4 total
Extension of time to appeal child protection order was properly refused.
The appellant mother appealed an order dismissing her motion to extend time to appeal a child protection disposition placing the child in the father's care and custody.
The court held that the motion judge correctly stated and applied the legal test for an extension of time in a child protection matter, accepted that the appellant had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, but found significant prejudice to the child and no merit in the proposed appeal.
No reviewable error of law or fact was shown.
The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Summary judgment for child protection finding dismissed due to insufficient evidence of no genuine issue for trial.
The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection under s. 74(2)(a) and (b) of the CYFSA and a supervision order.
The mother opposed the motion.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society's evidence fell short of the high standard required to establish no genuine issue for trial regarding physical harm or risk of physical harm.
The court also considered alternative protection findings but concluded none were appropriate for summary judgment, noting that a criminal no-contact order was preventing reunification efforts.
Board assumes jurisdiction over internal complaint process failure but dismisses records and access complaints.
The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society.
The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the Ontario Court of Justice in active child protection proceedings.
The Board found that the applicant's complaint regarding the respondent's failure to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel was not a substantive issue before the court and could proceed.
However, the Board dismissed the applicant's complaints regarding disclosure of records, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and complaints regarding worker interactions during access visits, which were already being addressed by the court.
Judicial review of a dock construction permit dismissed; MNRF's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicants, a group of cottage owners, sought judicial review of a work permit issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to the respondents for the construction of a dock and walkway on a property that was the site of a former mine.
The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and breached their procedural fairness rights.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the MNRF's decision was reasonable as it relied on expert environmental assessments from other ministries and attached appropriate mitigation conditions.
The court also held that the MNRF met its procedural fairness obligations, noting that formal reasons were not required for a building permit application.
