Office of the Children’s Lawyer

The Children's Aid Society applied under s. 161 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to commit the child, A.R.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days due to severe mental health issues, high-risk behaviours, and a history of self-harm and substance abuse.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, opposed the application.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including the child suffering from a mental disorder (FASD, intellectual disability, borderline personality disorder), having caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days and 12 months of the application, and that the proposed secure treatment program was effective, appropriate, and the least restrictive option given the child's complex needs and lack of success with less restrictive alternatives.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for three First Nation children.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother without supervision, due to her history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and domestic violence.

Applying the "least disruptive placement" principle under the CYFSA and considering the children's First Nations heritage under the federal Act, the court ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of their parents, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The order also granted unsupervised access to the father of the youngest child.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to make four children crown wards.

The children had been in care since November 2010 following the arrest of the mother and her boyfriend on charges of assault with a weapon.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there remained a genuine issue for trial and time to address protection concerns.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the mother's parenting deficits were deeply entrenched, she had failed to engage in meaningful remediation over 15 months, and there was no realistic likelihood she could address the serious protection concerns within the remaining statutory timeframe.

The court granted the motion and ordered the children to be made crown wards.