Farrah Manji

This decision addresses two motions: a request for costs by A.V. against the Durham Children's Aid Society due to procedural missteps regarding police records, and a motion by the children's maternal great grandparents for party status.

The court dismissed A.V.'s costs claim, finding that the Society had taken ameliorative steps and that a costs order would transfer public funds without further achieving the objectives of costs.

The court also dismissed the great grandparents' motion for party status, concluding they were not statutory parents and did not meet the discretionary test under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, citing concerns about delay, lack of a clear plan, and potential for increased family conflict.

This decision provides an update on an ongoing child protection application, detailing the progress of the Durham Children's Aid Society and respondent father A.V. in implementing previous court orders regarding the child J.'s care, schooling, and counselling.

It notes less positive developments with respondent parents D.F. and C.S., including a new child's removal and potential file transfer from another jurisdiction.

The court addressed an informal request by the maternal great grandparents for party status, directing them to bring a formal motion with evidence and legal submissions.

The decision also sets out a schedule for costs submissions from A.V. against the Society and adjourns the matter for further attendance.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children, seeking to place them with their great grandparents.

The parents opposed the placement, raising concerns about violence, drug use, and criminal activity in the proposed home.

The court found the society's evidence regarding the proposed placement to be incomplete and lacking transparency.

The court dismissed the society's motion to place the children with the great grandparents and ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The court also ruled that the society does not require a court order to use police occurrence reports already provided to it pursuant to the duty to report.

The mother (J.L.B.) brought a motion for various temporary orders, including the return of her child to her care under a supervision order.

While the placement of the child with the mother was agreed upon, three supervision terms and one access term remained in dispute.

The court imposed a term requiring the mother to have an alternate caregiver when using marijuana.

It rejected the Children's Aid Society's policy of an absolute ban on corporal punishment, instead applying the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis of s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits mild, corrective physical discipline under specific circumstances.

The court also rejected the mother's request to impose supervision terms directly on the 9-year-old child and affirmed the mother's autonomy in deciding access arrangements with extended family, requiring her to consider the child's views.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer also participated in the hearing.