Haley Gaber-Katz

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the applicant society sought supervision terms to protect eight children from potential sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a probable risk of harm due to credible allegations from two adult children of the paternal grandparents and the father's refusal to cooperate fully with the society’s investigation.

The court ordered supervision terms including prohibiting contact between the children and the paternal grandparents and permitting the society to interview the children privately, emphasizing the necessity of these measures to ensure the children's protection.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the applicant society sought a finding that a 15-year-old girl was in need of protection.

The society alleged physical abuse, emotional harm, and risk of ongoing harm resulting from the mother's pattern of aggressive behavior, uncontrolled anger, and unaddressed mental health issues.

The mother denied the allegations and provided sparse evidence consisting largely of bald denials.

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the society's position.

The court found that the child had suffered physical harm through repeated hitting and was at risk of ongoing physical harm, and that the child had suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety and fear, with ongoing risk of emotional harm.

The court granted the finding in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a)(ii), 37(2)(b)(ii), 37(2)(f), and 37(2)(g) of the Act.

A child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving two young children (K.P., born 2013, and A.P., born 2014) where the applicant society sought findings of need of protection and Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents, both with significant cognitive disabilities (father with FASD and frontal lobe damage; mother with intellectual disability), opposed the application and sought various supervision orders.

The court found the children in need of protection based on actual physical harm, risk of physical harm from pattern of neglect, and failure to address developmental delays.

The court rejected all proposed supervision orders due to the parents' lack of insight, poor judgment, inability to self-regulate, and demonstrated unwillingness to cooperate with the society.

Crown wardship without access was ordered as being in the best interests of the children.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court awarded costs to the child protection society against the respondent parents for two of three motions brought by the parents.

The parents' motion to vary a temporary care and custody order was dismissed, as was their motion to remove a psychiatrist's report from the court record.

The parents also brought six contempt motions (five against individual society workers and one against the agency itself), all of which were dismissed.

The court found the parents' conduct in bringing these motions, particularly the contempt motions based on flawed evidence and material misrepresentations, to be exceptional and warranting costs awards.

The court awarded costs of $4,222.83 on the variation motion and $7,008.04 on the contempt motions, but declined to award costs on the motion to remove the medical report.

The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking orders that three children be found in need of protection and made crown wards without access for adoption purposes.

The parents consented to the eldest child being made a crown ward.

During the hearing, the parents also consented to the two younger children being found in need of protection.

The mother did not oppose the balance of the motion, but the father opposed it and proposed a plan for the children to be placed with him subject to supervision.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the society's motion, making the two younger children crown wards without access for adoption.

A child protection society sought a summary judgment motion to determine whether it could order parents to pay support pursuant to section 60 of the Child and Family Services Act for a child made a Crown Ward.

The parents argued that section 60 only applies to temporary care and custody or society wardship, not Crown wardship, and that Crown wardship terminates parental rights.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that Crown wardship does not terminate the parent-child relationship and that section 60 applies to children placed in the care of a society, including Crown Wards.

The court granted the motion and ordered the parents to pay $3,000 per month for the child's care.

A child protection society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a 15-year-old child was in need of protection and an order making her a Crown ward.

The child had been in the society's care since February 2013 following a crisis involving self-harm and suicidal ideation.

The child consistently refused to return to her adoptive parents' care or permit them involvement in her treatment.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues requiring trial and that the child should be returned to their care.

The court granted the society's motion, finding the child was in need of protection under multiple grounds and that Crown wardship was the appropriate disposition.

The court rejected the parents' arguments regarding procedural fairness and the admissibility of evidence, and found that the child's wishes and best interests clearly supported the society's position.