Fatima Husain

Society sought temporary care and custody of two children pursuant to s. 94(2)(d) of the CYFSA on the basis of severe chronic malnutrition, failure to thrive, rickets, hypothyroidism, and persistent parental non-compliance with medical recommendations.

The younger child fell below the zero percentile for weight, was diagnosed with life-threatening hypocalcemia, vitamin D deficiency, and iodine-deficient hypothyroidism attributable to prolonged exclusive breastfeeding and a restrictive vegan diet lacking essential micronutrients.

Parents demonstrated heavy mistrust of the medical system, repeatedly delayed or cancelled bloodwork, developmental assessments, and specialist appointments, and minimized the severity of the conditions.

The older child also presented with zinc and vitamin D deficiency, low carnitines, low amino acids, and bone changes suggestive of metabolic conditions.

Court found supervision order insufficient given parental lack of insight and the urgent daily nutritional and medical intervention required.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision, the mother challenged the appeal judge's order upholding an extended society care order and varying her access status from access recipient to access holder.

The mother argued that the appeal judge should have ordered a new trial on all issues due to a finding of procedural unfairness regarding the access holder determination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a breach of procedural fairness on a discrete issue does not require a new trial on all matters when the appellate court can properly decide the issue based on the evidentiary record.

The court admitted fresh evidence but found it did not change the outcome, as the evidence supported the extended society care order.

This decision addresses two contested motions within a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CCAST) sought production of third-party records related to the Father from Correctional Services Canada, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Toronto South Detention Centre, Toronto Police Service, and the Attorney General of Ontario.

The Father opposed the production on privacy and procedural grounds.

The court ordered production of records from the Toronto Police Service and Correctional Services Canada, with adjournments for records related to ongoing criminal charges and those from the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Toronto South Detention Centre pending further submissions.

The Father also sought supervised access to the Child via telephone and video calls.

The court varied the final access order on a temporary basis, allowing supervised access with conditions including consent for CCAST to communicate with the detention centre and discretion to suspend access if necessary.

The decision balances the Child’s best interests, the Father’s rights, and the safety concerns arising from the Father’s incarceration and criminal charges.

The appellants, biological parents of a child (L) in extended society care, appealed a decision denying them leave to bring a status review application for L's return.

L had been in foster care for almost three years and was being considered for adoption.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that leave was required under s. 115(5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and that the two-year continuous care period includes time prior to an extended society care order.

The court also clarified the flexible framework for granting leave, emphasizing a child-focused approach and the paramountcy of the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the denial of leave.

This appeal concerns the interaction between a provincial legislative scheme governing child protection (CYFSA) and a federal legislative scheme for removing those without citizenship or immigration status from Canada (IRPA).

Specifically, it addresses a disclosure order granted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in a child protection status hearing.

The motion judge granted the disclosure, which was upheld by the Superior Court.

The appellants (the parent, the Children's Aid Society, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer) argued that the disclosure order improperly prioritized the Minister's interests over the children's privacy and best interests.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to order disclosure, she erred by not requiring the Minister to establish a prima facie basis for the scope of submissions or the requested disclosure.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration based on a new framework requiring the Minister to justify the scope of submissions and disclosure.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a temporary motion within a Status Review application to vary an existing final order, seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The children were previously in the mother's care under a supervision order.

The Society argued a long history of concerns including the mother's lack of transparency, non-compliance with orders, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to address the children's complex medical and educational needs.

The mother and father opposed, arguing for the children to remain in the mother's care.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under section 113(8) of the CYFSA, finding that a significant change in circumstances impacting the children's best interests required a change in placement.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with discretionary access for the parents.

The appellant children's aid society appealed an order granting the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness disclosure of child protection records.

The Minister sought the records to make submissions under s. 50(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding a pending removal order against the respondent mother.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Minister had a legitimate interest in determining whether a genuine lis existed in the child protection proceedings, and that the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules to order disclosure to a non-party to ensure a fair procedure.

The court also rejected arguments that the motion judge demonstrated bias during a case conference.

This is a status review application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning an 11-year-old boy with complex special needs.

The child was removed from the mother's care in August 2017 and placed with the father, subject to society supervision.

The mother sought custody or, alternatively, a six-month supervision order with the child in her care.

The father and society sought a section 102 custody order placing the child with the father, with the mother's parenting time to remain in the discretion of the father and P.W. (the father's wife).

The Office of the Children's Lawyer initially supported the father's position but later proposed a phased transition to equal parenting time.

The court found that intervention through a protection order remains necessary and that it is in the child's best interests to be placed in the custody of the father pursuant to section 102 of the Act.

The court ordered a phased transition of the mother's parenting time from fully supervised to unsupervised by April 2021, with specific holiday and summer schedules.

The court rejected equal parenting time and discretionary arrangements, finding the level of parental conflict too high and the mother's judgment and insight insufficient to support such arrangements.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother and father sought costs of $5,819.50 against the Catholic Children's Aid Society following a motion for disclosure of case notes from a meeting between society counsel, society staff, and doctors from the Hospital for Sick Children.

The society initially claimed litigation privilege over the notes but waived privilege prior to the hearing, rendering the motion moot.

The court dismissed the costs claim, finding that the society acted reasonably in claiming privilege, provided appropriate disclosure to the parents through a subsequent meeting with medical personnel, and that the parents' counsel became unnecessarily fixated on the privileged meeting and engaged in inappropriate conduct toward society counsel.

A motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a temporary order placing a 13-year-old child in the society's care pending final adjudication of a Status Review Application.

The child had been returned to the care of her father and step-mother in January 2020 following a protection application.

The society alleged deterioration in the child's circumstances, including concerning behaviours, lack of parental engagement in services, and risk of emotional harm.

The father and step-mother opposed the motion, arguing they were engaged in appropriate services and the child wished to remain in their care.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer also opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding no change in circumstances requiring a temporary change in placement.

This is a continuation of a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a 7-year-old child.

The court initially determined that the child should not be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, and adjourned the motion to allow the society to investigate concerns about the father's suitability as a caregiver.

Upon the matter's return, the society had completed its investigation and addressed the court's concerns.

The court found that the father's circumstances had sufficiently improved and that it was in the child's best interests to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding a seven-year-old child.

The society sought placement of the child with the father, subject to supervision, after issuing a protection application concerning the mother's mental health and ability to manage the child's behaviour.

The mother opposed placement with the father and sought to retain custody with supervision terms.

The father consented to placement with himself and proposed limited day access for the mother.

The court found that the society met its two-part test: establishing reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother, and that supervision terms alone were inadequate to protect the child.

The court placed the child in the temporary care of the father on a without prejudice basis, pending further investigation into concerns about the father's domestic violence history.

The court implemented a graduated access schedule for the mother, increasing from day visits to overnight visits as she stabilizes her mental health.

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act in which the Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a temporary order placing a 14-year-old child in its care following the child's disclosure of sexual abuse by the step-grandfather.

The society had removed the child from the grandparents' care on January 10, 2020, but failed to serve the grandparents with the court documents for the hearing on January 15, 2020, claiming police requested non-service to protect their investigation.

The court ordered the society to immediately serve the grandparents with all documents, finding that respondents cannot meaningfully participate in proceedings without knowledge of the applicant's material and that police have no authority to prevent a society from fulfilling its legal obligations under the Act.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning five children.

The society sought placement of the youngest child (L.O.), born in 2018, in its care due to severe failure to thrive and developmental delay, and placement of four older children with their mother subject to supervision.

The mother opposed removal of the youngest child and sought dismissal of the protection application.

The court found overwhelming evidence of neglect, including the youngest child's severe malnutrition and developmental delay, and a long history of chronic neglect spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the youngest child in the society's care and the four older children with the mother under strict supervision orders.

In a child protection trial, the court determined the mother's access to her child and whether a restraining order should be issued against her.

The mother suffered from severe, long-standing schizoaffective disorder, resulting in unpredictable violent outbursts and a finding of not criminally responsible for past assaults.

The court found that in-person access posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the child and was not in the child's best interests, ordering only indirect access via cards and letters subject to the grandmother's approval.

The society's request for a restraining order was dismissed because the society lacked jurisdiction as the applicant under the Children's Law Reform Act, the grandmother did not fear for the child's safety, and the mother lacked the moral blameworthiness required for a penal restraining order.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the father's appeal of a temporary order that varied his access to supervised.

The father did not appear at the motion.

The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Notice of Appeal was deficient, there was unexplained delay in perfecting the appeal, the appeal lacked merit given the trial judge's findings, and the appeal was moot because a final order had since been issued in the protection proceeding.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a 13-year-old child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting custody be granted to the father with access to the mother at the father's discretion.

The father and child supported the motion.

The unrepresented mother opposed it but did not file responding material.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the society's evidence was replete with inadmissible hearsay that violated the trial-worthy evidentiary standard required on summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

The court found the evidentiary violations unjustly hindered the self-represented mother's legal interests and prevented the court from having confidence that the case could be justly resolved through summary judgment.

A protection application concerning two young twins (M.G. and S.G., born 2014) apprehended in January 2015 following the mother's physical abuse of her older children.

The mother sought return of the younger twins to her care subject to supervision.

The society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The court found that while the mother had committed serious physical abuse against her older children, she had made meaningful progress through extensive counselling and parenting programs over 26 months in care.

The court determined that the risks had been sufficiently mitigated to permit return to the mother's care subject to a strict 12-month supervision order, following a structured two-month reintegration period.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing current risk levels rather than relying solely on past conduct, the necessity of meaningful engagement with service providers, and the principle of least disruptive intervention consistent with child protection.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking statutory findings that four children were in need of protection and orders making three children crown wards with no access for adoption purposes, and one child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding her positive changes and ability to parent.

The court found overwhelming evidence of need for protection based on the mother's history of inadequate supervision, failure to follow through with services for children with special needs, exposure to domestic violence, and inability to manage children's behaviour even during supervised access visits.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

A nine-day trial concerning a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that a three-year-old child was in need of protection and sought a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father opposed this and sought placement of the child in his care, subject to a supervision order.

The mother supported the father's plan.

The court found the child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Act based on the mother's past parenting history, her current level of functioning following a severe aneurysm, the father's insistence on parenting with the mother, and the father's failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency.

The court ordered crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the father's pattern of non-compliance, dishonesty, and inability to work cooperatively with professionals regarding the child's complex medical and developmental needs, including autism.