Jennifer Katherine Johnson

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding two First Nations children who had been placed with their paternal grandparents following unexplained injuries while in their mother's care.

The mother sought the return of the children or unsupervised access, while the Society, father, and grandparents supported a final custody order to the grandparents with supervised access for the parents.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved mental health issues, unsafe relationships, and inability to manage the children's significant behavioural challenges.

The court granted sole custody to the paternal grandparents under s. 102(1) of the CYFSA, with the parents' access to remain supervised at the grandparents' discretion.

A motion concerning the temporary care of three children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent parents sought the return of two children (Charles and Thomas) from Society care, while the Society sought Crown wardship for those children and Society wardship for a third child (Charlotte) born prematurely during the proceedings.

The court applied the test under section 51(2) and (3) of the Act, finding that immediate risks to Charles and Thomas could be managed through intensive Society supervision and imposed conditions.

Charlotte remained in temporary Society care due to her fragility and the parents' inability to manage three young children simultaneously.

Costs decision following an application concerning ownership and control of a lakeside promenade shown on a subdivision plan.

The municipality was largely successful in establishing ownership of the land held for the benefit of the public and immunity from claims of adverse possession, though it failed on its argument that the land constituted a public highway and the respondents secured a future trial on laches regarding existing shoreline structures.

The respondents argued that the proceeding constituted public interest litigation and that success was divided.

The court found the municipality to be the more successful party but recognized the respondents’ contribution to resolving a longstanding public dispute and to advancing legal issues affecting public access.

Applying reductions for the public interest component and the respondents’ cooperative conduct, the court substantially reduced the municipality’s recoverable costs.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought an application for a declaration that a strip of waterfront land known as Lake Shore Promenade, shown on a 1914 plan of subdivision, was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondent abutting lot owners argued that the land was not a public highway and claimed possessory title through adverse possession, having maintained the land and built shore-related structures on it for decades.

The court held that while the original owner intended to dedicate the land as a public highway, the Township's acceptance of it as such was void because the land did not meet the statutory width requirements for a highway in 1914.

Instead, the land was held by the Township in trust for the public as an access way and lakeside park.

The court further held that municipally owned land held for public benefit is immune from adverse possession claims, and in any event, the respondents failed to establish exclusive and adverse possession.

However, the court found a prima facie case that the doctrine of laches could apply to prevent the Township from removing existing shore-related structures due to its long-standing acquiescence, and directed a trial on that issue.