3 total
Application dismissed as the Board lacked jurisdiction over child protection issues already before the court.
The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and ignored professional advice regarding her parenting capacity.
The respondent argued that the issues raised were substantive child protection and custody matters currently before the Ontario Court of Justice.
The Board found that the issues of custody, access, and parenting capacity were indeed before the court in ongoing proceedings.
Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the application.
Crown wardship with no access ordered for Métis child due to parents' substance abuse and neglect.
The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access regarding a 19-month-old child.
The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and the parents' history of child protection involvement.
The father argued that the child's Métis heritage was not properly considered by the society.
The court found that the society made reasonable efforts to involve the Métis community, which declined to participate and supported adoption.
The court determined the child was in need of protection due to the mother's chronic drug addiction and the parents' inability to maintain a safe home.
The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, directing the society to ensure future placements educate the child on his Aboriginal heritage.
Late and weak party-addition motion in child protection case dismissed.
In a child protection proceeding, the maternal grandmother moved late in the process to be added as a party and advance a custody proposal for the children.
Applying the established discretionary factors for adding parties in child protection matters, the court held the motion materials were late, weak, and insufficiently responsive to the Society’s serious concerns about the proposed placement.
The court found adding the proposed party would not be shown to be in the children’s best interests, would inevitably prolong the proceeding, and was unnecessary because her proposed involvement could be advanced through the mother and by witness evidence.
The motion to add the maternal grandmother as a party was dismissed, the Society’s summary judgment motion was scheduled, and the existing order continued.
