Amelia M. James

The respondent father in a child protection proceeding brought a motion for costs against the Children's Aid Society, arguing he had made offers to settle that reflected the final outcome of Crown wardship.

The Society brought a cross-motion to prohibit the father from bringing further motions without leave.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his offers were either not true offers or contained unreasonable conditions, and noted costs are rarely awarded against a Society in protection cases.

The court also dismissed the Society's cross-motion, finding insufficient evidence of a multiplicity of frivolous motions.

The applicant father sought an extension of time to appeal a 2008 order finding his child in need of protection and making her a Crown ward.

The child had since been placed for adoption and the adoption finalized.

The respondent Society relied on section 69(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, which prohibits extending the time for an appeal where a child has been placed for adoption.

The court found no procedural unfairness or other basis to circumvent the statutory bar and dismissed the motion.

The respondent parents sought costs on a full indemnity basis against the children's aid society following an appeal.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, noting that the presumption of costs to the successful party does not apply in child protection cases involving a government agency.

The court found that the society did not act unfairly or unreasonably in pursuing the appeal, as it acted out of concern for the child's best interests and was supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Consequently, no costs were awarded.

The Society appealed a trial judge's order returning a seven-year-old child to her mother's care under supervision.

The Society argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and failed to properly weigh the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the child's placement, finding no palpable and overriding errors and noting that fresh evidence of the mother's recent alcohol use was insufficient to alter the result.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to quash a term requiring the Society to assign an American Sign Language-familiar worker, as counsel had not been given an opportunity to make submissions on that issue.

The appellant children's aid society appealed an order of the lower court in a child protection proceeding.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the paragraph of the order that required the society to assign a family worker familiar with American sign language.

The remainder of the lower court's order was confirmed, and the parties were encouraged to prepare a re-integration plan for the child prior to the resumption of school.