Kathleen O’Grady

The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended care with access for the child S.R.W.D. The self-represented parents opposed, arguing genuine issues required a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing the child's need for permanency and the parents' failure to address long-standing concerns regarding substance use and parenting capacity despite extensive CASD support.

The child was placed in extended care with supervised access for the parents under specific conditions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions, including the apprehension of her children, alleged abuse in foster care, and failure to provide records.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had been addressed in court proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the substantive issues regarding apprehension, custody, and access were already before or decided by the court.

The Board also dismissed the complaint that the respondent failed to inform the applicant of the complaint process, noting there is no legal onus to promote it.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the Respondent society failed to hear her concerns regarding the children's father, including allegations of substance use, pinworm infections, and inappropriate photographs.

The Board found that the Respondent had not been informed of the photograph allegations prior to the application.

Regarding the other concerns, the Board found that the Respondent had actively listened, investigated, and communicated its findings to the Applicant.

The application was dismissed.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking Crown wardship orders for two children with special needs (autism spectrum disorder and ADHD) who had been apprehended after their mother left them at a police station with a suicide note.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the children's continuing need for protection or the appropriate disposition.

The court granted Crown wardship orders, finding that the mother had failed to demonstrate meaningful change in her parenting capacity or acceptance of responsibility for the children's trauma, despite some efforts at self-education.

The court denied the mother access to the children but permitted sibling access and contact between the children and their sister who was caring for one of them.