7 total
The court dismissed a mother's motions for specified access and disclosure of her estranged daughter's school records.
A mother sought specified access to her 15-year-old daughter and access to the daughter's school records.
The daughter, who had disclosed physical abuse by the mother and had run away from her care, consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother.
The court dismissed both motions, finding that specified access was not in the child's best interests and that the child's school records were privileged under the Education Act and should not be disclosed.
The court emphasized the child's views and preferences, the mother's volatile and verbally abusive conduct, and the child's privacy interests.
The Court ordered state-funded counsel for a grandmother in a child protection proceeding to protect the child's section 7 Charter rights.
The paternal grandmother of a four-year-old child in child protection proceedings brought a motion seeking state-funded counsel pursuant to sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The child had been apprehended at birth following the death of an older sibling, and the Society sought to place the child in extended care with adoptive foster parents.
The grandmother sought to present an alternative plan for the child's placement with her.
The Court found that while the grandmother did not have standing to claim a remedy based on a breach of the child's own Charter right, the child's section 7 right to security of the person was engaged and would be infringed without state-funded counsel for the grandmother.
The Court ordered the Attorney General to provide state-funded counsel to the grandmother to ensure a fair hearing and to allow the Court to properly assess the child's best interests, considering the child's connections to kin and culture.
Appeal of child protection custody order dismissed; denial of trial adjournment did not breach incarcerated mother's Charter rights.
The appellant mother appealed the decisions of the Ontario Court of Justice denying her requests to adjourn a child protection trial and granting sole custody of her child to the maternal grandmother.
The appellant, who was incarcerated at the time of trial, argued the denial of an adjournment breached her section 7 Charter rights and that the trial judge erred in granting custody to the grandmother with access at the grandmother's discretion.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.
The court held that the trial judge correctly prioritized the child's best interests and need for finality over the mother's adjournment request, and that the custody and access orders were well-supported by the evidence.
The court granted summary judgment making two children Crown wards and granting custody of a third to her father, finding no genuine issue for trial.
A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for two children (D.H. and P.H.) and a custody order under section 57.1 for a third child (A.W.).
The children had been apprehended following disclosures of physical abuse and neglect by their mother.
The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking placement with family members.
The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making D.H. and P.H. Crown wards and granting custody of A.W. to her father.
The court emphasized that the paramount purpose of child protection legislation is the best interests of the child, not parental rights.
The court ordered Crown wardship for a child of parents with cognitive limitations but granted an access order under amended legislation.
The Society applied for an order of Crown wardship without access to allow a child born to two parents with cognitive limitations and mental health issues to be adopted.
The child had been in Society care since five days after birth due to unsanitary living conditions, domestic violence concerns, and parental inability to provide adequate childcare.
The parents sought return of the child or, alternatively, an extension of Society wardship with therapeutic access.
The court found that while the parents had made efforts to improve and had some strengths, they had not demonstrated adequate parenting ability over 21 months despite intensive support.
The court ordered Crown wardship but granted an access order, finding the relationship between the child and parents was beneficial and meaningful and would not impair adoption opportunities.
Adjournment of child protection trial denied as further delay for parenting assessment contravened child's best interests.
The parents in a child protection proceeding requested an adjournment of a scheduled nine-day trial because a parenting capacity assessment, ordered on consent, had not been completed.
The society opposed the adjournment, citing the length of time the child had already been in temporary care.
The court denied the adjournment, finding that the assessment was not necessary for a fair trial and that further delay in permanency planning was not in the child's best interests pursuant to section 70 of the Child and Family Services Act.
Leave to appeal refusal of stay pending appeal in child protection matter dismissed.
The appellant mother sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for a stay of a trial judgment pending appeal.
The trial judge had found the children to be in need of protection due to parental alienation by the mother and ordered them placed in the father's care.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that a stay was not warranted, and set an expedited date for the hearing of the main appeal.
