Lauren Stringer

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.

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.

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 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.