Julie Daoust

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown Wardship for two children, A.B-F. (11) and E.B-H. (6), who had been in foster care for 24 months.

The mother, J.B., sought their return.

The court reviewed the children's special needs, the mother's parenting history (including losing four older children), her struggles with anxiety and anger, and her inability to consistently provide a stable and predictable environment.

The court found that the mother had not made sufficient sustainable changes to meet the children's demanding special needs.

Considering the children's best interests, particularly A.B-F.'s expressed wish not to return home and the need for permanency, the court granted Crown Wardship for adoption.

The court also ordered continued access between the siblings and limited access between the children and their mother and extended family, acknowledging the meaningfulness of these relationships while prioritizing the children's stability and future opportunities for adoption.

The appellant appealed a final order from a Superior Court of Justice judge sitting in the Family Court in Ottawa rendered under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal was within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal, based on the unified family court jurisdiction provisions.

The appeal was therefore transferred to the Divisional Court.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child, W.M.J.C., was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act, and an order of Crown Wardship for adoption.

The mother opposed, seeking the child's return under supervision or an extension of Society wardship.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's continued lack of insight into her parenting deficiencies and the significant risk of future emotional harm, despite some improvements in the home environment.

The mother's plan for care was deemed not viable, and the father was uncooperative.

The court dismissed the mother's request for an extension and ordered Crown Wardship for adoption, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

Child protection motion seeking an interim order placing three children in the care and custody of a children’s aid society under the Child and Family Services Act.

The society alleged neglect, poor hygiene, inconsistent routines, unsafe living conditions, and the use of abusive disciplinary measures.

Evidence showed the children frequently arrived late to school and that multiple support services previously offered to the mother had not been followed through.

The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that a supervision order would be insufficient.

An interim care order and a psychological or parenting assessment of the mother and children were granted.

A child protection matter where the child suffered severe injuries including liver lacerations and rib fractures of unexplained origin.

The Children’s Aid Society initially commenced a protection application but later sought to withdraw it after concluding the child was not in need of protection.

Investigations indicated the injuries likely occurred within 24 hours prior to hospital admission, but no criminal charges were laid and concerns arose regarding the child’s daycare provider.

The Society reported positive observations of the parents’ caregiving and entered into a three‑month Voluntary Service Agreement permitting supervision and services.

The court found the decision to withdraw the protection application reasonable and accepted the withdrawal.

The maternal grandmother appealed a decision confirming the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court and the legality of the apprehension of two children in Quebec by the Ottawa Children's Aid Society (CAS) in collaboration with Quebec child protection authorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children were habitually resident in Ontario, the cross-border apprehension was a practical and legal solution in the children's best interests, and the Ontario court had jurisdiction to hear the protection application.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.