7 total
Child found in need of protection due to father's pedohebephilia diagnosis; 12-month supervision ordered.
The Children's Aid Society sought a protection finding for child XR against parents ARM (mother) and DW (father) under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging risk of harm and sexual molestation due to the father's pedohebephilia and the mother's failure to protect.
The Society's application for protection of two other children was dismissed.
The court dismissed the Society's *Khan* application to admit hearsay statements from K (father's child from a prior relationship) due to lack of necessity and reliability.
However, based on an unchallenged psychological assessment of the father confirming pedohebephilia and the mother's denial of the risk, the court found XR in need of protection.
A 12-month supervision order was issued, placing XR with the mother under strict terms regarding the father's access and residence, requiring constant supervision and participation in recommended programs.
Child made Crown ward for adoption without access due to strong foster family attachment.
The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for a child who had been in foster care for almost six years.
The mother and maternal grandparents sought placement of the child in their care.
The court found that the child had formed a secure attachment to her foster family and that removing her would cause significant, irreversible emotional harm.
The court also found that the mother and grandparents could not meet the child's emotional needs.
The court ordered Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption and denied access to the mother and grandparents, finding that access would not be beneficial or meaningful and would risk destabilizing the child's placement.
The court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption, prioritizing the child's secure attachment to her foster family.
This is a disposition hearing in a child protection application following a bifurcated hearing.
The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County sought Crown wardship without access for a child born in 2008.
The biological mother sought placement without supervision, while the maternal grandparents sought placement as an alternative.
The court found the child to be in need of protection based on exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, mental health issues, and failure to follow protective advice.
The court ordered Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption, finding that the child had formed a secure attachment to the foster family and that returning the child to the mother or grandparents would cause significant harm.
The court dismissed the mother's and grandparents' placement plans and denied access to the biological family.
Settlement agreement amending Director's Orders for creek remediation accepted by Tribunal.
The appellants appealed two Director's Orders requiring them to remediate DDT contamination in Bartlett Creek.
Following a preliminary hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Orders, limiting the remediation area to the portion of the creek on the appellants' property and modifying compliance dates.
The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement under Rule 201, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.
The appeals were withdrawn and dismissed.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over appeal of council's referral of engineer's report; matter transferred to Drainage Referee.
The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to refer an Engineer's Report back to the engineer under the Drainage Act.
The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority brought a motion for party status.
The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 45(2) because the Act does not provide an appeal right when a report is referred back to the engineer.
Finding that the appeal essentially challenged the validity of the council's resolution, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Drainage Referee pursuant to s. 106(1)(b), the Tribunal transferred the matter to the Referee under s. 119.
Consequently, the motion for party status was deemed academic.
Procedural timetable established on consent for appeal of Director's Orders regarding DDT contamination.
The appellants appealed Director's Orders requiring them to address DDT pesticide and metabolite contamination in Bartlett Creek.
At a preliminary hearing, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions and requested that hearing dates not be set immediately.
Following a subsequent telephone conference call, the Tribunal issued procedural directions on consent, establishing a timetable for disclosure, witness statements, and the hearing, while noting the parties' intention to participate in Tribunal-assisted mediation.
Judicial review of site plan approval dismissed as environmental undertakings will be enforced before building permit issuance.
The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.
The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.
The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.
No costs were awarded.
