Helene Desormeau

Following a five-day child protection trial where the court's judgment mirrored the respondent mother's formal offer to settle, the mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society.

The court noted that an award of costs against a Children's Aid Society should be the exception, not the rule, to avoid deterring child welfare professionals from protecting children.

Finding that the Society did not act unreasonably or in bad faith but rather out of an abundance of caution, the court declined to award costs.

This was a family law costs decision following competing motions concerning the respondent mother's access to the children.

The court applied the Family Law Rules costs framework, including success, reasonableness, offers to settle, and ability to pay.

It found the applicant father was the successful party because the substantive ruling largely reflected his cautious approach to rehabilitating the respondent's relationship with the children, and because his rejected offer was essentially as favourable as the result obtained.

Taking into account the importance of the children's best interests, the absence of bad faith, and the respondent's limited means, the court awarded reduced all-inclusive costs of $1,750.00.

In a child protection motion, the mother sought temporary care and custody of two very young children, alternatively increased access, and a parenting capacity assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court applied the temporary protection risk analysis for the younger child and the material change in circumstances/status quo principles for the older child in status review proceedings.

On the evidence of longstanding neglect, supervision concerns, poor housekeeping, domestic instability, and recent serious incidents in the home, the court held the mother had not shown a material change for the older child and that returning the younger child would create a probable risk of harm not manageable by supervision.

The motion was dismissed except that a parenting capacity assessment was ordered in principle, subject to further particulars.

The applicant children's aid society sought Crown wardship of a five-year-old child who had been apprehended due to severe developmental delays and the parents' refusal to seek or accept medical assistance.

The parents opposed the application, seeking the child's return without conditions, and demonstrated a pattern of hostility and non-compliance with child protection workers and medical professionals.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, concluding that the parents failed to provide necessary treatment to alleviate the child's emotional harm and developmental delays.

Crown wardship was ordered with no access granted to the parents, as they failed to prove that access would be meaningful, beneficial, and not impair future adoption opportunities.