5 total
The court granted temporary care and custody of two Indigenous children to the society for placement in Alberta.
This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of two Indigenous children, R.W. and K.D., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.
The court considered competing plans for the children’s placement: the applicant society (DBCFS) and the Western Cree Tribal Council (on behalf of Horse Lake First Nation) sought placement in a group home in Alberta to facilitate cultural and family reunification, while the respondent, L.S., sought their return to her care or, alternatively, continued care in Ontario.
The court found that L.S. had exposed the children to harm and failed to maintain their cultural connections as required.
Applying both provincial and federal legislation, the court ordered the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS, with placement in Alberta, and set out terms for supervised access by L.S.
The court granted summary judgment placing the child in the father's custody with discretionary access for the mother.
The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for the child L.K.D. to be placed in the custody of his father, L.D., with discretionary access for the mother, A.N. The child had previously been found in need of protection.
The mother opposed, seeking the child's return to her care and attempting to overturn the prior protection finding.
The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on disposition or access, concluding that placing the child in the father's custody with discretionary access for the mother was in the child's best interests, given the child's consistent wishes and the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns.
Motion to extend time to appeal child protection order dismissed for lack of merit and delay.
The mother brought a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a final order in a child protection proceeding.
The court first addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether an appeal from a final Ontario Court of Justice order lies to the Superior Court of Justice or the Divisional Court following the expansion of the Unified Family Court.
The court concluded that the appeal lies to the Superior Court of Justice and that the judge had jurisdiction to hear the motion.
On the merits, the court denied the motion to extend time, finding that the mother failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal within the required time, failed to adequately explain the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.
The court also found that further delay would be prejudicial to the child's best interests.
The court awarded sole custody to the mother and terminated the father's access due to his severe emotional dysregulation and the resulting emotional harm to the children.
A child protection application concerning two children found in need of protection due to high-conflict domestic circumstances between their parents.
The mother sought sole custody with no access to the father, a restraining order, and costs.
The father sought to reinstate access with a view to restoring joint custody.
The court found that the children's consistent refusal to see their father, combined with the father's uncontrolled emotional dysregulation, verbal abuse, past assault, and threatening comments, justified a no-access order.
The court granted sole custody to the mother, imposed restrictions on future access applications, issued a restraining order, and declined to award costs against the father.
The court ordered Crown wardship without access for a First Nations child, rejecting kin placement.
A child protection application concerning a First Nations child born prematurely to a 16-year-old mother.
The child was apprehended after the parents failed to follow safety plans.
The applicant society sought Crown wardship for adoption purposes.
The respondent mother proposed placement with her sister, C.A., as a kin placement.
The court found that the child has special physical, mental and emotional needs requiring specialized care.
After assessing the proposed kin placement and considering the best interests of the child under the Child and Family Services Act, including the child's First Nations heritage, the court determined that Crown wardship with placement in the current First Nations foster family was in the child's best interests.
The court made an order for Crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.
