Indigenous children

This decision concerns a motion to change the placement of a child, A., from her paternal grandmother’s care to her mother’s care under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court reviews the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the reliability of statements made by the child, and the comparative risks and benefits of each placement.

The court applies the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children, considering the hierarchy of placements under the federal legislation.

The court concludes that placement with the mother is required to promote A.’s best interests and issues a temporary order accordingly.

This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of two Indigenous children, R.W. and K.D., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The court considered competing plans for the children’s placement: the applicant society (DBCFS) and the Western Cree Tribal Council (on behalf of Horse Lake First Nation) sought placement in a group home in Alberta to facilitate cultural and family reunification, while the respondent, L.S., sought their return to her care or, alternatively, continued care in Ontario.

The court found that L.S. had exposed the children to harm and failed to maintain their cultural connections as required.

Applying both provincial and federal legislation, the court ordered the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS, with placement in Alberta, and set out terms for supervised access by L.S.

This decision addresses two Applications for Openness brought by the Office of the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Metis children placed for adoption with their younger siblings.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the meaningfulness and benefit of ongoing contact with birth parents, and the importance of cultural connection under both the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children.

The court balanced the children's strong desire for contact and cultural connection against the risks posed by the birth parents' aggressive and disruptive behavior, particularly the father's history of threats and criminal charges.

The final openness order permits indirect contact through annual updates and messages, with strict conditions to protect the adoptive placement's stability and safety.

The Anishinaabe Abinooji Family Services (AAFS) brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 12-year-old Indigenous child, M.P., who was apprehended after threatening self-harm if forced to return to the care of Traci Lockman, a non-Indigenous former caregiver.

The child's biological father, N.J., and the G.N. First Nation (GNFN) supported the AAFS's position to place M.P. with her elder sister, S.P., in the First Nation community.

Ms. Lockman sought the child's return to her care.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the paramount federal An Act Respecting the First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children Youth and Families (Federal Act).

The court found that AAFS discharged its onus, establishing reasonable and probable grounds of risk of harm if the child returned to Ms. Lockman.

Emphasizing the Federal Act's priority of placement scheme and the child's best interests, including cultural continuity and connection to the Indigenous community, the court determined that S.P., as an adult family member, had priority over Ms. Lockman, who was not considered family by the First Nation or the father.

The court dismissed Ms. Lockman's request and ordered M.P. to remain in the temporary care and custody of S.P. under AAFS and GNFN supervision, with structured access for Ms. Lockman.

M.R. and D.R., former customary caregivers, brought a motion to be added as parties to a child protection proceeding concerning the child R.S.V.B. Batchewana First Nation brought a cross-motion to dismiss M.R. and D.R.'s motion.

The court dismissed M.R. and D.R.'s motion, finding they did not meet the statutory criteria for party status under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, nor did they demonstrate a legal interest or a viable plan in the child's best interests under the Family Law Rules.

The court noted significant concerns about their care and cooperation with the Agency and First Nation.

The Batchewana First Nation's motion to dismiss was granted.

This endorsement addresses the temporary care and custody of a First Nation child, Z.O., who was removed from M.O.'s care and subsequently placed with his biological father, J.K. The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families.

The court emphasized the priority of placement with a biological parent under the federal legislation, finding that Z.O.'s best interests were met by remaining with J.K., given no protection concerns and J.K.'s ability to provide cultural connection.

The "without prejudice" term of a previous interim order placing the child with J.K. was removed.

This temporary care and custody hearing involved three Indigenous children affiliated with Caldwell First Nations.

The Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin sought to place the eldest child (L.A.) with the father and the two younger children (M.W. and H.W.) with the mother, subject to supervision.

The father opposed, seeking custody of all three.

The court, applying the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the paramount An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, found that L.A. could remain with the father under terms.

However, M.W. and H.W. were at risk of physical and emotional harm with the father due to ongoing verbal and physical abuse, neglect, and the father's non-compliance with previous court orders.

The court ordered M.W. and H.W. into the temporary care of the mother, with terms to ensure their safety and cultural connection.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

This case concerns a temporary care and custody motion for an Indigenous child, L.L.C., who had been residing with a maternal aunt under a Customary Care Agreement (CCA).

Following the CCA's termination, the child was placed with the father.

Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services initiated a protection application seeking a protection finding and a supervision order with the father.

The court determined that the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (Federal Act) applies and has paramountcy over provincial legislation (CYFSA), altering the method of analysis for Indigenous children's placements.

Applying the Federal Act's national standards, the court found it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the father, without the need for society supervision, as there were no protection concerns.

The court also ordered continued contact with the maternal aunt and suggested the matter be transitioned to a Children's Law Reform Act application.

The Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for their Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The children are Métis and were adopted by the adoptive parents.

The motion addressed whether the Openness Application could proceed despite alleged failures by the Society to properly serve the Métis Nation of Ontario and an unidentified First Nation band, as required by the CYFSA.

The court found that formal service and notice to the Métis community were not required for the Openness Application to proceed, as the Métis Nation of Ontario is not a "listed community" under the Act, and the determination of a child's community for statutory notice purposes is a ministerial, not judicial, function.

The court ordered the Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 and expedited the trial management conference and openness hearing.

The father (K.C-P.) brought a motion to change the child's placement from temporary joint care with non-biological paternal grandparents (the S's) to his sole care, supported by the paternal grandmother.

The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (FNIM Act), emphasizing the priority of placement with an Indigenous parent for an Indigenous child.

Despite the S's providing good care, the court found it was in the child's best interests, particularly given her Indigenous heritage, to be placed with her father, with a transitional period.

The motion was granted, and the S's request for costs was denied.

The Native Child and Family Services of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children (Au.

B., Aa.

B., and M.P.) due to chronic neglect, poor home conditions, hygiene issues, and the mother's inability to manage her mental health and parenting.

The mother (A.B.) opposed, seeking the children's return.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing Au.

B. and Aa.

B. in the Society's temporary care and custody, and M.P. in his father's (L.P.) temporary care subject to Society supervision.

The court emphasized the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care and the need for culturally appropriate support, finding that the children could not be adequately protected by a supervision order alone given the complex issues and the Society's past ineffective supervision.

The paternal grandmother, S.V., moved to be added as a party to child protection proceedings concerning her grandchild, A.M., and for access.

The court found that S.V. met the definition of "care provider" under the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children Youth and Families, and therefore had a right to party status from the outset.

The motion to add S.V. as a party was granted, but her request for access was dismissed without prejudice as she lacked standing to seek substantive relief prior to being added as a party.

The court noted the agency's failure to name S.V. as a party initially caused prejudice.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two Indigenous children were in need of protection and an order for their placement in the care and custody of their father, with discretionary access for the mother.

The mother conceded the protection finding but opposed the summary judgment, arguing for joint custody and a shared parenting regime.

The court granted the Society's motion in part, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the children's primary placement with the father, due to the mother's lack of insight into past protection concerns and ongoing conflict.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's access, determining it should not be left to the father's discretion and required judicial determination.

In a child protection status review, the biological father (E.J.) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking primary care and custody of two children, S.J.M. and L.J. The Children's Aid Society and Six Nations Child and Family Services supported the father's request, while the biological mother (S.M.) opposed it, seeking the children's return to her care.

The court granted the father's motion for custody, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding placement, as the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or responsibility for past protection concerns.

However, the court determined that the issue of the mother's access with the children presented a genuine issue for trial and ordered it to be set for a trial management conference.

This motion for summary judgment concerned the placement of A.M., an Indigenous child, in extended society care.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended care, while the biological mother opposed it, advocating for A.M.'s return to her care.

The court emphasized the "last resort" nature of extended care, particularly for Indigenous children, and the statutory priority for family and community placements under federal legislation.

The Society failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue for trial, specifically lacking evidence of exhaustive efforts to find permanent family or community placements.

The motion was dismissed, preserving the possibility of A.M.'s return to her mother's care after a full trial.

The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.

The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.

The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.

The respondent mother, A.D., brought a motion to vary a previous statutory finding under subsection 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to include a finding that her children, K.Re. and A.Re., are Métis persons.

The court considered its jurisdiction to revisit prior findings, interpreting the CYFSA remedially to allow for such variations in the children's best interests, especially given the Act's emphasis on Indigenous children's cultural identity and community connection.

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of the parents' self-identification and engagement with Métis community services, the court found sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the Métis identification.

The motion was granted, vacating the previous finding and declaring the children Métis.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that three children (K.M., M.B., and J.B.) were in need of protection and should be placed in the Society's extended care.

The children's mother opposed, proposing a customary care agreement.

The court found ample evidence of the children being in need of protection due to physical and emotional abuse and sexual assault.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered the children into extended Society care, rejecting the customary care agreement as it could not be coercively imposed and was not agreed upon by all parties.

This motion concerned an application by D.A. for custody of or access to a child, A.H., under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA).

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, a respondent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss or strike D.A.'s application.

Dilico argued that D.A. was a foster parent prohibited from bringing such an application under Family Law Rule 7(4), and that there was no genuine issue for trial under Rule 16 because a valid customary care agreement (CCA) was in place, to which the court should defer.

The court dismissed Dilico's motion, finding that D.A. was not a "foster parent" as defined by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that Rule 7(4) does not prohibit a foster parent from commencing an application.

Furthermore, the court found the customary care agreements invalid due to lack of proper signatures and First Nation involvement, and that Dilico had acted outside its mandate.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the child's best interests and ordered the CLRA proceeding to continue, staying the customary care agreement.