Keyshawn Anderson

In a child protection status review proceeding, the children's aid society sought final orders placing the children with the mother.

The court noted discrepancies between the society's evidence and the mother's criminal sentencing conditions related to the incident that led to the children's removal.

The court ordered the society to produce the transcript of the mother's criminal guilty plea and sentencing.

The society questioned the court's jurisdiction to make such an order.

The court held that under section 92 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it has the authority to order the production of relevant records to ensure it has all necessary information to determine the best interests of the children, and directed the society to comply with the disclosure order.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, Z, seeking placement with the paternal grandparents (MY and LY) subject to supervision.

The father (ZF) and aunt (AR) sought to maintain the child in their joint care.

The mother (W-D) did not participate.

The court found that the grandparents and father had joint pre-intervention charge of the child.

The court dismissed the father's request, finding that placing the child with the father and aunt would pose a risk of harm due to parental non-compliance with no-contact orders, self-help tactics, and the aunt's inability to cooperate.

The court ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the grandparents, subject to society supervision, and set out terms for parental access.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion in a child protection application concerning two children, MA (4) and MH (3), who had a history of being in and out of society care due to parental instability, substance abuse, and criminal involvement.

The mother, C. B.-H., was the only participating respondent, seeking placement of the children in her care or increased access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's chaotic lifestyle, incarceration, and failure to address protection concerns rendered her unable to provide a safe and stable home.

The court granted the society's request for extended society care for both children, with discretionary access for the mother (minimum three times annually) and paternal aunt (minimum two times annually if requested), and no access for the father and paternal uncle.

Sibling access was ordered a minimum of twice monthly.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Toronto after the applicant mother unilaterally relocated them to Montreal without notice or consent.

The mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the father had acquiesced or unduly delayed.

She also raised allegations of family violence.

The court found that Ontario retained habitual residence, rejected the mother's claims of acquiescence and undue delay, and determined that the alleged family violence did not constitute compelling circumstances to justify the unauthorized relocation.

Applying established legal principles for relocation, the court ordered the children's return to Toronto, emphasizing the importance of statutory notice requirements and discouraging self-help measures in parenting disputes.