Justine Sherman

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and placement in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal or alternatively placement in her own care.

The court found credibility issues regarding the history predating the protection application and the circumstances of the child's placement with the maternal grandmother.

The court determined that the maternal grandmother's evidence, which formed the foundation of the society's case, could not be properly scrutinized on a summary judgment motion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a focused trial to hear evidence from the maternal grandmother and the mother on the issue of whether the child is in need of protection, with disposition to be determined if a finding of need is made.

A mother sought leave to bring a status review application to regain custody of two children (ages 6 and 4) who were made Crown wards without access in November 2015 following a 12-day trial.

The children had been in continuous foster care for nearly four years.

The mother claimed significant personal changes including separation from the father, completion of parenting courses, psychological assessment showing insight, and improved independence.

However, the court found the mother's credibility was severely compromised by her submission of a fraudulent airline ticket to deny violating the no-access order, her continued involvement with the father despite claims of separation, and her pattern of deception consistent with her trial conduct.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the mother had not established a prima facie case for relief and remained ungovernable.

Paternal grandparents sought to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding and requested interim access to three children (ages 13, 10, and 4) whose mother was murdered and whose father was charged with first-degree murder.

The children were placed in the care of maternal grandparents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that adding the paternal grandparents as parties was not in the children's best interests, would unduly delay proceedings, and was not necessary to determine the issues.

The court also dismissed claims for interim access and documentary disclosure, and refused to admit a transcript from the father's criminal preliminary hearing due to fairness concerns and publication ban restrictions.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking findings that two young children (T.D. born in 2015 and A.D.-W. born in 2016) be found in need of protection and made Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother consented to the orders sought.

The respondent father of A.D.-W. opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding the finding of need of protection and the disposition.

The court granted the society's motion, finding both children were in need of protection due to the mother's significant cognitive and mental health limitations, history of domestic violence, and lack of engagement with services.

The father's plan involving placement with the paternal grandmother was rejected due to the grandmother's extensive child welfare history and the unsuitability of the home environment.

Both children were made Crown wards without access.

Two consolidated child protection cases raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the interpretation of the five-day time limit in subsection 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent A.H. argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Children's Aid Society failed to bring the matter before the court within five calendar days of the child's apprehension, as the fifth day fell on Easter Monday, a statutory holiday.

The court held that the provisions of the Legislation Act, 2006 apply to the time limit, extending it to the next day that is not a holiday when the deadline falls on a holiday or when the court office is closed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear both cases.

The father appealed a disposition order from Justice R. Spence, which made his two children crown wards with no access, after a finding that the children were in need of protection.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's factual findings in five areas: the history of domestic violence, the mother's inability to separate from the father, the characterization of missed medical appointments, the health of one child prior to apprehension, and the mother's capacity to engage with healthcare providers and the Children's Aid Society.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the facts, emphasizing the high degree of deference owed to trial judges in child protection cases.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and an order for crown wardship.

The mother left two children unsupervised for multiple days while she traveled to Montreal to be with her terminally ill husband.

The youngest child was found alone in a park without knowledge of his address or last name.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to abandonment, risk of emotional harm from the mother's untreated mental health issues including paranoid delusions, and risk of physical harm from inadequate supervision and neglect of educational needs.

The mother refused mental health assessment and showed no insight into her conduct.

The court ordered all three children to be made crown wards with access to the mother and to each other in the discretion of the society.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking a finding that two young children (D.L., age 3, and A.L., age 2) were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The children had been in care since May 2014.

The parents opposed the application, seeking dismissal and return of the children, or alternatively, return under a supervision order.

The court found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act due to: (1) missed critical medical appointments for a child with severe developmental disabilities; (2) exposure to domestic violence between the parents; (3) the mother's inability to protect the children from the father's assaults; (4) both parents' dismissive attitudes toward the Canadian medical system; and (5) the father's demonstrated pattern of breaching court orders and his hostile, uncooperative attitude toward medical professionals.

The court rejected both a supervision order with both parents and a supervision order with the mother alone, finding that neither arrangement would adequately protect the children given their complex medical needs and the parents' lack of insight and cooperation.

The court made an order for Crown wardship with no access to the parents.

A motion was brought by S.T., the fiancée of the father of two children in child protection proceedings, seeking to be added as a party to the case and to have supervised access to the children.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a society wardship order.

The court denied the motion to add S.T. as a party but granted supervised access to the children at the discretion of the Society.

The court found that S.T. was not a statutory party under the Child and Family Services Act and had not met the test under the Family Law Rules for discretionary party status.

The court emphasized the high level of conflict between the parties and the need to prioritize the children's best interests and stability.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for two children who had been in continuous care of the Society for 24 months.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding their capacity to parent the children with appropriate support.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making both children Crown wards without access.

The decision emphasized the importance of permanence and stability for children in care, the passage of time as a significant factor in child development, and the parents' demonstrated lack of sustained commitment to their children.