Julie-Ann Marie Kirkpatrick

This appeal concerned the liability of Children's Aid Societies (CAS) and the Ontario government for damages arising from flawed hair follicle drug and alcohol test results from the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory (MDTL) used in child protection proceedings.

Family members (parents and siblings) of children apprehended by CASs sued for negligence, negligent investigation/supervision, intentional infliction of mental distress, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches.

The motions judge dismissed these claims, finding that CASs and Ontario did not owe a private law duty of care to parents or family members, as their primary duty is to the child's best interests, creating an untenable conflict of interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision, affirming that the CAS's duty is solely to the child, and Ontario's duties are general public duties, not private law duties to individuals in child protection matters or related to laboratory oversight.

The court also rejected claims of bad faith and Charter breaches as being disguised negligence claims, and dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, finding these duties are owed to the Indigenous child, not the Indigenous parent.

In a group of six child protection appeals, the appellant J.B. brought a motion to reconstitute the panel, seeking to replace one of the judges due to her involvement in a prior unanimous decision that had reinstated a no-access order against J.B. The appellant argued for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal denied the motion, reaffirming the strong presumption of judicial impartiality and the high burden on the party alleging bias.

The court held that a judge's prior ruling against a party on a legal issue in a different case does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias for a new case involving different legal issues, even if the parties are the same.

The court heard multiple motions to strike claims against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ), various Children's Aid Societies (CAS), and an expert witness (Julia Klein).

These claims arose from the use of unreliable hair follicle drug testing by the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory in child welfare investigations and proceedings, leading to children's apprehension and, in some cases, Crown wardship.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of Charter rights, bad faith, and other torts against the defendants.

The court granted all motions to strike, finding that HMQ and the CAS did not owe a private law duty of care to the parents or children in their supervisory or investigative roles, as their paramount duty was to the child's best interests.

Many claims were also deemed impermissible collateral attacks on existing court orders.

The claim against the expert witness, Julia Klein, was struck due to witness immunity and a lack of causal connection between her testimony and the alleged damages.

This is a second appeal in a child protection matter involving a 10-year-old child made a Crown ward with no access for adoption purposes.

The biological parents appealed the no access order.

The first appeal judge, while finding no error with the trial judge's determination, nonetheless ordered access followed by an openness hearing, made findings of ineffective assistance of counsel against trial counsel, and ordered personal costs against her.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Society's appeal, restored the trial judge's no access order, dismissed the parents' cross-appeal seeking declarations of Charter violations and miscarriage of justice, and allowed trial counsel's cross-appeal on the ineffective assistance findings and costs order.

This appeal addressed systemic failures in the child welfare system, including trial counsel incompetence, judicial bias, and inordinate procedural delay, which led to a child remaining in legal limbo for over four years.

The court found the parents' trial counsel incompetent and the trial process unfair.

While the Crown wardship order was not challenged on appeal, the court overturned the "no access" order, replacing it with a contact order for the parents and the child.

It also established a "Pathway Plan" for an Openness Order Hearing, acknowledging a legislative conflict between a child's right to contact with parents and the requirement that such contact not impair adoption opportunities.