Jessica Gagne

The applicant brought a motion regarding an international child abduction claim.

The court noted that the Children's Lawyer had not been notified and a first meeting had not been held, as required by the Family Law Rules.

Given the issues of credibility and the need for expert evidence on foreign law, the court adjourned the motion, ordered the involvement of the Children's Lawyer, and scheduled a trial of the issues.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's order placing one child in extended Society care and two children in the custody of their paternal aunt.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the test for care and custody under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and made evidentiary errors regarding treatment records, hearsay evidence, and case notes.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding errors or errors in principle in the trial judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to a consent variation regarding access.

The appellant children's aid society appealed an order granting the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness disclosure of child protection records.

The Minister sought the records to make submissions under s. 50(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding a pending removal order against the respondent mother.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Minister had a legitimate interest in determining whether a genuine lis existed in the child protection proceedings, and that the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules to order disclosure to a non-party to ensure a fair procedure.

The court also rejected arguments that the motion judge demonstrated bias during a case conference.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision finding her child, who has Down Syndrome, in need of protection and making him a Crown ward without access.

The appeal was allowed.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred by failing to hold a bifurcated hearing, improperly admitting disposition evidence during the protection phase.

Furthermore, the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider evidence supporting the mother's position and by finding the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm without sufficient evidence, including a lack of expert evidence regarding emotional harm.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's care.