Eric Del Junco

This is a costs decision arising from a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for three children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding access.

The court granted the society's motion for Crown wardship without parental access but with sibling access.

Foster parents subsequently sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer on a full recovery basis.

The court dismissed the costs request, finding that the Office of the Children's Lawyer properly represented their child client's views and preferences and that no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award against a government agency in this child protection proceeding.

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the appropriate disposition for a child found to be in need of protection.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought placement of the child with the grandmother for six months subject to society supervision.

The father was noted in default.

The court found that placement with the grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was in the child's best interests, despite the grandmother's significant prior child protection history.

The court emphasized that the grandmother had demonstrated substantial positive changes, including improved parenting capacity, commitment to the child, and ability to establish boundaries with the mother.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, alleged discrimination in the area of contracts after the respondent Children's Aid Society declined her application to become a foster parent.

The respondent argued that it could not accommodate the applicant's needs without incurring undue hardship in the form of undue risk to the children in its care.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was based on legitimate risk management concerns, including the applicant's mobility, smoking, and plans for managing active children, and that accommodating the applicant would compromise the safety of the children.

The application was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered an external investigator to produce the entire investigation file relating to the grievor to the employer's counsel.

The employer's counsel was directed to provide copies of the produced material to the union's counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with multiple Tribunal orders regarding disclosure and production.

The applicant and his paralegal representative failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for abandonment and abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's repeated failure to comply with deadlines, communicate with the Tribunal, and attend the hearing constituted both abandonment and an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions related to access visits and communications.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues of access and disclosure were already before the Court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant was complaining about the Society's process, communications, and treatment of her, rather than the substantive issues of access and disclosure which were before the Court.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off four employees due to their union organizing activities.

The employer claimed the layoffs were for legitimate business reasons due to a downturn in sales.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, as the timing of the layoffs immediately followed the employer's discovery of the organizing campaign and the employer's evidence lacked credibility.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation and directed the posting of a notice.

The Board also granted the union's application for certification, finding it had the support of more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.