Dr. Robert Seim

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (M.) who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 38 months following apprehension due to severe physical abuse of his half-sister (F.).

The mother was criminally convicted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats.

The parents sought return of M. to their joint care under supervision; the society sought a crown wardship order without access to facilitate adoption by M.'s paternal great aunt and uncle, with whom he had been placed since age two.

The court found M. continued to be in need of protection, rejected the parents' denial of responsibility for F.'s injuries, and determined that crown wardship without access was in M.'s best interests given his secure attachment to his current caregivers, the parents' lack of insight and cooperation, and the risk of harm if returned to parental care.

The parents appealed an order making their two children permanent wards of the Crown without access.

The trial judge had granted summary judgment against the mother based on a prior agreement to be bound by a parental assessment, effectively delegating the disposition decision and depriving her of a hearing on the merits.

The Court of Appeal found this process fundamentally flawed, as the burden was on the Children's Aid Society to show no triable issue regarding the best interests of the children.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence regarding the mother's mental health progress and the parents' support network.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The applicants, foster parents of a child since birth, sought judicial review of a Director's decision confirming the Halton Children's Aid Society's decision to place the child for adoption with another family.

The applicants argued the process was procedurally unfair due to excessive delay and the admission of late expert evidence, and that the removal of the child violated their section 7 Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the delay was necessary to determine the child's best interests, the applicants had no section 7 rights as foster parents, and the Director's decision was reasonable based on the evidence of the child's attachment to the adoptive family.