Subha Anand

This decision clarifies the authority to consent to medical treatment for a child temporarily placed with kin under a supervision order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA).

The court held that while parents retain the right to make medical decisions if available, the kin caregiver who has day-to-day care and is most accessible to medical professionals may consent to treatment if the parents cannot be reached.

The decision distinguishes the authority of the Society when a child is in its temporary care versus when placed with kin, emphasizing the statutory hierarchy and the need for reasonable efforts to consult parents before kin consents.

The ruling provides a practical framework for consent in complex child protection scenarios involving temporary placements with kin.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, Z, seeking placement with the paternal grandparents (MY and LY) subject to supervision.

The father (ZF) and aunt (AR) sought to maintain the child in their joint care.

The mother (W-D) did not participate.

The court found that the grandparents and father had joint pre-intervention charge of the child.

The court dismissed the father's request, finding that placing the child with the father and aunt would pose a risk of harm due to parental non-compliance with no-contact orders, self-help tactics, and the aunt's inability to cooperate.

The court ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the grandparents, subject to society supervision, and set out terms for parental access.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a newborn child.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the child in their care, while the mother sought placement with herself or alternatively with the maternal grandparents subject to supervision.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the society to establish reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the respondents and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms.

While finding the first part satisfied regarding placement with the mother alone, the court determined that placement with the maternal grandparents, jointly with the mother and subject to strict supervision terms, was appropriate and the least disruptive alternative consistent with adequate child protection.