Jennifer Ho

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two young children in extended society care.

The children had been out of their parents' care for significant periods due to concerns regarding intimate partner violence, untreated substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The parents did not file affidavit evidence in response to the motion.

The court found that despite periods of positive engagement, the parents had not demonstrated sustained progress or insight into their issues, and had not visited the children in several months.

The kin caregiver was unable to provide a permanent plan.

Applying the principles of summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The children were found to be in need of protection and placed in extended society care, with specified access for the parents and the kin caregiver.

The Crown appealed from the respondent's acquittal on a charge of sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient under the legal standards established in R. v. R.E.M. and R. v. Sheppard.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons, while brief and delivered orally, were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge clearly explained that she was left with a reasonable doubt because, faced with conflicting versions of events from the complainant and the respondent's text messages, she could not determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court emphasized that in credibility-based trials, a reasonable doubt can arise when the trial judge is unable to resolve conflicting evidence.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the police lacked objectively reasonable grounds to arrest Blake Correia and Tabatha Hamilton for possession for the purpose of trafficking, resulting in breaches of their section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court excluded all evidence seized pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, including cocaine, methamphetamine, and other items.

The decision emphasizes the necessity for specific and detailed evidence regarding police experience and the factual basis for reasonable grounds to arrest, particularly in drug trafficking investigations involving surveillance.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children (I.D., A.D., H.D.) were in need of protection and an order for their placement with the maternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court found the children to be Inuit based on their strong self-identification and cultural participation, despite some uncertainty regarding ancestral connection.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's failure to protect them from a father with sexual offense charges, her emotional dysregulation, and health issues affecting her parenting capacity.

The court ordered the children's placement with the maternal grandmother for six months under Society supervision, emphasizing the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children under the Federal Act.

The accused, TP, faced five criminal charges: assault, mischief to property, dangerous operation of a conveyance, uttering threats, and failing to comply with an undertaking, stemming from a tumultuous separation from her partner, CR, and a house fire.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of the key witnesses, including TP and CR, finding both generally unreliable due to inconsistencies and animosity.

Ultimately, TP was convicted of mischief for intentionally breaking a door at a neighbour's residence while attempting to retrieve her children.

She was acquitted of the remaining four charges, as the Crown failed to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, often due to uncorroborated testimony or reasonable doubt regarding the exact words of the threat and authorship of messages.

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The accused, Clayton Forrest, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and fentanyl.

The fentanyl charge was amended to simple possession.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on items found in a backpack linked to Forrest.

The court found the chain of continuity for the seized drugs was proven.

However, while the court found Forrest owned and controlled the backpack and its contents, including the methamphetamine, it had a reasonable doubt that the methamphetamine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, given the quantity and other circumstances.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding Forrest's possession of fentanyl due to conflicting evidence on its location.

Forrest was found guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine and not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and simple possession of fentanyl.

Clayton Forrest brought an application for standing under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to challenge the validity of a search warrant executed by the Ontario Provincial Police at a dwelling house.

Forrest was found in the basement of the searched unit, where controlled substances and personal items were seized.

He argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement as a guest.

The court applied the "totality of circumstances" test, considering factors such as presence, control, ownership, and historical use.

Despite Forrest's subjective expectation and presence, the court found that he did not objectively establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area, which appeared to be a storage/drug use area rather than his living quarters, and his stated residences elsewhere contradicted his claim.

The search warrant for the unit was deemed to extend to the basement.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order for extended society care for the child, C.R.P., who is an Inuk child and has been in care beyond statutory timelines.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a triable issue regarding the child's best interests, particularly given her improving mental health and active search for housing.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, emphasizing the "highly cautionary" approach to summary judgment in child protection cases, especially those involving Indigenous children, and the need to consider "super weighted" best interests factors under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the interplay of statutory timelines and Indigenous child welfare principles.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order regarding two children, aged 12 and 14 months.

The children had been removed from the mother's care following incidents of domestic violence and substance abuse, and placed with relatives.

The mother sought the return of the children.

The court found that the parents had repeatedly breached voluntary services agreements and that there was a risk of harm to the children if returned to the mother's care.

The court ordered that the children remain in their current placements.