Jennifer A. Mealey

This is a decision on the identification of a child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

The child was previously identified under the former Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), but re-identification was necessary under the new CYFSA framework.

The court examined the statutory requirements for identifying a child as a First Nations, Inuk, or Métis child, including membership in a band and identification with a band or community.

The court found that the child was not a First Nations child, as the child was not on any band membership list and neither parent had indicated the band with which the child identifies.

Child protection appeal from summary judgment orders making two children Crown wards and terminating access.

The appeal court found procedural unfairness only in relation to the access component, given the manner in which access had been argued and the wording of the orders, but rejected all challenges to Crown wardship, kin placement alternatives, and the refusal to direct a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the statutory test under s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on access and that the evidence, including fresh evidence, did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship or show that access would not impair adoption.

The appeal was therefore allowed only to set aside the access paragraphs and replace them with an order dismissing the access claims and terminating prior access orders.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving five children from blended family situations.

The court addressed temporary care and custody motions brought by the Children's Aid Society and the father pursuant to section 51(2) of the CFSA.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm based on evidence of physical abuse, inadequate supervision, poor home conditions, and substance use.

The court made mixed determinations regarding temporary placements: one child remained with maternal grandparents despite an unfavourable kin assessment; one child remained with paternal grandparents; one child remained with biological father; and two children were placed with their biological mother.

The court emphasized that consent orders cannot be rubber-stamped without proper legal foundation and that the most vulnerable child required protection despite parental completion of some programming.

This document contains reasons for a motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma (Respondent) to admit fresh evidence on an appeal filed by the mother (Appellant), S.S., against a Crown Wardship order with no access.

The court adjourned the main appeal to allow for a full transcript of the original summary judgment motion.

The court granted the Respondent's motion to admit fresh evidence, specifically an affidavit, finding that it met the flexible test for fresh evidence in child protection cases, being relevant and potentially decisive to the children's best interests.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting Crown wardship of his child, J.F., to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) with no access.

The child, J.F., had high special needs and required stability.

The appellant had no involvement in the child's life for years and was uncooperative with the CAS.

The motion judge found no triable issues regarding wardship and placement with the maternal grandparents, who required CAS supports.

The appeal court upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the application of summary judgment principles or the determination of the child's best interests, even though Crown wardship is a last resort.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim order pending appeal to stay a lower court decision that permitted the paternal grandparents to supervise the father's access to two young children.

The father had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations involving other children, and the society argued the grandparents were uninformed and uncooperative.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and considered the best interests of the children.

Finding serious issues to be tried on appeal, including factual errors by the motion judge, and a risk of irreparable harm given the children's young ages and the grandparents' failure to review the evidence of risk, the court granted the society's motion and ordered that access be supervised by the society pending the appeal.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children (ages 11 and 9) apprehended from their mother's care due to concerns regarding the mother's mental health crisis, inadequate supervision, poor home conditions, and insufficient food.

The mother was hospitalized involuntarily for exhibiting paranoid and delusional behavior.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent's immediate care.

The court ordered the children remain in society care with graduated access to the mother, with an expectation of return to maternal care by September 3, 2015, contingent upon the mother's continued mental health stability and compliance with conditions.

The father's role remained uncertain pending further investigation.

The respondent parents in a child protection proceeding brought a motion seeking permission for the paternal grandfather to represent them in court proceedings under clause 4(1)(c) of the Family Law Rules.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the motion, citing concerns about the grandfather's prior hostile and argumentative conduct toward the society and its workers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondents had a legal aid certificate available and child protection law is complex, the evidence did not demonstrate special circumstances or special expertise justifying non-lawyer representation.

The court noted that the grandfather lacked the necessary knowledge and objectivity to provide proper legal advice and encouraged the parents to retain a lawyer with expertise in child protection law.

A motion by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma seeking a temporary care and custody order under section 51(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The society sought to place three children in the care of their mother subject to society supervision and numerous terms and conditions.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an order under section 51(2)(a) with no supervision or conditions.

The father of the youngest child supported the society's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm based on evidence of alcohol abuse, domestic discord, violence, questionable caregiver arrangements, and inadequate supervision.

The court granted the society's motion but modified several proposed conditions, finding some to be unreasonable or overly intrusive for a temporary order.

The mother brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order made in November 2011, seeking return of her two older children to her care, or alternatively, expanded maternal access including overnight visits.

The children had been in continuous foster care for over two years following apprehension in May 2011.

The father, who was the primary protection concern, died in February 2013.

The court found that while the father's death constituted a material change in circumstances, the mother failed to demonstrate that returning the children to her care was in their best interests.

The court dismissed both the motion for return of custody and the alternative claim for expanded access, finding that the mother had not adequately addressed ongoing protection concerns including substance abuse, inadequate parenting skills, and inability to manage the children's complex behavioral and developmental needs.

A child protection case involving two children, V. (age 4.5) and J. (age 3.5), apprehended on March 3, 2009.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The mother sought return of the children with a supervision order; the father supported the mother's position but sought ongoing access.

The court found both children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm due to parental neglect, inadequate care, poor supervision, and unsafe living conditions.

After a 16-day trial, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for both children, finding that return to the mother would create substantial to overwhelming risk of harm and that adoption was in the children's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child at birth and sought a temporary care and custody order placing the child with the paternal grandmother.

The parents sought the return of the child.

The court found that while the society met the test under s. 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act with respect to the mother due to her history of alcohol abuse and other concerns, it failed to meet the test with respect to the father.

The court ordered the child returned to the father's care and custody, subject to a supervision order with conditions, including that the mother not have unsupervised access.