Katie Skinner

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order to place two children (J.W. Jr. and A.D.) in the permanent care and custody of a kin caregiver (C.R.) under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Society also sought orders regarding access for the mother (S.D.) and fathers, and the kin caregiver's ability to secure documentation and travel with the children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children, but did not file affidavit evidence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's untreated and recurring mental health issues posed a high and unmitigated risk to the children, and her plan of care was not in the children's best interests.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, emphasizing the children's need for permanency, their special needs, and their Métis cultural connection with the kin caregiver.

This case concerns a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, where the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a final custody order for the child, LN, to the father and stepmother, with supervised access for the mother.

The mother sought custody of the child for herself.

The court found a continuing need for a protection order due to the mother's untreated ketamine addiction, her inability to recognize and meet the child's needs, and her volatile behavior during visits.

The court determined that placing the child in the custody of the father and stepmother was in the child's best interests, as the child had thrived in their consistent and structured care.

The mother's access was ordered to remain supervised, and the father and stepmother were granted full control over the child's documents and travel.

This is a Status Review application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning two children, AR (14) and AY (7).

The Society sought an order placing the children in the custody of their maternal aunt and uncle, with no access for the father and a restraining order against him.

The father, M.J., initially sought the children's return or liberal access, then proposed a further 6-month supervision order.

The court found an ongoing need for protection due to the father's incarceration (charged with the mother's murder), untreated mental health issues, history of family violence, and alcohol abuse.

Considering the children's consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and uncle and have no contact with their father, and the aunt and uncle's ability to meet the children's needs and provide stability, the court granted the Society's requested orders.

The maternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The child had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for approximately 33 months, exceeding the statutory 24-month time limit.

The court dismissed the grandmother's motion, finding that adding her as a party would cause undue delay in proceedings that had already exceeded statutory time limits, and that her proposed plan was not in the best interests of the child.

The child had expressed stress during visits with the grandmother and had formed strong emotional attachments to his foster family.

The Children's Aid Society sought a secure treatment order for a 15-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

The child had a history of aggressive behaviour and multiple failed placements.

The court found all six statutory criteria under section 164(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 were met and committed the child to a 180-day secure treatment program at Syl Apps Youth Centre.

The decision is notable for the court's serious concerns about the child's prior placement at Reflections, where the child was confined to a basement apartment for nearly three months without access to fresh air or outdoor activity.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to transfer a child protection application to the York Region Children's Aid Society.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer, seeking to maintain the application in Toronto where she claimed to have community supports and was planning to establish residence.

The court granted the transfer, finding that the York society's four-year involvement with the mother and her other children, combined with the overlap of evidence and protection concerns between the current child and a sibling already before the York courts, made transfer appropriate in the best interests of the child.

The court rejected the mother's arguments regarding her Toronto residency plans and community supports as insufficiently substantiated.

The respondent father repeatedly filed motions seeking to challenge final court decisions regarding crown wardship of two children.

After his initial status review application regarding one child was dismissed and his motion for leave to bring a status review application regarding the second child was denied, the father filed numerous repetitive motions attempting to circumvent the court's decisions and statutory time limits.

The court found this conduct constituted an abuse of process and issued orders prohibiting the father from filing further motions or applications regarding either child until the expiration of the six-month statutory period prescribed by the Child and Family Services Act.

The father brought a motion seeking leave to bring a status review application under subsection 65.1(5) of the Child and Family Services Act regarding his child, who was made a crown ward without access in October 2014.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care, arguing he had separated from the mother and was now a competent parent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father had not demonstrated that a status review application would have any realistic chance of success.

The court considered the father's similar unsuccessful status review application regarding his second child, his lack of insight into the protection concerns, his credibility issues, and the child's need for permanency and stability in foster care.

An early status review application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking crown wardship without access for three children exposed to significant domestic violence.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or, alternatively, an extension of time in care.

The court found that while the children remain in need of protection, the society failed to provide timely and adequate services to the family.

Despite the children's complex needs and the mother's past difficulties, the court granted a six-month extension of society wardship to allow continued progress in counselling and therapeutic interventions, finding that crown wardship was not yet warranted given the recent improvements and the realistic possibility of eventual reunification.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship orders for two children (ages 6 and 2) to enable adoption.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a full trial.

The court found that the mother's severe cognitive limitations (mild intellectual disability at the 1st percentile), combined with her inability to sustain consistent parenting during supervised access visits, her poor judgment in selecting caregivers and associates, and her failure to engage meaningfully with support services, established that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Crown wardship.

The court granted Crown wardship but found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, directing a focused hearing on whether access would be beneficial and meaningful to the children and whether it would impair their adoption prospects.

In a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a child be made a Crown ward.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion.

The child, who had been in the society's care for approximately two and a half years and was only three years and eight months old, had minimal contact with the mother (only five visits over 22 months).

The mother had not meaningfully addressed the society's protection concerns regarding alcohol abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and parenting capacity.

The court found that Crown wardship was in the child's best interests and that no access order would be made.

The parents appealed an Ontario Court of Justice decision finding their child in need of protection and making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and that they signed documents under duress from their counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, properly applied the criteria under the Child and Family Services Act, and that there was no evidence to support the claims of duress or incompetent counsel.