Kenneth Atkinson

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that Adam T. was a child in need of protection and an order for extended Society care.

The respondent mother, A.T.T., and respondent father, T.M., sought alternative dispositions, including the child's return to their care.

The court found Adam to be in need of protection due to the mother's chronic substance abuse, unstable lifestyle, and lack of candor, and the father's disengagement.

The court granted the Society's request for extended Society care, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for a different disposition, and dismissed the parents' plans for care and access, except for supervised access for the maternal grandmother.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) sought leave to withdraw its protection application concerning three children (G., Y., L.) after two years of litigation.

The father (M.H.) opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing protection concerns related to the maternal aunt's (L.M.) care and alleged parental alienation.

The maternal aunt supported the withdrawal, having initiated a private Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) application for sole decision-making responsibility.

The court dismissed the CAS's motion to withdraw, finding serious ongoing protection concerns, potential prejudice to the father and children in a private domestic proceeding, and that withdrawal would usurp the court's function to determine if the children are in need of protection.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding concerning her grandchild, R. The Children's Aid Society and the mother opposed the motion, while the father supported it.

The court applied the legal principles for adding a party under subrule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, considering the child's best interests, potential for delay, necessity to determine issues, viability of the grandmother's plan, and legal interest.

The court found that the mother had a viable plan supported by the society, adding the grandmother would cause undue delay and expose the child to further conflict, and the father could adequately present the grandmother's plan as a witness.

The motion was dismissed.

This is a child protection application concerning three children whose mother was fatally shot.

The maternal aunt assumed care of the children and seeks to become their permanent guardian.

The biological father of two of the children, who has a history of domestic violence with the deceased mother and was charged with uttering death threats shortly before her death, seeks expanded access and eventual custody of the two younger children.

The Children's Aid Society initially supported the aunt's care but later began exploring expanded unsupervised access for the father.

The court adjourned proceedings to allow the aunt to obtain state-funded counsel, finding she has a constitutional right to representation.

The respondent mother, S.A.P., appealed a final disposition order that placed her children in the custody of the respondent father, M.I., following a child protection application.

The appeal raised six grounds, including alleged errors in law regarding the mother's position on the children's need for protection, the test for future emotional harm, the consideration of services provided to the mother, the consideration of less disruptive alternatives, the weight given to the father's criminal record and behaviour, and the mother's willingness to maintain ties between the children and the father.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision based on the children's best interests, emphasizing the importance of continuity of care and deference to the trial judge's factual findings and weighing of evidence.

The mother brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order placing the child with the father, seeking to return the child to her care.

The father opposed and brought a cross-motion to continue the placement with modified access terms.

The court applied a four-step test under section 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act to determine whether material, risk-based changes in circumstances warranted varying the placement.

While finding that the mother had made significant positive changes (addressing alcohol misuse, resolving deportation issues, and exiting domestic violence), the court declined to return the child to the mother's care pending trial due to ongoing parental conflict, unresolved concerns about the child's educational needs and potential learning disabilities, and insufficient evidence regarding the stability of the mother's household.

The court modified the access schedule to provide the mother with weekend and holiday access while maintaining the father's primary care arrangement.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to transfer a child protection case involving four children to Native Child and Family Services (NCFS) based on the grandmother's claim of Metis heritage.

The court found that while it had implied jurisdiction to order such a transfer to accomplish the statutory purpose of recognizing Aboriginal heritage in child protection proceedings, the motion was dismissed because the transfer would cause unacceptable delay and disruption at an advanced stage of the case.

The court treated the children as Aboriginal for purposes of the proceeding and noted that the Society could still provide culturally appropriate services while retaining the case.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child with complex medical needs (short bowel syndrome requiring G-tube feeding and intravenous nutrition).

The child was apprehended in July 2015 after the mother, a permanent resident from Niger, faced housing instability, expired work permit, and loss of income in Alberta.

The Society sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for the child given the circumstances at the time of apprehension.

However, after hearing extensive evidence regarding the mother's demonstrated ability to care for the child in Alberta, her improved cooperation with the Society, and the child's strong bond with his mother, the court ordered the child be placed in the mother's care subject to Society supervision for six months rather than granting Crown wardship.

The decision emphasizes the importance of continuity of care, cultural and linguistic considerations, and the least disruptive course of action.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act seeking production of a psychiatric report and records prepared by Dr. Mary Lilley regarding the young person X. The respondent parents supported the motion, but X. opposed the release of their private psychiatric records.

The court considered competing interests between the society's need for relevant information to inform its service plan and X.'s privacy interests and therapeutic relationship with the psychiatrist.

The court determined that before ruling on the motion, it would conduct a judicial review of the report in a sealed envelope to determine whether the society had met its onus of establishing relevance and whether the report should be released.