Karen Ksienski

This costs endorsement arose from a father's (D.S.) motion for travel consent for his child, which the mother (C.P.I.) initially withheld, forcing the father to bring a motion.

The mother eventually consented at the hearing.

The father sought $1,000 in costs.

The court reviewed the principles for costs in child protection cases, noting that while a high threshold for inter-parental costs generally applies, it is lowered when the dispute primarily resembles a domestic access issue rather than a challenge to the Children's Aid Society's intervention.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, for ignoring the father's requests and forcing him to incur legal costs.

The father was awarded the full $1,000 sought, payable in installments, despite the mother's limited income, to deter unreasonable behaviour and ensure compliance with court orders.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a status review application.

The court addressed the issue of whether a party from a previous status review application automatically remains a party in a new one.

The court determined that party status does not automatically roll over and that the maternal grandfather, who was a party in a prior proceeding, no longer met the statutory definition of a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, nor did he meet other criteria for party status or notice.

Relying on its inherent authority to control its own process, the court ordered the removal of the maternal grandfather as a party, finding it to be in the child's best interests and to prevent unnecessary delays and costs.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought extended society care for the child ES, who had been in care for over 26 months.

The mother opposed, seeking return of the child under supervision, while the father supported the society's plan.

The court found a continuing need for protection due to the mother's struggles with finances, housing, employment, mental health, and inconsistent parenting, as well as her lack of insight and litigious behaviour.

The court dismissed the mother's request for return and for a further extension of interim society care, granting extended society care to the society.

The father was designated an access holder, while the mother was designated an access recipient, with both having minimum monthly access.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final custody order for the child to her father, S.J., under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother, A.P., opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care or more expansive unsupervised parenting time, arguing that genuine issues required a trial.

The father and the child's counsel (OCL) consented to the CCAS's proposed order.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and ordered the child to remain in the father's primary care with sole decision-making authority, and specified supervised parenting time for the mother.

This case involves two Status Review Applications brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning four children.

The Society sought extended society care for all children, while the father sought a twelve-month supervision order for all children to be placed with him.

The mother agreed to extended society care for the children.

The court assessed the children's best interests, considering their special needs, the parents' ability to provide consistent care, and the father's history of non-compliance and undermining placements.

The court found the father unreliable and secretive.

Ultimately, the court ordered extended society care for all four children, with specific access provisions where the children are the access holders, and the parents are the recipients, subject to the children's views and the society's discretion.

This case addresses motions within a child protection status review application concerning the temporary care and custody of a 7-year-old child.

Following the criminal charging of the maternal grandfather, who previously had custody, the mother and father each sought temporary care.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CCAS) proposed joint care.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' high conflict, rejected joint custody.

It ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, with significant access to the father, and mandated counseling for both parents to mitigate conflict.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to place a 12-year-old child, B., in the temporary care of his mother, subject to supervision.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary care of B. or increased access.

The court applied a flexible, contextual analysis for varying temporary care orders under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the father lacked insight into B.'s long-standing hygiene, social, and mental health issues, and had not adequately addressed protection concerns.

In contrast, the mother demonstrated significant commitment and a concrete plan to address B.'s needs.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the society's motion, placing B. in the mother's temporary care with society supervision, while crafting an access order to foster B.'s connection with his father.

Parents brought a motion to set aside a final child protection order placing their child in extended society care with no access.

The child had been in society care since shortly after birth.

The parents did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis.

The parents argued the trial should not have proceeded due to an alleged stay, lack of notice, consent from the society and judge to set aside the order, conflict of interest by society counsel, institutional racism, and general unfairness.

The court dismissed all arguments, finding the parents had adequate notice, deliberately chose not to attend trial, presented no meritorious defence, and that setting aside the order would cause fundamental injustice to the child who required finality in the proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing a three-year-old child with the maternal grandfather.

The motion was prompted by serious allegations of sexual abuse against the grandfather and domestic violence.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that placement with the society was in the child's best interests, citing the grandmother's lack of protective capacity, her historical pattern of abandonment, and her failure to disclose known abuse allegations to the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 116(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to vary a December 10, 2018 order placing a 12-year-old child in the mother's care.

The society sought to place the child in its temporary care and custody.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to retain custody or alternatively place the child with her sister (the maternal aunt).

The court found that the mother had breached substantially all terms of the supervision order, including failing to maintain stable housing, refusing to sign consents for the society to communicate with medical professionals, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court determined that the child's best interests required removal from the mother's care and granted the society's motion for temporary custody with access in the society's discretion.

The society was directed to investigate a kinship placement with the maternal aunt.

A motion to vary a temporary care and custody order under section 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been placed with maternal great aunts following apprehension due to inappropriate discipline by the mother's boyfriend.

The placement subsequently broke down due to the children's difficult behaviour, particularly one child's mental health deterioration.

The court considered whether to place the children with the father or in the care of the society.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the four-part test from K.D., ultimately determining that placement with the father remained inappropriate due to his lack of insight into domestic violence exposure, failure to address the children's special needs, and breach of court orders.

The court ordered the children placed in the temporary care and custody of the society with access at the society's discretion.

This is a temporary care and custody motion concerning four children.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the children in the care of their maternal great aunts, a position supported by the mother and counsel for the children.

The father sought placement of all four children in his care or, alternatively, increased access in his home.

The court found that the children should remain in the care of their maternal great aunts due to the mother's failure to protect them from physical abuse and inappropriate discipline by her boyfriend, and due to significant concerns regarding the father's plan, including his lack of insight into the effects of domestic violence on the children, inconsistencies in his evidence, and his unwillingness to comply with society conditions.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the maternal great aunts subject to society supervision, with both parents having access at a minimum of once per week at the society's discretion.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision finding her child, who has Down Syndrome, in need of protection and making him a Crown ward without access.

The appeal was allowed.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred by failing to hold a bifurcated hearing, improperly admitting disposition evidence during the protection phase.

Furthermore, the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider evidence supporting the mother's position and by finding the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm without sufficient evidence, including a lack of expert evidence regarding emotional harm.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's care.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a four-year-old child with Down's syndrome.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a Crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, return of the child to her care without supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for and supervise the child, including her resistance to accepting the child's Down's syndrome diagnosis, her failure to cooperate with service providers, her inappropriate expectations of the child, and her pattern of suspending and resuming access to the child.

The court made a Crown wardship order without access.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 is in need of protection and should be made a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding whether she had made sufficient progress in addressing the issues that led to the child's removal.

The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the need for protection finding and that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The mother's history of serious abuse of previous children, lack of engagement with recommended services, uncooperativeness with the society, poor judgment, and significant cognitive and mental health issues that were not amenable to change all weighed against return to parental care.

In a child protection proceeding, the respondent father brought a motion seeking DNA testing to determine biological parentage and requesting that the child protection society pay for the testing costs.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to order DNA testing under section 10 of the Children's Law Reform Act, despite the proceeding being under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that DNA testing was in the best interests of the child and ordered the society to arrange and pay for the testing.

A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act seeking a finding that a child born in 2013 is in need of protection and should be made a crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother, aged 19 at trial, opposed the application and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively to the grandmother's care.

The respondent father did not participate and was noted in default.

The child had been apprehended twice and was in the society's care for over 20 months.

The court found the child in need of protection based on the mother's immaturity, anger management issues, depression, poor judgment, inability to maintain stable housing, and failure to comply with court orders and supervision terms.

The court rejected both the mother's and grandmother's plans as inadequate to protect the child and made the child a crown ward with no access to facilitate adoption.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a warrant to apprehend and return a child in care pursuant to subsection 41(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child, age 13, had run away from foster care for the third time since July 2014.

The respondent mother supported the application.

The court determined that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has authority to issue such a warrant when acting as a justice of the peace under section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

The evidence met the statutory test: the child was under 16, had left care without consent, and there were reasonable and probable grounds that no other course of action would adequately protect the child.

The warrant was granted.

A motion for temporary care and custody of three young children apprehended by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The father sought placement of the children in his care, while the society sought to maintain temporary custody.

The court found that despite the father's efforts and family support, the children could not be adequately protected in his sole care due to longstanding concerns regarding domestic violence, inadequate home conditions, failure to meet developmental needs, poor school attendance, inability to arrange appropriate services, and the parents' intellectual limitations.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with supervised access to both parents.