Tara Noble

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.

In a family law trial proceeding on an uncontested basis, the applicant father sought final sole custody of the parties’ young child after the respondent mother removed the child from Canada and relocated to the United States.

The child was eventually located and returned to Canada following court orders and enforcement assistance.

Evidence included an Office of the Children’s Lawyer s.112 report, testimony from CAS workers, and other witnesses regarding parenting capacity and family history.

The court found the father was presently able to provide a stable home environment while the mother had demonstrated instability and decision‑making inconsistent with the child’s best interests.

Sole custody was granted to the father with the mother limited to supervised in‑person access and structured electronic contact.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children, J.B. (born 2004) and T.B. (born 2008), were in need of protection and an order making them Crown wards for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, S.S.B., opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under Society supervision.

The court found both children in need of protection based on physical harm inflicted by the mother, risk of future physical harm, and risk of emotional harm.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards and rejected the mother's plan for return to her care, finding that the mother's long-standing parenting deficiencies could not be adequately addressed and that Crown wardship with a view to adoption best served the children's interests.