Karen Maxine Robertson

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns with a children's aid society, including the transfer of his file to a new worker.

The Board found that most of the issues had already been dismissed in a previous decision.

The Board also determined that the issue of the file transfer was currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.

As a result, the Board was barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 from reviewing the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection concerns and internal complaints.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court.

The Board found that all eight issues raised by the applicant, including allegations of abuse by the mother and the society's conduct, had been presented and addressed in various court proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The appellant father appealed an order for Crown wardship without access, arguing procedural unfairness because the trial judge proceeded with an unopposed trial after the father failed to file an answer to the Society's amended application.

The father argued that under the rules, he should have been deemed to rely on his original answer and was entitled to notice of the trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests are paramount, the original joint answer was effectively moot, and any procedural error was purely technical and occasioned no substantial wrong.

In this temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the placement of a newborn child following apprehension by the Society.

The Society sought placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner subject to supervision.

The paternal grandmother and her partner sought placement with themselves or alternatively expansive access.

The court found that the paternal grandmother alone had charge of the child immediately before apprehension and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to her care due to her serious medical conditions and observations of her being overwhelmed.

However, the court found that supervision alone would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner, with the paternal grandmother having structured access and shared responsibility for medical care, recognizing the benefit of maintaining family connections while ensuring child protection.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Indigenous children seeking Crown wardship without access.

The maternal grandfather and Walpole Island First Nation opposed the motion, arguing a trial was necessary.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their current foster placement with an Indigenous family rather than transitioning to the grandfather's care on the First Nation territory.

The court considered the children's special needs, cultural identity, continuity of care, and the grandfather's inconsistent access pattern over two years.

A motion by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection under subclause 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and for an order making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.

The respondent mother opposed the disposition sought.

On consent, statutory findings were made at the outset.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection, given the respondents' history of domestic violence, lack of parenting skills, anger management issues, and cognitive limitations.

The mother's plan for supervision was rejected as inadequate.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding that the child's best interests require certainty and permanency in a safe and stable environment that the mother cannot provide.