legal representative for the children)

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding for two children, A.A. and B.B., alleging risk of physical harm, sexual abuse, and emotional harm due to their mother D.C.'s failure to protect them from an abusive male adult, Y.B. The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) supported the protection finding, while the mother opposed it.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluding that the children were not in need of protection.

The court determined that the risks, primarily related to Y.B., had been mitigated over time, and there was insufficient admissible evidence to establish a present likelihood of serious harm.

The decision emphasized the importance of the 'flexible approach' to the material time period for protection findings and highlighted issues with the admissibility of hearsay evidence in summary judgment motions.

This is a motion by the respondent father to vary an interim access order in a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The father sought to increase his access to his 13-year-old daughter, A., from five hours every second Sunday to weekly access.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the variation, arguing the father had not demonstrated material change in circumstances and that the child's stability and therapeutic needs required maintaining the status quo.

The court found that significant changes in circumstances had occurred since the original order was made, including the father's active participation in the case, improved family support, employment prospects, and the child's expressed wishes to spend more time with her father.

The court granted the variation, increasing access to weekly visits while maintaining supervision and conditions appropriate to the child's best interests.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion seeking permission to file a late Answer and Plan of Care on behalf of three children in a status review proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the motion, arguing that children do not have the right to file an Answer in child protection proceedings and that permitting such filing would circumvent established jurisprudence regarding counsel's ability to articulate children's views and wishes.

The court granted the motion, finding that children with legal representation have participatory rights that include the right to file an Answer and Plan of Care, and that it was in the children's best interests to permit late filing given the age-appropriate maturity of the children and the significant lifetime consequences of the proceeding.

Applications by both parents for leave to bring status review applications with respect to Crown ward children.

The mother sought placement of the children under a supervision order; the father sought access.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither parent had demonstrated a prima facie case for review.

The mother's application was particularly problematic given her deliberate violation of a no-access order through surreptitious contact and her demonstrated indifference to the children's best interests.

The father's application was undermined by outstanding criminal charges and the risk of further incarceration.

The court also issued a restraining order prohibiting the mother from contacting the children, given her relentless pursuit of contact in defiance of court orders.

In this child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two Native children were in need of protection and made orders regarding their placement.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with placement in a non-Native foster family (the S.D. family), while the maternal grandmother and the Algonquin Nation sought placement with the grandmother with CAS supervision.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to the grandmother's inability to protect them from unsupervised contact with their mother, who had a significant criminal history, and the grandmother's ongoing struggles with alcohol and dishonesty with authorities.

Despite the importance of cultural connection for Native children, the court prioritized the children's established attachment to their foster family, their expressed wishes to remain in that home, and their emotional security and stability.

The court ordered Crown wardship with the children remaining in the S.D. family's care, with reasonable access for the grandmother twice per year while the foster family resided in the United Kingdom.

A status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving six children of Ms. K. with two different biological fathers.

The Children's Aid Society sought to determine whether the children remained in need of protection.

Ms. K. sought custody of the S children and opposed the Society's involvement.

Mr. S. sought custody of the four S children and child support.

The court found that neither group of children remained in need of protection.

Custody of the S children was awarded to Mr. S., with no access granted to Ms. K. at that time.

The G children were returned to Ms. K.'s custody.

Child support was ordered.

The court declined to make a vexatious litigant order despite evidence of prolonged litigation.