Dr. Milton Blake

The applicants, who had fostered a four-year-old child since birth, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.

The child had significant developmental delays and was at risk for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

The Society intended to place the biracial child with another family who had adopted the child's half-sister, arguing the other family could better meet the child's racial and cultural needs.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants had met all of the child's needs, including her racial and cultural needs.

The Board concluded that removing the child from the only parents she had known would disrupt her secure place in the family and be contrary to her best interests.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and place him with a maternal kin family out of province.

The child had lived with the applicants since he was three days old, along with his half-sister.

The Board considered expert evidence on attachment and the potential trauma of disrupting the child's bond with the foster family.

The Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants, where he could be adopted alongside his half-sister, and directed the Society not to carry out the proposed removal.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two children continue to be in need of protection and made an order for crown wardship with permanent placement in a kinship foster home with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought return of the children to her care subject to society supervision, while the father sought return to his sole custody without supervision.

The court found that neither parent could adequately care for the children due to the mother's multiple health conditions and parenting deficits, and the father's refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues, violence, and his complete lack of contact with the children.

The court approved the society's plan for crown wardship with the children remaining in the stable kinship placement where they were thriving, while maintaining supervised access with the mother and discretionary supervised access with the father.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, several extended family members brought a motion seeking party status to advance a kinship placement plan.

The court applied the test for adding parties established in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(S.), considering the child’s best interests, delay, necessity for determination of issues, and whether the proposed party could advance a viable care plan.

The court found that the proposed caregiver being assessed for placement had a legal interest and that her participation was necessary to determine the appropriate placement of the child.

However, other relatives who supported the plan but were only in a transitional caregiving role were not necessary parties.

The court therefore granted party status to the proposed caregiver only and dismissed the motion as it related to the other relatives.

The appellant, who was found unfit to stand trial due to an intellectual disability, appealed a Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to the public and in failing to impose the least onerous disposition, specifically a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding on significant threat as reasonable, but agreed the Board erred by failing to consider whether a conditional discharge could ensure public safety.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board to consider a conditional discharge.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a two-year-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of severe mental health issues, inconsistent compliance with treatment, and limited insight into her condition, sought the return of the child under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother could not consistently meet the child's needs and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother-child relationship was not meaningful and beneficial enough to justify access, which could impair the child's future adoption opportunities.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a newborn child was in need of protection and should be made a Crown ward for adoption purposes.

The parents opposed the motion and sought to have the child placed in their care subject to supervision.

The court found that the child was in need of protection based on the mother's presentation at birth, lack of stable housing and income, intellectual and cognitive limitations, and a parenting capacity assessment revealing significant deficits in both parents' ability to meet the child's developmental and emotional needs.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child with severe congenital heart defects and other medical issues.

The child required extraordinary care, constant monitoring, and multiple surgeries, which were provided by her foster parents.

The biological parents, who had significant cognitive, psychological, and financial limitations, sought the return of the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the parents lacked the capacity to meet the child's exceptional medical and developmental needs, and that removing the child from her bonded foster family would be detrimental to her best interests.