Jeffrey William Maxwell Hustins

The applicants sought a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child who had been in their foster care.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption after the child suffered an unexplained elbow fracture while in the applicants' care, relying on the 'unexplained injury principle'.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the unexplained injury principle was distinguishable because the injury was less severe than in precedent cases, there was evidence of potential third-party intervention by the child's siblings, and the society had no other concerns with the applicants' care.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to proceed with the adoption application given the strong sibling bonds and the applicants' ability to meet the child's needs.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to comply with an order requiring the production of specific documents.

The respondent subsequently failed to comply with three case management directions dictating the format for its response to the non-compliance allegations, instead providing electronic links to hundreds of pages of unindexed records.

The Board found the respondent non-compliant with both the case management directions and the document production order.

Given the history of the proceedings, the Board concluded the matter without making further orders for compliance.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising six issues regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her case.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as the issues were previously adjudicated in a prior application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the submissions and found that one issue was identical to those previously decided and dismissed it.

However, the Board determined that the remaining five issues, including allegations of failing to provide reasons for decisions regarding access and file closure, were new and directed them to proceed to a hearing.

The court granted summary judgment in a child protection proceeding, finding the child, T.O., in need of protection and placing her in the deemed custody of her father, J.O., with supervised access to her mother, B.R. The decision reviews the history of parental conflict, the mother’s mental health and repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, and the father’s progress in addressing his own issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the mother’s lack of insight and continued behaviour posed ongoing risk to the child.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring the disclosure of specified documents.

Following a non-compliance hearing, the Board found the respondent non-compliant with several paragraphs of the order.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the outstanding documents, including unredacted pages and investigation records, within 14 days.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking protection findings and disposition orders for three children.

The eldest child, M.W.W., disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather, C.M., who was a respondent and self-represented.

The motion addressed C.M.'s procedural challenges regarding the Society's affidavit of documents and the admissibility of M.W.W.'s hearsay evidence.

The court admitted the hearsay evidence under the R. v. Khan test, found M.W.W. in need of protection due to sexual abuse, and the younger children (M.M. and W.M.) at risk of sexual abuse.

Deemed custody was granted to the mother, with no parenting time for C.M. with M.W.W., and supervised parenting time with the younger children contingent on C.M. completing a sexual offender risk assessment.

This pre-motion application addressed whether a Respondent Father, facing criminal charges for alleged sexual abuse, could be compelled to file an affidavit in a child protection summary judgment motion without violating his Charter right against self-incrimination.

The court found that the required affidavit evidence was "compelled testimony" under s. 13 of the Charter, thus protected from use in subsequent criminal proceedings.

Balancing the parent's Charter rights against the children's right to timely resolution in protection matters, the court dismissed the Respondent Father's request for an adjournment of the summary judgment motion pending the criminal trial.

The applicant Society brought a temporary care hearing regarding three children after the respondent stepfather was charged with sexually assaulting his stepdaughter.

The stepfather sought shared care of his two biological children, arguing they were in his charge prior to intervention and were not at risk.

The court found the children were in the mother's sole charge when the Society intervened, as police had already removed the stepfather.

The court held there were reasonable grounds to believe the younger children were at risk of harm, ordering that they remain with the mother and that the stepfather have only supervised access.

A restraining order against the stepfather was also continued.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with access.

The respondent parents, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, failed to file responding materials but were permitted to give oral evidence.

The court found the parents' evidence lacked credibility and failed to present a viable plan of care.

Applying the summary judgment framework in the child protection context, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the parents' substance misuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues, and was placed in extended society care with access.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the deemed custody of the respondent father, with parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care, and objected to the admissibility of unsworn reports from the child's treating psychologist.

The court held that the psychologist was a participant expert whose unsworn reports were admissible on a summary judgment motion.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion, placing the child in the father's custody with decision-making responsibility, and ordered parenting time for the mother.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

The Mother (B.RP) brought a motion seeking the return of her child, L.D., into her temporary care under the supervision of Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (the Agency).

The child had been removed in January 2019 due to the Mother's mental health and drug addiction issues.

Despite the Mother's significant progress in sobriety and treatment, the Agency opposed the immediate return, citing long-standing concerns, limited recent access, and two concerning incidents during prior overnight visits.

The ongoing COVID-19 crisis further complicated the matter, as the Agency had suspended face-to-face access and lacked resources to monitor overnight visits.

The court found insufficient evidence to immediately return the child, concluding there was a real possibility of harm and that a supervision order could not adequately protect the child, especially given the pandemic's limitations.

The child had been residing stably with the Maternal Grandfather for over a year.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent agency's decision to refuse her application to adopt a Métis child who had been in her care since birth.

The agency had refused the application in order to place the child with a younger half-sibling's adoptive family to foster a sibling bond.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the agency's decision, finding that removing the child from the only family she had ever known would cause unnecessary trauma.

The Board concluded that the child's best interests, including her emotional needs, continuity of care, and cultural connection to the Métis community, were best served by remaining with the applicant, while maintaining access with the half-sibling.

The maternal grandmother moved to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her 20-month-old granddaughter.

The child's parents supported the grandmother's plan of care but were not in a position to care for the child themselves.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and was unnecessary since the parents could advocate for the grandmother's plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that the grandmother had a legal interest in the case under the Child and Family Services Act and that her independent advocacy was in the child's best interests.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a s. 57.1 custody order placing the child with the father, K.M., without Society supervision, along with supervised access for the mother and maternal grandparents, and a restraining order against the mother.

The mother and maternal grandparents opposed, seeking a change in primary residence or increased access.

The court denied the Society's request for a s. 57.1 order, finding that continued Society supervision was necessary due to unresolved issues regarding the child's counselling, the father's criminal record, bruising incidents, and concerns about the father encouraging contact with the mother.

The court ordered continued supervision for one year, maintained the mother's access, increased the maternal grandparents' access, and issued a permanent restraining order against the mother.

A children’s aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking findings that three children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

The evidence included parental drug use, repeated domestic violence, criminal involvement, neglect of medical and dental needs, inappropriate discipline, lack of supervision, unstable housing, and failure to cooperate with services.

The parents filed no responding material and failed to meaningfully participate in the proceedings.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded the children were in need of protection under multiple provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

Crown wardship without access was ordered to permit permanency planning.