Fatima Husain

In child protection appeal proceedings, the society brought a motion seeking disclosure of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s clinical investigator notes, which the court held were protected by solicitor-client privilege and refused to disclose.

The motion was dismissed and the responding parties sought costs.

Although costs are not presumptively awarded against a children’s aid society under rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court exercised its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the society engaged in procedural misconduct by attempting to re‑litigate disclosure issues after previously withdrawing a similar motion, causing unnecessary expense to the opposing parties.

Exceptional circumstances justified a costs award against the society.

In a child protection appeal, the moving party sought disclosure of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s clinical investigator notes and records relating to a child represented by counsel.

The request was brought under s. 74 of the Child and Family Services Act after the Office of the Children’s Lawyer filed affidavits in support of a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The court held that communications between the child, counsel, and the clinical investigator assisting counsel formed part of the solicitor‑client relationship and were protected by solicitor‑client privilege.

The privilege belonged to the child and could not be waived by other parties.

The court further found that compelling disclosure would undermine the confidentiality essential to effective child representation and would also amount to an abuse of process given earlier opportunities to seek the material.

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.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial and that he had undergone rehabilitation.

The court found that the Society had established a prima facie case based on evidence of the father's extensive criminal history including violent offences, domestic violence against the mother, substance abuse, mental health issues, non-compliance with court orders, and the children's special needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children Crown wards without access.