Jeffrey J. Vandekleut

A ruling on costs in a child protection matter involving a protection application for one child and a status review application for another.

The trial was heard over 16 days.

The court found that the children's aid society conducted its investigation in a patently unfair and indefensible manner, including failing to thoroughly investigate before apprehension, refusing to assign a new worker, taking a restrictive and punitive approach to parental access, and executing a warrantless apprehension of a newborn child in direct contravention of court direction.

The court awarded costs against the society to hold it accountable for its conduct.

This is a child protection matter involving two children, L and C, and a status review application.

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society sought Crown Wardship with no access for L and a Supervision Order for C. The court found that while Society intervention was necessary to protect the children from an abusive partner, the apprehension of L was not justified and the Society's subsequent handling of the case was unreasonable.

The court found the Society failed to conduct thorough investigations, failed to consider kinship care options, and abused its discretion by using access as a punitive tool rather than focusing on the children's best interests.

The court ordered L returned to his mother's care subject to a six-month supervision order and C placed in joint care of both parents subject to supervision.

The Society sought Crown wardship with no access for a young child, and a supervision order for an older sibling to remain with his father.

The mother sought the return of the younger child to her care under a supervision order and unsupervised access to the older sibling.

The court found that the Society's apprehensions of the younger child and a newborn sibling were unreasonable, and that the Society failed to properly investigate kinship care options or work cooperatively with the mother.

The court ordered that the younger child be returned to the mother's care under a six-month supervision order and that the older sibling be placed in the joint care of both parents under a supervision order.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act involving three children.

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society sought supervision orders, proposing that two younger children be placed in the care of their biological father (R.G.) with supervised access to their mother, while the eldest child remain with her mother.

The mother opposed placement with the father, claiming the child did not wish to go.

The court found the children at risk of emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of denying sibling contact, interfering with paternal access, and demonstrating lack of insight into her children's emotional needs.

The court ordered the two younger children placed in the father's care with supervised therapeutic access to their mother, while the eldest remained with her mother due to her stated wishes.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for two children based on parental drug use and alleged protection concerns.

The court found that while both parents struggle with long-standing drug addictions, the Society's apprehension of the children was not justified on the evidence presented.

The court determined that the children should be returned to parental care pursuant to a supervision order with a reintegration plan, finding that the parents' drug addictions, while a legitimate concern, did not preclude their ability to parent with appropriate support and monitoring.

The court was critical of the Society's restrictive approach to access and lack of support for the parents' rehabilitation efforts.

The applicant Society sought an order of Crown wardship with no access for two children.

The respondent parents conceded the children were in need of protection due to their ongoing struggles with drug addiction but requested the children be returned to their care under a supervision order.

The court found that the initial apprehension of the children was not justified by the evidence and that the Society had unreasonably restricted the parents' access and failed to support their rehabilitation.

Despite the parents' ongoing addiction issues, the court found they had a stable, supportive relationship, strong extended family support, and a deep bond with the children.

The court concluded it was in the children's best interests to be returned to their parents' care pursuant to a reintegration plan and a strict supervision order requiring drug testing and treatment.