Jotan K. Foster

The Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society brought a motion within a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and an extension of the statutory time limit for the child to remain in care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection by consent of the parties.

However, the court dismissed the Society's request for a six-month extension of the child's time in care, finding it was not in the child's best interests given the lack of a concrete permanency plan after 24 months in care and the parents' ambivalence about resuming care.

The matter was set down for trial for further litigation planning.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking a finding that the subject child (S) is a Metis child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that the child has no connection to or engagement with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis community.

The child's father claimed Metis ancestry but did not self-identify as Metis nor identify the child as such.

The mother denied any Indigenous status.

The court found the evidence insufficient to support the Society's motion, noting critical gaps in the affidavit evidence regarding the basis of the father's Metis claim, the source of the relatives' self-identification, and the child's own preferences.

The court adjourned the motion pending better evidence and clarification of the Society's contradictory requests.

This is a summary judgment motion arising from a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Society sought to make the child a Crown ward with no access to the parents.

The mother was in default and had abandoned the child after only thirteen days of placement in her care.

The father sought placement of the child in his care subject to supervision.

The court found that the father lacked parenting ability and commitment to care for the child independently, had not visited the child since she was taken into care in October 2014, and had a long history of parenting deficiencies.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent.

This is a ruling on a voir dire motion during a status review trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent maternal grandmother sought to qualify Paul Adams as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on three matters: assessing the risk status of sexual offenders regarding potential re-offending, providing relapse prevention recommendations, and providing treatment recommendations.

The Children's Aid Society opposed only the first area.

The court denied the motion to qualify Adams as an expert, finding he lacked sufficient qualifications to offer opinion evidence on sexual offender risk assessment.