4 total
Human rights application dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and family status against multiple police services, a children's aid society, and the Family Responsibility Office.
At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the three timely allegations—concerning police responses to child access disputes, child support enforcement policies, and a children's aid society's decision not to investigate a report—had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence of adverse treatment linked to a protected ground.
The Tribunal further dismissed the remaining untimely allegations, some dating back nine years, finding the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
Foster parents' request for costs against Children's Aid Society dismissed as no bad faith found.
The applicants, foster parents, sought $30,000 in costs against the respondent Children's Aid Society following an emergency judicial review where the court ordered the children to remain in the applicants' care.
The court noted that while Children's Aid Societies do not have immunity from costs, costs should be dealt with justly.
Although the court disagreed with the Society's actions in attempting to remove the children right before Christmas, it found no bad faith or unreasonable conduct, as the Society was acting to protect a child.
The request for costs was dismissed.
Injunction continued to prevent children's aid society from removing children from long-term foster home.
The respondent children's aid society sought to remove two Crown Ward children from their long-term foster home and separate them, pending a review process.
The applicant foster parents applied for an injunction to prevent the removal.
The Divisional Court found no evidence of urgency or immediate harm, noting the children's need for continuity of care and to remain together.
The court ordered that the children remain in the foster home and continued the injunction pending the review process.
Mother's appeal for access to Crown ward child to teach Cree heritage dismissed as contrary to best interests.
The appellant mother, a member of the Cree First Nations, appealed a decision denying her access to her six-year-old child, who had been a Crown ward in non-Indigenous foster care since she was three months old.
The mother sought access to instruct the child about her Cree culture and heritage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the mother's intentions were positive, the proposed access would disrupt the child's secure and loving foster family unit and would not be in the child's best interests.
