid society due to concerns regarding the mother's alcohol consumption and the child's exposure to domestic conflict with the father.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would be at risk of harm if returned without supervision.

However, the court concluded that the risks could be adequately mitigated by a supervision order with strict terms, including the full-time presence of an approved supervisor in the home.

The child was ordered returned to the mother's care subject to the society's supervision.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a protection application concerning two children, S.B. and A.O.H., alleging physical harm and a pattern of neglect by their mother.

The mother failed to attend trial, and her counsel was removed.

The fathers of the children agreed with the Society's protection findings and sought custody.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's inappropriate physical discipline, inadequate supervision, lack of provision for necessities, and threats.

Custody of S.B. was granted to her father, and joint legal custody of A.O.H. was granted to her paternal grandmother and father, with primary residence with the grandmother.

Access to the mother was made discretionary for the custodial parents, considering the children's views and best interests.

Orders were also made to facilitate obtaining passports for the children without the mother's consent.

The children's aid society sought extended society care for three young children and a custody order to a grandmother for the oldest child.

The parents opposed the orders, seeking the return of all four children to their care.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the parents' history of substance abuse, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the children's developmental and medical needs.

The court concluded that returning the children to the parents was not a viable option and that the society's proposed plan was in the children's best interests.

The oldest child was placed in the custody of his grandmother, and the three younger children were placed in extended society care with limited parental access.

At the commencement of a child protection trial, the mother disclosed that her father and paternal grandmother identified with the Algonquin First Nation.

The court adjourned the trial to hear a motion on whether the children were 'First Nations children' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Finding uncontroverted evidence of the children's Algonquin heritage, the court determined they were First Nations children.

The court declared a mistrial to ensure the relevant band was served with notice and given the opportunity to participate, emphasizing the importance of reconciliation and First Nations' rights in child welfare proceedings.