Dr. Simon Williams

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended Society care for three Indigenous children with high needs.

The father sought their return under a supervision order, supported by the mother.

The court found that the protection concerns that led to the children's removal had not been mitigated by the parents, and the Society's efforts to provide culturally appropriate services and support were inadequate.

Despite the children's strong desire to return to their father, the court concluded that extended Society care was the only safe option.

However, recognizing the importance of the children's Indigenous identity and their meaningful relationships with their family, the court ordered robust access for both parents and the paternal grandmother.

The applicant sought to call two psychologists as expert witnesses in a hearing regarding his complaint that the children's aid society failed to properly investigate his reports of his daughter being bullied at school.

The experts had been retained for a separate civil action against the school and had not met the children involved.

The adjudicator ruled that the proposed expert testimony did not meet the test of relevancy and necessity, as the hearing was focused solely on whether the society fulfilled its procedural obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions, not to review the merits of the society's decision to decline an investigation.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Mother's status review application, which sought to terminate the Crown ward status of her child, TAK, and return TAK to her custody.

The court reviewed the evidence, including expert reports on TAK's trauma and consistent views against returning to the Mother.

Applying the summary judgment principles and the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, dismissing the Mother's application, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and stability.

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.