Karen Freed

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving four children (ages 9, 8, 4, and 1) with a history of exposure to intimate partner violence, non-accidental injury, adult conflict, and caregiver instability.

The court determined that both parents posed risks requiring removal from their sole care.

The older children were placed with the mother under supervision with strict conditions, while the younger children were placed with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

All parties received supervised access with the children, with the mother's partner prohibited from any contact.

The decision emphasizes the need for meaningful behavioral change and compliance with supervision orders before unsupervised access or return of children can be considered.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (Toronto society) brought a motion to transfer a child protection case concerning the 12-year-old subject child, H, to the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court) in Barrie.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child and Family Connexions (Simcoe society) consented, while the child's father and stepmother opposed the transfer.

The court considered whether there was a preponderance of convenience favoring the transfer, assessing factors related to the child's connections, service providers, society involvement, and the parents' location and conduct.

The court found that H's primary connections and service history were in Barrie, and the Simcoe society had more extensive historical involvement with the family.

The court also noted the parents' attempt to avoid the Simcoe society by moving the child to Toronto, which resulted in instability for the child.

The motion to transfer the case to Barrie was granted, as it was deemed to be in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child (C.O.) to be placed with the maternal aunt (M.B.), subject to society supervision, and to permit the maternal aunt to travel with the child to Ghana without the consent of the biological parents (M.O. and J.K.).

The court granted the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to make temporary travel orders as incidents of custody under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and that the trip was in the child's best interests, considering cultural heritage and family support.

This is a status review application concerning a child in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's history of substance abuse and failure to engage in prenatal care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the Society sought an order for extended Society wardship with a view to adoption by the child's foster mother.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in maintaining sobriety and demonstrating parenting capacity during supervised visits, she had not yet demonstrated the ability to parent the child full-time without supervision.

The court ordered extended Society wardship but granted the mother monthly unsupervised access to maintain the relationship.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) appealed a lower court order that granted the Respondent Mother access to her child, A.G., after the child was placed in extended society care.

CAST argued the lower court erred in its interpretation of a "beneficial and meaningful relationship" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), by considering future rather than existing relationships, and by making findings without sufficient evidentiary basis regarding the child's cultural heritage and medical history.

The Superior Court found that the lower court erred in its interpretation of "beneficial and meaningful" by rejecting pre-CYFSA jurisprudence and in making a finding about the child's medical history without evidence.

The appeal was allowed in part, the lower court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing on the issue of access.

The mother appealed a trial judge's finding that her child was in need of protection due to a risk of sexual abuse or exploitation.

The risk stemmed from the mother's brother, who lived in the home and was convicted of luring and child pornography offences involving his students.

The mother argued the trial judge erred by making the finding without expert evidence, by rejecting an expert report filed on consent, and by not requiring the risk to be present at the time of the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and upholding the flexible approach to the timing of risk in child protection matters.

The maternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her two grandchildren pending her appeal of a trial decision granting Crown wardship without access.

Due to systemic delays, the motion was heard two months after access had been terminated and a good-bye visit had occurred.

The court found that while access with one child had been meaningful, restoring access now would expose the child to the risk of a second final separation if the appeal failed.

Assessing the appeal as unlikely to succeed, the court concluded that restoring access was not in the child's best interests and dismissed the motion.

The father appealed a trial judge's order making his child a Crown ward and denying him the right of access, instead granting the child the right to hold access.

The father argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his plan of care and erred in the access determination.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The trial judge's conclusions that the father's plan of care was not viable and that granting the father access would impair the child's future adoption prospects were fully supported by the evidence.

A mother sought disclosure of her children's therapy records in the context of a Status Review Application challenging a crown wardship order made without access.

The Children's Aid Society moved to dismiss the disclosure motion and to strike the mother's application as disclosing no reasonable claim.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion, finding that the children's therapy records were protected by case-specific privilege under the Wigmore test, that the children had significant privacy interests, and that the mother's request was speculative and lacked relevance to the issues before the court.

The court also struck the mother's application for failing to establish a prima facie case for material change of circumstances or to demonstrate steps taken to address the protection concerns that led to the crown wardship order.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the parents seeking termination of a Crown wardship order and placement of two children in their permanent care with society supervision.

The parents sought final orders regarding access to foster parents.

The Children's Aid Society initially sought a termination of the Crown wardship order and society supervision, but later amended its position to seek more structured access between the children and foster parents.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the summary judgment motion, arguing that conflicting evidence regarding the children's views and preferences required a trial.

The court granted the parents' summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial despite the children's expressed wishes to maintain contact with foster parents, based on uncontested material facts regarding the foster parents' inappropriate conduct and manipulation during the reunification process.

This is a child protection status review proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Two motions were heard: one by the maternal grandmother seeking to be added as a party to present an alternative placement plan for the children, and one by the father seeking to add the paternal grandparents as parties.

The children had been in the father's care subject to supervision orders since May 2011.

The court dismissed both motions but granted the paternal grandparents limited participation rights under subsection 39(3) of the Act as essential caregivers who had cared for the children continuously for the preceding six months.

This is a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making the child a crown ward for adoption purposes.

The mother sought return of the child on a supervision order or, alternatively, crown wardship with access.

The child had been in continuous care of the society since November 2010 following apprehension due to inadequate parenting and safety concerns.

The mother had agreed to a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The court found that the mother had significant intellectual and adaptive functioning deficits that prevented her from reading and responding appropriately to the child's cues, demonstrated poor judgment regarding child safety, missed a substantial portion of access visits, exhibited housing instability, and lacked meaningful support systems.

The court concluded that a supervision order was not in the child's best interests and that crown wardship with access could not be ordered as the mother failed to establish that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

Consolidated child protection trial involving three children (S.J., N.J., and D.J.) where the Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The father had a history of violence and anger management issues, including a guilty plea to assaulting two of the children with a belt.

The mother was passive and failed to protect the children from the father's emotional and physical abuse.

Despite both parents' participation in parenting programs, the court found they had made little progress and posed ongoing risks to the children's safety and wellbeing.

The court ordered all three children to be made Crown wards without access for adoption.