Esther Lee

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 local children's aid society brought a motion to transfer a child protection proceeding to the Toronto children's aid society under s. 91(3) of the CYFSA.

The parents had a long history of family law litigation in Toronto, and the Toronto agency had extensive prior involvement investigating repeated, unverified allegations of sexual abuse raised by the mother.

The court found that the preponderance of convenience and the child's best interests favoured transferring the matter to Toronto, as the Toronto agency and courts were more familiar with the family's history of high conflict and coaching concerns.

Motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant Society sought preliminary findings regarding the child's First Nations status, protection findings under section 74(2)(b)(i), and an order for extended care with no access.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies.

The court emphasized the Society's failure to make timely inquiries regarding the child's First Nations status and native community identification, contrary to section 90(2) of the CYFSA.

The court also found the Society's evidence regarding the parents' ability to care for the medically fragile child to be inadequate, lacking sufficient detail and failing to demonstrate that the Society had provided individually appropriate services to address protection concerns.