Lauren Doughty

Following a nine-day child protection trial in which the Society's application was dismissed and the child was returned to the mother's care, the mother sought costs of $5,000 against the Society on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the framework from Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L. and T.M. and found that the Society's conduct was patently unfair and indefensible, including: failure to disclose 400 pages of contact logs until three days before the final decision was rendered; failure to present relevant child welfare information to the court during trial; failure to increase access despite court direction and the absence of protection concerns; and failure to facilitate contact between the child and her maternal grandfather for over one and a half years.

Costs were awarded, but reduced to a nominal $500 on the basis that both Legal Aid Ontario (representing the mother) and the Society are publicly funded, and that limited public funds should remain directed toward the child's continued care rather than past legal fees.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Society brought a motion for temporary care of the infant child, G., to be placed with kin caregivers, and for access to the mother, C.B., to be at the Society's discretion.

The mother opposed, seeking return of the child or supervised access by her adult daughter.

The court granted temporary care to the kin caregivers, finding a risk of harm due to the mother's unaddressed mental health issues and non-cooperation with the Society.

The court also determined that supervised access by the Society was not feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the mother's proposed supervisor was inappropriate.

Access for the infant was therefore suspended, with virtual access for older siblings and a review clause for future face-to-face visits.

Two child protection agencies sought Crown wardship of five children born to deaf parents.

The four older children had been in care for over five years, and the youngest was apprehended at birth.

The parents sought the return of all children.

The court found all five children to be in need of protection due to the parents' history of transience, inability to meet the children's significant developmental needs, and lack of a stable housing plan.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all five children without parental access, finding that the parents could not provide the necessary stability and that parental access would not be beneficial and meaningful or would impair adoption.

Sibling access was ordered.