Child protection

The parents in an active child protection proceeding brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to permit the mother and children to relocate to Alberta to reside with the father, or alternatively, to transfer the proceeding to an Alberta court.

The father had moved to Alberta for employment after being charged with serious sexual offences involving a former foster child, which had prompted the initial supervision order requiring him to be supervised around the children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's voluntary move did not constitute a compelling change in circumstances justifying relocation prior to trial, and that the parents failed to provide evidence that the Alberta child welfare agency had been served or consented to a transfer.

The child protection agency brought a motion regarding the care of two young children during an adjournment period.

The agency initially sought a supervision order placing the children with the father, but the court found that a supervision order would not adequately protect the children due to recent breaches of safety plans, domestic violence, and substance abuse concerns.

The court ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the agency on a without prejudice basis.

The mother brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a temporary order to place the child with former kin caregivers.

The child had been placed with the father, but the father was recently incarcerated and denied bail.

The children's aid society sought to keep the child in the care of the father's partner.

Applying the augmented best interests test for an Indigenous child, the court found that placement with the kin caregivers was more stable and in the child's best interests, despite historical concerns regarding the kin's ability to foster the child's cultural identity, which could be mitigated through supervision and education.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary supervision order to place a four-year-old Indigenous child in the care of the mother pending trial.

The child had been residing with a non-relative kin caregiver for approximately two years.

The court applied the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, noting its paramountcy over provincial legislation and its priority of placement for parents.

Finding that the mother had made significant progress in mitigating child protection concerns and that a return to her care was in the child's best interests, the court granted the motion and ordered the child placed with the mother subject to society supervision.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a supervision order on an interim basis to allow the father and the child to relocate to southwestern Ontario.

The applicant had already facilitated and funded the move without prior judicial authorization.

The court granted a temporary, without prejudice order allowing the child to remain with the father in the new location, but strongly criticized the applicant for bypassing judicial oversight and failing to ensure the self-represented parents and the child's counsel were properly involved before the move.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of an infant who presented at the hospital with unexplained brain and retinal haemorrhages.

The parents claimed the injuries resulted from a fall off a couch, but medical professionals suspected non-accidental trauma.

The society apprehended the child after the parents failed to maintain a 24-hour supervision safety plan.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The child was ordered to remain in the society's care pending trial, with access granted to the parents.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking to place the child in the permanent care and custody of his great aunt and uncle.

The maternal grandmother, who previously had custody, opposed the motion and sought the child's return to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the child continued to need protection due to the grandmother's unaddressed mental health challenges and delusional beliefs.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the child with the kin caregivers and ordering limited access for the grandmother via text communication.

Following the withdrawal of a status review application by the child protection society, the respondent foster parents, maternal grandmother, and First Nation band sought costs against the society.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs against a child protection agency, noting that costs are only appropriate if the society acted in a patently unfair or indefensible manner.

The court found that the society's actions in bringing the application to address access issues and a breakdown in the foster placement were reasonable based on the information available at the time.

The requests for costs were dismissed.

The respondent grandmother brought a motion to strike the applicant step-grandfather's application for contact with their grandson.

The respondent argued the issue was res judicata due to a prior child protection order granting her custody.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the applicant was not a party to the child protection proceeding and the Children's Law Reform Act explicitly allows for contact applications following such orders.

The court ordered the biological parents to be added as respondents but declined to order the applicant to pay child support.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application, seeking a final order granting joint decision-making responsibility of an Indigenous child to the mother and her former partner.

The father opposed the motion, arguing for shared decision-making and raising concerns about the child's exposure to her First Nations heritage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that the proposed order was in the child's best interests, noting the history of domestic violence and the proposed caregivers' commitment to fostering the child's cultural identity.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The paternal aunt and uncle brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of their eight-year-old niece, who had been in their care continuously since December 2018 due to her parents' substance abuse and neglect.

The parents did not respond to the motion or attend the hearing.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the motion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' lack of progress and the child's strong desire to remain with her aunt and uncle.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding sole custody to the aunt and uncle with strict conditions for any future parental access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two children in extended society care, with a minimum of three face-to-face access visits per year for the parents.

The parents consented to the extended society care order but the father sought more frequent access.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered extended society care with a minimum of three face-to-face visits per year for both parents, balancing the children's need for stability with their desire to maintain contact with their parents.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary equal parenting schedule for the parties' two children after the respondent mother left the matrimonial home and severely restricted his access.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking primary residence, supervised access for the father, and a section 30 assessment, alleging the father was a safety risk.

The court relied on a Children's Aid Society investigation that found no protection concerns and concluded it was in the children's best interests to have equal access to both parents.

The court granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and dismissed the mother's request for a section 30 assessment.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child at birth and sought a finding that the child was in need of protection.

After the Society closed its case at the adjudicative stage of the trial, the father brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the Society failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court dismissed the non-suit motion, finding that the father's impulsivity, history of domestic violence, inconsistent access visits, and inability to control his emotions posed a real risk of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and directed the matter to proceed to the dispositional stage.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased in-person or virtual access with his child, who was in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society.

The Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, citing the father's inappropriate behaviour during virtual visits and the child's stated preference to limit access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's conduct was not conducive to building a positive relationship and that increasing access was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' action sought damages against various entities involved in a prior child protection proceeding that resulted in their children becoming Crown wards.

The court found that the action was an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already decided in the child protection proceeding.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as an abuse of process.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend a previous civil judgment to replace the parties' initials with their full names.

The underlying trial involved the defendants making a false report about the plaintiff to a children's aid society.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the mandatory publication ban under section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act (now section 87 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act) applies to civil judgments to protect the privacy of children involved in child protection investigations, even if no formal child protection proceeding was commenced.

The applicant Society brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order, seeking to remove the child from the respondent mother's care and place him with his paternal uncle.

The Society alleged that the mother was alienating the child from the respondent father and had fabricated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the child was at risk of emotional harm in the mother's care.

The court ordered the child placed in the temporary care of the paternal uncle, with supervised access for the mother and reunification therapy for the father.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment in a status review application, seeking extended society care for three children and a supervision order for a fourth.

The respondent father had provided inconsistent evidence regarding whether the children identified as First Nations.

The court adjourned the motion, ordering the parties to provide further evidence clarifying the children's First Nations status and band identification, as this information is mandatory under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 before determining the appropriate disposition.