Laura Goldfarb

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for the appointment of amicus curiae for the respondent mother in a child protection proceeding.

The mother, who had previously retained and discharged three counsel, was self-represented at the time of the motion hearing.

The court found that the legal test for appointing amicus was met, considering the high stakes of the matter, the mother's demonstrated inability to participate meaningfully in proceedings, her pattern of discharging counsel, and concerns that the trial would not progress reasonably without amicus assistance.

The court appointed amicus to assist in ensuring the trial is orderly and fair, with the appointment remaining in effect even if the mother retains counsel in the future.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to suspend the mother's in-person access visits with the child, C.B., citing concerns about the mother's conduct during visits, including unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations against the father and coaching the child.

The father supported the motion, while the mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed it.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test for varying an access order, requiring a change in circumstances that renders the existing order no longer in the child's best interests and that the new order sought is in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the Society's request to suspend in-person access, finding it too drastic and contrary to the child's expressed wishes and special needs.

Instead, the court varied the access order by imposing conditions on the mother's conduct during visits, such as prohibiting discussion of adult or court-related matters and recording the child.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a status review application concerning a child born in 2015 who was removed from parental care due to prenatal drug exposure and other protection concerns.

The society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents sought to have the child returned to their joint care subject to supervision.

The court found that the parents had not made sufficient progress in addressing the original concerns—including substance abuse, domestic conflict, dishonesty, and failure to maintain consistent access—and that placement with the maternal grandmother remained in the child's best interests.

The summary judgment motion was granted.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to set aside or change an order placing an 11-year-old child in the care of her parents, K.S. and A.H., who had a long-standing addiction to crystal methamphetamine and other drugs.

The motion was brought on an urgent basis after the grandmother learned that the mother had tested positive for crystal methamphetamine on October 11, 2016, but this information was not disclosed to the grandmother until November 28, 2016.

The court applied the test under subsection 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, which requires that a child remain in the care of the person having charge unless the court is satisfied that the child's best interests require a change.

The court found that the parents failed to meet their onus to demonstrate that a change in custody was necessary.

The court granted the motion and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, with weekend access to the parents subject to conditions including random drug testing and restrictions on discussing court proceedings with the child.

A child protection agency sought summary judgment to make five children crown wards without access.

The children had been in care for over one year following apprehension due to neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, and hazardous living conditions.

The father opposed the motion and proposed a kinship plan placing the children with his aunt.

The court found that the parents had failed to address the protection concerns, had not benefited from services offered, and that the proposed kinship plan was not viable.

The court granted the motion and made all five children crown wards without access.