Julie Daoust

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting sole custody of the children to the mother with supervised access for the father under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, proceeding by summary judgment, and applying child protection principles instead of family law principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or fact.

The court noted the father had been given an opportunity to present his case and that the evidence supported the finding that the children were in need of protection due to the father's mental health and parental conflict.

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.

In a child protection trial involving three young children, the court found the children in need of protection on grounds of actual and risk of physical harm and emotional harm arising from neglect, chronic household clutter, poor hygiene, rigid and conflictual parenting, and the caregiver’s inability to meet the children’s emotional needs.

The court accepted expert psycho-legal evidence that the children had significant attachment-related difficulties and that the caregiver’s personality structure and parenting style made meaningful change unlikely within the children’s timelines.

The court held that Crown wardship with a view to adoption was the least intrusive disposition consistent with the children’s best interests.

No access order was made, although sibling contact was expected to continue where possible.

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 moving party mother sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision confirming Crown wardship orders for her two children.

The children's aid society opposed the motion, arguing that the children had already been placed for adoption and that statutory provisions barred an extension.

The court declined to decide the jurisdictional issue but dismissed the motion on the merits, finding that the mother had no prospect of success on appeal because the proposed grounds involved factual determinations that had been fully canvassed by the lower courts.

The maternal grandmother appealed a motions judge's decision confirming the jurisdiction of the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa to apprehend two children residing temporarily with her in Quebec.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children's habitual residence remained in Ontario and that the collaborative cross-border apprehension with Quebec authorities was a practical and legal solution.

The court confirmed the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over the child protection proceedings.

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.

The appellant mother appealed two orders of Crown wardship regarding her two children, who were apprehended at birth.

She argued that the child protection provisions of the Child and Family Services Act were unconstitutional, that the matters should be heard in criminal court, and that she was denied procedural fairness at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that child protection falls under provincial jurisdiction, child protection hearings must be separate from criminal proceedings, and the trial judge made no procedural errors in managing the trial.

The court also confirmed that a finding of a child in need of protection is based on the risk of future harm, not past harm.

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.