Ian Scott McCuaig

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children whose father, G.C., is a convicted child sexual offender with diagnoses of pedohebephilia and exhibitionism.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought an order removing the father from the home with only supervised access outside the home.

The parents sought to continue the existing arrangement where the father resides in the home during daytime hours but sleeps elsewhere at night, with the mother providing supervision.

The court found that the children could be adequately protected while remaining in an intact family unit with appropriate supervisory conditions, rejecting the Society's more restrictive proposal as unnecessarily disruptive to the children's best interests.

A nine-day trial concerning a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that a three-year-old child was in need of protection and sought a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father opposed this and sought placement of the child in his care, subject to a supervision order.

The mother supported the father's plan.

The court found the child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Act based on the mother's past parenting history, her current level of functioning following a severe aneurysm, the father's insistence on parenting with the mother, and the father's failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency.

The court ordered crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the father's pattern of non-compliance, dishonesty, and inability to work cooperatively with professionals regarding the child's complex medical and developmental needs, including autism.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in finding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence indicating a high risk of decompensation and violent behaviour if the appellant discontinued her medication.

The respondent/payor moved to set aside a warrant of committal issued after persistent non-payment of child and spousal support and repeated non-compliance with disclosure and enforcement orders.

The court held that rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure could apply to a motion to set aside a warrant, but only within the limited scope permitted by s. 41(15) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, requiring evidence of a material change in circumstances affecting ability to pay.

Applying the established three-part test for setting aside default orders, the court found the motion was brought promptly but the payor had no reasonable explanation for his non-attendance and no arguable case on the merits.

There was no evidence of a material change, no current financial disclosure, and no payment plan.

The motion was dismissed.