Suranganie Kumaranayake

In a status review trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether two young children should be returned to their mother under supervision or made Crown wards.

The evidence showed longstanding alcohol abuse, repeated domestic violence, mental health instability, housing instability, non-compliance with court orders, and inconsistent access causing emotional harm to the children, despite some positive visits and an emotional bond.

Applying the child-centred best interests analysis and the statutory time limits on society wardship, the court held that no less intrusive alternative would adequately protect the children and provide permanence.

The court also held that the mother did not satisfy the conjunctive test for access to Crown wards and rejected a submission that Gladue principles altered the CFSA analysis where the relevant inquiry was the children’s status.

The mother brought a motion for increased and unsupervised access to her two children, who were in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society.

The children had been apprehended due to concerns regarding domestic violence, the mother's inability to protect the children from the abusive father, and her parenting capacity.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under the Child and Family Services Act and found that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient progress in addressing the protection concerns.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that expanded or unsupervised access, or access supervised by the maternal grandparents, was not in the children's best interests.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, an incarcerated caregiver sought to adjourn a scheduled Crown wardship trial until after her release from custody, arguing she required additional time to demonstrate personal progress and prepare her case for the return of the children or alternative kin placement.

The child protection agency opposed the adjournment, emphasizing the statutory timelines governing child protection proceedings and the children’s need for stability and permanency.

The court held that the paramount purpose of the legislation requires prioritizing the best interests of the children over a parent’s litigation interests.

Given the lengthy period the children had already spent in care and the statutory limits on wardship timelines, the proposed delay would undermine the objectives of timely permanency planning.

The motion to adjourn the trial was dismissed.

In a child protection status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, a caregiver sought an order placing two young children with another adult family member while the caregiver served a custodial sentence arising from criminal conduct involving concealment of a relative’s death and fraudulently receiving social assistance payments.

The Society opposed the proposed kin placement, citing concerns raised in a kinship assessment, lack of cooperation with supervision, instability within the household, and serious credibility issues.

The court assessed the children’s best interests under s. 37 and s. 64(8) of the Act and found the caregiver’s evidence unreliable and the proposed placement unsafe.

Given the applicant’s history of deception and troubling conduct, the court concluded that supervision could not adequately protect the children.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship with no access for a nine-month-old child who had been in care since birth.

The parents, who had a history of domestic violence, housing instability, and substance abuse, failed to file responding materials.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and that the parents could not provide a safe and stable environment.

Crown wardship was ordered with no access, as the parents failed to demonstrate that access would be beneficial and meaningful or that it would not impair future adoption opportunities.