Katherine S. Neill

This decision addresses a father's motion for parenting time after allegations of sexual abuse by the mother led to a cessation of contact with their 2½-year-old child.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the limited and unverified evidence of abuse, the history of the parental relationship, and the impact of family violence allegations by both parties.

The court found no concrete evidence supporting the sexual abuse allegations and emphasized the importance of supervised parenting time rather than a complete denial.

The decision orders supervised parenting time with a gradual increase to be managed by the Superior Court of Justice, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in high-conflict family law cases involving serious allegations.

This decision clarifies the authority to consent to medical treatment for a child temporarily placed with kin under a supervision order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA).

The court held that while parents retain the right to make medical decisions if available, the kin caregiver who has day-to-day care and is most accessible to medical professionals may consent to treatment if the parents cannot be reached.

The decision distinguishes the authority of the Society when a child is in its temporary care versus when placed with kin, emphasizing the statutory hierarchy and the need for reasonable efforts to consult parents before kin consents.

The ruling provides a practical framework for consent in complex child protection scenarios involving temporary placements with kin.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

This case concerned a dispute over the primary residence of an 8-year-old child, Paislee, following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought to maintain Paislee's primary residence in Mitchell, Ontario, while the respondent mother sought to relocate Paislee to Sarnia, Ontario, where the mother resided with her new partner and their children.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under sections 39.4(3) and 24(3) of the Children's Law Reform Act, giving significant weight to Paislee's expressed views and preferences, her bond with her half and step-siblings, and concerns regarding her relationship with the father's new partner.

The court ultimately granted the mother's request for primary residence in Sarnia, effective September 1, 2024, with joint decision-making responsibility and a revised parenting schedule.

The applicant father sought to vary a child support agreement, arguing that the non-variation clause in their Amended Separation Agreement should be set aside due to "unconscionable circumstances" arising from the unforeseen economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his income.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the non-variation clause should stand.

The court found that while the pandemic created challenging circumstances for the father, the overall history of the child support payments, including 17 years where the father potentially underpaid, did not meet the high threshold of "unconscionable circumstances" required to set aside the non-variation clause under s. 33(4)(a) of the Family Law Act.

The court dismissed the father's motion to vary the underlying child support amount but allowed him to bring a motion for a stay of enforcement or suspension of the full amount of child support for a period.

The applicant, a psychiatrist, sought an order to commit a 17-year-old youth, J.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The application was opposed by the Family & Children’s Services and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer representing J.P. The court dismissed the application, finding that while J.P. had a mental disorder and a history of substantial threats, the strict statutory criterion requiring evidence of serious bodily harm caused or attempted within 45 days immediately preceding the application was not met.

The court emphasized that secure treatment is an extraordinary measure with significant liberty interests at stake, and the "best interests" of the child, while paramount in general child protection proceedings, is not the test for committal to secure treatment.

In a child protection application, the father (A.A.) moved for a Section 98 assessment concerning allegations of sexual abuse against him and potential coaching of the children.

The court found the assessment necessary to determine the issues, particularly regarding coaching, as police opinions were deemed insufficient.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the Children's Aid Society to pay 75% of the assessment costs, with the father responsible for the remaining 25%, including a repayment plan if he could not pay his share upfront.

The court ruled that a child who is an access holder under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, is not limited to seeking an openness order only with persons explicitly named in an existing access order.

Instead, such a child may seek openness with any person with whom they have a beneficial and meaningful relationship, provided it is in the child's best interests.

This interpretation aligns with the plain language and purposeful approach of the CYFSA, as well as Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer's argument on jurisdiction for inter-sibling openness was affirmed.

The applicant maternal grandmother sought an order under s. 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to have her granddaughter brought before the court for child protection, alleging the child was not adequately protected in her father's care.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe the child was in need of protection due to a pattern of neglect by the father and that court intervention under the CYFSA was necessary, as protection could not be adequately achieved through existing Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) proceedings.

The court ordered that the threshold tests for a protection application were met, an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) order be made, and the CLRA proceedings be stayed.

This endorsement addresses two openness applications brought by siblings under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The applications sought to formalize access between four siblings, two of whom were in extended society care and on adoption probation, and two others who were also in extended society care but not yet legally free for adoption due to an outstanding appeal.

The court outlined the statutory pathway for openness orders, particularly concerning the impact of the sequence of extended care orders on children's legal rights and access.

The applications proceeded on consent, with the potential adoptive parents agreeing to the proposed openness order.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to make the final openness order, ensuring the continuation of beneficial sibling relationships.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking an order for extended society care without access to either parent.

The child was placed in care due to the mother's inability to manage the child's behaviour.

The father had no contact with the child for seven years prior to the Society's involvement.

On the motion, the parties consented to an order placing the child in extended society care with access to the mother.

The only outstanding issue was whether access to the father should be ordered.

The court dismissed the motion with respect to paternal access, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and that such access would not be in the child's best interests.

A motion to change regarding the education of a 12-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder 2 (ASD2) and severe intellectual disability.

The mother sought to continue home schooling the child, while the father sought an order requiring the child to attend a specialized school for high-needs children.

The court considered the Education Act requirements for compulsory education and the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court ordered that the child attend the specialized school, finding that the school setting with skilled staff, structured routines, and peer interaction would best serve the child's developmental needs and maximize his potential.

A mother sought leave to bring a status review application regarding three children who had been made Crown wards without access.

The children had been in the same foster placements for over six years and were thriving.

The court applied the five-part test for leave to bring a status review application and found that the mother failed to satisfy all five criteria.

The court found that the mother had not demonstrated bona fides, had not established an unusual circumstance, and had not proven a prima facie case.

The mother had not addressed the underlying protection concerns identified at trial, particularly her personality disorder and impulsive decision-making.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, emphasizing the importance of permanency and stability for children in care.