Heather L. Katarynych

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

The mother sought trial costs of $21,919.39 against the Catholic Children's Aid Society.

The court found that while the society's overall conduct did not warrant a full costs award, the society engaged in serious unfair dealing by injecting unsubstantiated risk factors (alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness) into its risk assessment documents regarding the mother.

The court awarded partial costs of $5,000 to the mother, finding that this misrepresentation constituted a "smearing" of the parent that violated principles of fair dealing required under child protection law.

The court emphasized that child protection agencies must maintain proportionate intervention, provide fair disclosure, and avoid manipulating risk calibration through false information.

The applicant mother sought the return of her nearly six-year-old daughter to Trinidad under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

The respondent father had wrongfully removed the child from Trinidad in November 2011 and retained her in Canada for approximately two and a half years without the mother's consent or acquiescence.

The father argued that Trinidad was not the child's habitual residence and raised defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, claiming the child was settled in her new environment and that return would pose a grave risk of harm.

The court found that Trinidad was the child's habitual residence, the removal was wrongful, the child was not sufficiently settled in Canada to invoke the Article 12 exception, and the Article 13 defences lacked credible evidence.

The court ordered the child's return to Trinidad in the mother's care.

The Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order for two boys (ages 10 and 9) following a finding of need of protection under the "consent inability to care" ground.

The mother opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under specified conditions.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in managing her alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder, she remained unable to provide full-time parenting without jeopardizing her own mental health and the children's wellbeing.

The court granted Crown wardship orders and adopted the society's foster parent adoption plan, finding that the children required continuity of care that the mother could not provide.

No access order was attached to the Crown wardship.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a Crown wardship order to free a child for adoption.

The child had been apprehended from her mother's care in March 2012 due to the mother's untreated schizophrenia and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother sought return of the child under court-ordered supervision.

The father, who had been absent from the proceedings for over a year, appeared at trial seeking placement of the child with him and his common law partner.

The court found that neither parent could adequately meet the child's needs.

The mother's mental illness posed ongoing risk despite medication compliance, and the father's pattern of deception, lack of involvement, and uninformed planning made placement with him unsafe.

The court granted Crown wardship to enable adoption as the only option likely to promote the child's best interests, protection, and wellbeing.

The applicant father sought temporary custody of two young children and permission to relocate them to France.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer and sought return of the children to her primary care.

The court found that the father's concerns about the mother's mental health deterioration during the summer were credible and well-grounded, supported by observations from multiple independent sources including the Children's Aid Society.

The court determined that the father could provide greater stability for the children at that time and granted him temporary custody with supervised access for the mother.

The court also granted permission for the father to relocate with the children to France, finding that Canada was not the appropriate jurisdiction for long-term parenting arrangements given immigration constraints, language considerations, and the availability of family support in France.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of an infant (A.S.) under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society relied on a SCAN (Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect) report indicating suspected inflicted injuries, including a lip laceration and rib fracture.

The parents opposed the motion and sought return of the child to their care.

The court found that the society failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm in the parents' care.

The court emphasized that the SCAN opinion, while one piece of evidence, could not be the sole basis for the society's belief about risk.

The court found the parents to be credible, caring, and cooperative, with no evidence of abuse or neglect.

The motion was dismissed and the child was ordered returned to the parents' care.

The applicant mother brought two motions: one seeking to strike the respondent father's case for failure to comply with a disclosure order, and another seeking security for costs of a custody trial estimated at $50,000 on private retainer or $20,000-$30,000 with Legal Aid.

The father opposed both motions and sought dismissal.

The court found that while the mother established grounds for a security for costs order based on the father's non-Ontario residence and lack of sufficient financial disclosure, a trial was not necessary.

The father's joint custody claim was characterized as a nuisance claim due to his persistent secrecy about his circumstances, lack of legal status in Canada, and failure to provide adequate disclosure despite repeated court orders.

The court made the mother's temporary custody order final and stayed the father's joint custody claim under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules.