4 total
The father's motion for unsupervised access was denied due to safety concerns, with supervised access ordered instead.
The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application alleging that two children were at risk due to a pattern of neglect and physical assault by their father.
The father subsequently brought a motion for unsupervised access to the children.
The court found that while the children have a fundamental right to maintain contact with their non-custodial parent, the allegations raised sufficient safety concerns to warrant supervised access.
The court ordered supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home, supervised by the paternal grandmother, with specific frequency and conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption within 24 hours of visits.
Board confirms removal of foster children, finding return to applicants' restrictive home not in their best interests.
The applicants appealed the decision of the Children's Aid Society to remove two foster children from their care.
The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants' foster home had been closed.
The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicants were foster parents at the time of the removal.
Applying the best interests of the child test under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board concluded that returning the children to the applicants' restrictive environment would not be in their best interests, particularly given their need for native cultural exposure and psychological assessment which the Society was funding in their current placement.
The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.
Appeal of Crown wardship order dismissed as no procedural unfairness occurred at the status review hearing.
The appellant appealed a decision making the children Crown wards without access, arguing she was denied procedural fairness at the status review hearing.
The children had previously been placed in her custody but were apprehended after a police incident involving alleged crack cocaine trafficking at her home.
At the time of the status review hearing, the appellant had relapsed into drug use and was in default of court orders.
The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant and her lawyer participated in the hearing and no adjournment was requested.
The appeal was dismissed as the disposition was clearly in the best interests of the children.
Adoption application by former foster parents refused due to safety risks from birth family.
The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.
The Society had removed the child and closed the applicants' foster home due to alleged discrepancies in mileage claims, but later cited safety concerns regarding the birth mother's knowledge of the applicants.
The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application.
However, applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the long-term safety and security risks posed by the birth family's knowledge of the applicants outweighed the child's attachment to them.
The Society's decision to refuse the adoption application was confirmed.
