Jodi Kaiman

The applicant brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a prematurely born infant.

The mother, who identifies as First Nation, has a long-standing history of substance abuse but had recently engaged in residential treatment and visited the child daily in the hospital.

The court found that the applicant had completely overlooked the child's Indigenous heritage and failed to provide culturally appropriate services, triggering the application of the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Despite the mother's recent progress, the court granted the temporary care order, finding that the infant's need for constant care and the mother's recent drug use meant a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered substantial access for the mother and directed the applicant to provide culturally appropriate services and explore a file transfer to an Indigenous agency.

On a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on statutory findings, the finding that the child was in need of protection, and the permanent placement of the child with maternal grandparents.

The evidence established serious parental risk factors, including alleged intimate partner violence, the mother’s chronic drug use, and instability at the time of apprehension, while the child had been safely and stably placed with the maternal grandparents for most of his life.

Applying the cautious child-protection summary judgment framework under Rule 16 and the principles in Hryniak and Kawartha, the court held that a fair and just determination could be made on the written record.

The court granted a final s.102 custody order, made discretionary access for the mother, and denied the father’s request for expansive access and information rights, instead ordering limited supervised online and in-person access.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place three children (ages 11, 7, and 4) in its temporary care and custody with discretionary access to their parents.

The mother sought custody or generous parenting time; the father sought joint or sole custody, or alternatively placement with his sister.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent's care and that supervision terms would be inadequate.

The court placed the children in the society's temporary care and custody, with the mother's access fully supervised and the father granted minimum weekly unsupervised visits subject to conditions.

The decision addresses physical abuse allegations, emotional harm, parental emotional dysregulation, and the children's expressed wishes to remain in foster care.

The applicant's former spouse brought a motion to be added as a party to the applicant's proceeding against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The CFSRB dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed added party did not have a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding, which focused solely on the society's procedural obligations to the applicant.

The CFSRB also dismissed the applicant's request for costs against the proposed added party, as the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought to place the child, E.G., in the temporary care of the father, V.G., with supervised access for the mother, O.G. The court found that the mother’s significant mental health challenges, including erratic behavior and refusal of treatment, posed a risk of harm to the child.

The mother’s social media postings identifying the child and participants in the case were found to violate subsection 87(8) of the Act, leading to a prohibition on such postings and an order for their removal.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, the need for stability, and the importance of protecting the integrity of child protection proceedings from cyberbullying and intimidation.

The Applicant filed a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision not to verify physical abuse allegations regarding her children.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to order a reinvestigation or costs.

On the merits, the Board found the Society maintained appropriate communications, followed joint investigation protocols, and provided clear reasons for verifying sexual abuse but not physical abuse.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests, including decisions not to conduct a further investigation, not to address his requests for accommodation for his hearing loss, and not to provide an action plan.

Following a hearing, the Board dismissed the complaints regarding the investigation and the consideration of a family court order, finding that sufficient reasons were provided or no such decisions were made.

However, the Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding why it did not address the applicant's requests for accommodation prior to November 2018 and why a written action plan was not provided.

The respondent was ordered to provide written responses to these specific questions.

This was a three-day trial concerning an amended protection application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) seeking extended society care for a 17-year-old youth with severe special needs.

The parents, largely uncooperative and unrepresented, sought the youth's immediate return to their care, including a plan to return to China.

The court found the youth in need of protection under ss. 74(2)(b) and (e) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to neglect and the parents' inability to meet his high needs and consistent refusal of services.

The court determined that extended society care was in the youth's best interests, primarily to ensure access to crucial lifelong adult services after he turns 18, which would not be available under a supervision order or parental care.

The parents' plan was deemed insufficient and lacking in detail.

The court granted extended society care with specified access to the parents.

The appellant, J.H., appealed final child protection orders placing his children in extended society care with no access, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The appellant claimed the trial judge rejected his plan for the children's return before final submissions.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge's statements in context, applying the high threshold for apprehension of bias.

It found that the trial judge's comments, including hypothetical scenarios and expressions of preliminary thoughts, did not indicate a closed mind but rather an open one amenable to persuasion by submissions.

The appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding.

The father sought costs against both the Children's Aid Society of Toronto and the mother following a protection application.

The father claimed the society failed to involve him for over one year despite having joint custody of two of the children and despite multiple concerning incidents that should have prompted contact.

The court found the society's conduct in failing to notify the father was patently unfair and indefensible, constituting misconduct on substantive issues rather than mere procedural irregularity.

However, the court found that earlier involvement of the father would not necessarily have changed the society's recommendations or outcome.

The court awarded costs against the society as a matter of accountability and to discourage similar conduct, but declined to award costs against the mother due to her serious mental health issues.

The society was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the father.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her service concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant did not attend.

The respondent informed the adjudicator that the child had been placed with his father pursuant to a court order, and the applicant had indicated she would not attend.

As the applicant made no attempt to contact the tribunal to explain her non-attendance, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

Two child protection cases were heard on the same date following the proclamation of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 into force on April 30, 2018.

The first case involved an 11-year-old autistic child brought into care due to the mother's inability to manage significant behavioural problems.

The second case involved an infant under two months old brought into care due to the mother's mental health concerns.

Both cases were at the case conference stage with adjournments granted to allow the Children's Aid Societies to develop service plans consistent with the new statutory purposes and to report back to the court.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding in need of protection for two children based on exposure to high-conflict parental separation and the father's refusal to consent to recommended medical treatment.

The mother sought costs against the father, alleging bad faith and unreasonable conduct that prolonged the proceedings over six court appearances spanning several months.

The court found the father's conduct to be persistently and extraordinarily unreasonable, including filing excessive and irrelevant affidavit material, maintaining a meritless legal argument, failing to attend trial management conferences, and using access negotiations as leverage in the costs dispute.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a partial indemnity basis.