James Clarence McIlhargey

The Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that returned a 10-year-old child (JJ) to the respondent grandparents.

JJ had been in extended society care with the grandparents for approximately 4.5 years before being temporarily placed with other foster parents.

The grandparents had brought a status review motion.

The Society argued the lower court judge misapplied Section 115(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act by failing to maintain the status quo and by placing the child in an unlicensed resource home contrary to Section 247.

The respondents contended no error occurred and the order should stand based on the child's best interests.

Counsel for the child, appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, supported the child's return to the respondents.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in law regarding the judge's discretion to change care and custody based on the child's best interests, even if the home was unlicensed, and that the judge properly considered the status quo.

The applicant sought costs in the amount of $10,000.00 in a family law proceeding concerning access to a child.

The matter began in July 2010 with the applicant seeking custody, child support, a restraining order, and no access for the respondent, who had a history of sexual offending against a different child.

Custody and child support were resolved by November 2010 and April 2011 respectively.

The access dispute continued through 2011-2013 with multiple court attendances awaiting risk assessments and proposed supervisors.

The matter was ultimately resolved on the basis of supervised access with a supervisor approved by the applicant.

The court found the applicant was moderately successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, but discounted the award by 25% due to various factors including the respondent's modest income and the lack of complexity in the legal issues.

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two children who had been in the care of their paternal grandparents pursuant to a section 57.1 custody order.

The children were apprehended due to concerns about physical harm.

The paternal grandparents agreed they could no longer care for the children.

The biological parents each sought placement of the children with them, alternatively seeking access.

The court found the children were in need of protection and made a crown wardship order, granting access to the paternal grandparents but denying access to the biological parents.