Kevin A. Sherwood

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that child A.T. was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order of Crown wardship with no access to the child by the respondent parents.

The respondent mother B.H. opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively placement with the paternal grandmother under a supervision order or deemed custody order.

The respondent father K.T. was noted in default.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's unresolved drug use, mental health issues, harmful relationship with the father, housing instability, and inability to work cooperatively with the Society.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward with no access, finding adoption by the family that had adopted the child's two siblings was in the child's best interests.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over .08 following a motor vehicle accident.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a roadside statement admitting he was the driver on the basis that the statement was compelled under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, thereby violating his right against self-incrimination under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the accused had a statutory duty to report the accident, his evidence did not establish that he believed he was legally compelled to make the statement.

Rather, the accused was motivated by moral responsibility and a sense of honour.

The statement was admitted into evidence, and the accused was found guilty of driving over .08.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that three children be made wards of the Crown without access to their biological parents.

The respondent parents had a lengthy history with child protection services dating back to 2007, involving domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and failure to cooperate with service providers.

The children had been in and out of Society care multiple times.

The mother conceded that the children should be made Crown wards but sought ongoing access.

The father opposed Crown wardship but did not present a viable alternative plan.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the children continued to be in need of protection and that Crown wardship without access was in their best interests, particularly given the need for permanency planning through adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought summary judgment motions in two child protection applications concerning two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motions and sought a trial.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing marijuana use, inability to maintain a safe home, mental health concerns, financial instability, lack of cooperation with the Society, and inconsistent access attendance.

The court granted summary judgment and made the children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption by their current kin caregivers, finding that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient change over three years to rebut the Society's prima facie case.

A young offender, aged 17 at the time of the offences, was convicted of two counts of attempted murder and one count of sexual assault following a brutal home invasion.

The offender was sentenced as an adult pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years for the attempted murder counts and five years for the sexual assault count, with enhanced presentence custody credit of 1.5 to 1 (36 months total).

The court balanced adult sentencing principles with youth criminal justice considerations, emphasizing rehabilitation while addressing denunciation and deterrence.

Ancillary orders included SOIRA registration, DNA order, firearms prohibition, and communication prohibition with victims.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown applied for a serious violent offence (SVO) designation under section 42(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied a two-phase test: first, determining whether the offence caused serious bodily harm and whether the young person caused that harm; second, exercising discretion to determine whether an SVO designation was necessary to hold the offender accountable.

While the court found the threshold test satisfied, it declined to make the SVO designation, finding that such designation was not necessary to achieve the purposes of youth sentencing in all the circumstances.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Brant seeking protection findings and wardship for a child whose mother had a longstanding history of alcohol and drug abuse, mental health issues, and domestic conflict.

The Society sought a six-month kin placement order.

The mother opposed and sought return of the child to her care.

The court found protection findings under certain subsections but determined there was a genuine issue for trial regarding disposition.

Upon consideration of the mother's motion to vary the temporary order, the court found a material change in circumstances and determined the child could be adequately protected under a supervision order if returned to the mother's care, subject to strict conditions and a transition period.