Julia R. Vera

This case involves two Status Review Applications brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning four children.

The Society sought extended society care for all children, while the father sought a twelve-month supervision order for all children to be placed with him.

The mother agreed to extended society care for the children.

The court assessed the children's best interests, considering their special needs, the parents' ability to provide consistent care, and the father's history of non-compliance and undermining placements.

The court found the father unreliable and secretive.

Ultimately, the court ordered extended society care for all four children, with specific access provisions where the children are the access holders, and the parents are the recipients, subject to the children's views and the society's discretion.

The society brought a motion for temporary care and custody, seeking to place a child with his maternal grandmother due to his sexualized behaviours towards his younger sister.

The parents sought to have all children placed in their temporary care and custody subject to supervision.

The court found that while there was a risk of harm, the society did not meet its onus to show that the children could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The court ordered that all children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the parents subject to strict terms of supervision, including the use of cameras, door alarms, and the requirement that the child sleep in the parents' bedroom.

The father appealed a summary judgment decision that limited his access to his daughter, N.B., to written contact, subject to the child's wishes for further contact.

The father argued that the summary judgment judge improperly considered hearsay evidence and failed to apply principles of justice and fairness.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The court emphasized that the summary judgment judge's decision was child-focused, based on N.B.'s expressed fears and wishes, and that the father had not sought to cross-examine deponents or introduce fresh evidence at the appropriate time.

Unmarried parents of a child born in Mexico brought the child to Chicago, Illinois in June 2015.

The mother left with the child in July 2015 and entered Canada, claiming she was fleeing an abusive relationship.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the child's return to Illinois.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the child had no habitual residence because the mother did not have a settled intention to reside in Illinois when she entered the United States.

Additionally, even if Illinois were the habitual residence, the removal was not wrongful because the father had no custody rights under Illinois law at the time of removal, and the emergency protection order he obtained was issued after the child had already entered Canada.

A child protection agency sought to reopen a trial after evidence had concluded and submissions had been made, but before judgment was rendered.

The agency wished to introduce a psychological assessment of the child conducted by an expert who had not testified during the trial.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced during the agency's case-in-chief, that reopening would cause significant delay in a matter where timely permanency planning was critical, and that the timing of the motion suggested the agency only sought to introduce the evidence after confirming it would support their case.

The court found that allowing the motion would be unfair to the respondent and contrary to the child's best interests.

A protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning a child (D.R.) born in 2004.

The child's parents, M.R. (mother) and C.R. (father), had not communicated since two months after the child's birth.

The society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection pursuant to clauses 37(2)(f) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the mother had consistently failed to support the child's relationship with the father and had caused emotional harm through her actions.

The court found that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's interference with the father-child relationship and her rigid belief that the father had abused the child, despite investigations finding no evidence of abuse.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the father's care subject to society supervision for 12 months, with the mother's access to be at the society's discretion.

The court emphasized the need for therapeutic intervention with the mother to address her dysfunctional beliefs about the father.