Fatima Husain

The respondent parents brought a motion for a costs order against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in the amount of $45,000, claiming they were the successful party following the society's withdrawal of its protection application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the society had reasonable and probable grounds to commence the protection application, acted reasonably throughout the proceedings, and that the withdrawal of the application did not constitute "success" for the parents in the manner contemplated by the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized that in child protection cases, both the society and parents typically share the common goal of family reunification, and that the society's decision to withdraw was based on the parents' successful completion of remedial programming.

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for crown wardship of a medically fragile child diagnosed with Congenital Myasthenic Syndrome.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in her care.

The court found that despite the mother's love for the child, she was unable to present a concrete, viable plan to meet the child's complex medical needs, which required specialized equipment, trained caregivers, and appropriate housing.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and made the child a crown ward with access at the society's discretion.

In this child protection summary judgment motion, the Catholic Children's Aid Society sought an order making a child with a rare medical condition (Congenital Myasthenic Syndrome) a crown ward.

The child had been in the society's care for over two years following a finding of need for protection.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to resume care with proposed supports including daycare, trained caregivers, and night nursing.

The court found that despite the mother's genuine love for the child and her completion of medical training, she had failed to present a concrete and viable plan to meet the child's complex medical needs over the two-year period.

The court granted the society's motion and made the child a crown ward with access to the mother in the society's discretion.

A 12-day trial in a child protection application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (B.F.D.) nearly three years old.

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

The father consented to both the protection finding and crown wardship.

The mother opposed the application and sought the child's return to her care, subject to a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and (g) of the CFSA based on risk of physical and emotional harm.

The court made an order for crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the mother's persistent non-compliance, uncooperative behavior, substance abuse, anger management issues, and lack of insight into the protection concerns.

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.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking an addendum to a prior decision making two children Crown wards, requesting an order for sibling access between the children at a minimum of once every two weeks.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and that an access order would impair the children's adoption prospects.

The court found it had jurisdiction to address the matter under Rule 25(19)(c) as an issue before the court but not decided.

The court granted the motion, finding both prongs of the test under section 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act were satisfied: the sibling relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child, and the access order would not impair adoption opportunities.

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.

The appellant, the paternal grandmother of two young children, appealed a family court decision granting a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the family court judge's assessment of the children's best interests, particularly regarding the appellant's inability to prevent domestic violence and criminal conduct in her home.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the decisions below and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order refusing a motion to extend the time to appeal a child protection order and dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was an unexplained delay in ordering transcripts and no merit to the appeal.

The court emphasized that delay is of particular concern in child protection proceedings where expeditious resolution is in the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.