Frank W. Philcox

A status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children (ages 4 and 5) who had been apprehended and placed in foster care.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children remain in need of protection and sought a Crown wardship order without access.

The respondent mother sought to have the children returned to her care subject to society supervision.

The court found that the children remain in need of protection due to the mother's inability to consistently manage the children's complex behavioural and emotional needs despite participating in numerous parenting programs over three years.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their stable foster placement with Ms. Ba., where their emotional and behavioural needs were being appropriately met.

In a child protection status review hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent mother brought a mid-trial motion requesting that two society witnesses be recalled for re-cross-examination.

The court denied the motion, finding that the respondent mother's counsel had adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses prior to trial and at trial, no new evidence had emerged that would warrant re-cross-examination, and allowing the recall would cause undue delay prejudicial to the children's interests.

However, the foster mother was ordered to be recalled to give evidence regarding events occurring after April 1, 2015.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside an order made on February 3, 2014, which declared her daughter a ward of the Crown with no access.

The mother sought to rely on facts arising or discovered after the order was made, arguing that fresh evidence would undermine important findings of fact and put the best interests of the child back in issue.

The court considered whether Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to child protection proceedings and, assuming it did, examined whether the mother met the conjunctive criteria for setting aside an order based on newly discovered evidence.

The court found that the evidence presented—affidavits from the child's father, a neighbour, and the mother's boyfriend—did not constitute new evidence, would not have changed the outcome, and raised credibility concerns.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, claiming the respondent was the father of her child born in 2005.

The respondent denied paternity and moved for a finding that he was not a parent.

The court found that parentage was in issue and had not been previously determined by a court.

The respondent's evidence raised an arguable case that he may not be the biological father.

The court ordered DNA testing to resolve the paternity question, which is a necessary prerequisite to determining the respondent's child support obligation.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child remains in need of protection and an order of Crown wardship without access.

The Society sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the child's siblings to third parties.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of these statements under both the state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that certain statements met the threshold reliability requirements and were admissible, while others did not satisfy the criteria for admission.

A status review application concerning a Crown ward child.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought to terminate the mother's access to the child, who had been made a Crown ward in 2009.

The mother had sought custody of the child following her removal from the paternal grandparents' home and placement in foster care.

The court found that the mother's access had been inconsistent, with numerous missed visits, and that there was no secure attachment between mother and child.

The foster parents expressed a desire to adopt the child.

The court terminated the mother's access order, finding it was no longer in the child's best interests and that the relationship was neither beneficial nor meaningful to the child.