Dr. MacLean

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking the immediate return of her child to her care and dismissal of the society’s protection application.

The court held that the requested final relief was not available on a motion and treated the request as a motion under s. 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act to vary an existing order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the mother’s engagement with treatment, but also concluded there remained a risk of harm to the child due to the mother’s history of mental health decompensation.

The court accepted that the risk could potentially be managed through a supervision order and provided the mother an opportunity to agree to terms of supervision.

If the mother refused supervision, the motion would be dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for two children, while the mother brought a cross-motion for their immediate return.

The mother had a history of mental health issues and was recently arrested for breaching a probation order.

She had recently entered into a Community Treatment Order.

The court found that the mother's mental health needed to stabilize before the children could be returned.

The Society's motion was granted, placing the children in interim care for three months, and the mother's motion was dismissed.

The infant appellant suffered severe disabilities due to oxygen deprivation during birth.

The respondents admitted liability, leaving only the assessment of damages at issue.

The trial judge awarded damages based on a 25-year life expectancy.

The Court of Appeal reduced the life expectancy estimate and deducted 50 per cent for living expenses during the 'lost years' from the future income loss award.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, restoring the trial judge's life expectancy assessment because the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with findings of fact absent a palpable or overriding error.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the 50 per cent deduction for personal living expenses during the 'lost years' to avoid overcompensation.