Loree Hodgson-Harris

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations regarding his child protection file.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had provided substantive information and explanations regarding the outstanding issues, including the requirement for phallometric testing prior to unsupervised access.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and closed the file as settled.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act on grounds of risk of physical harm.

The child had been in the father's sole custody and care for approximately four months before the application was commenced.

The mother had a history of substance abuse, medical issues, and domestic violence incidents.

The court found that while the mother presented a significant risk of harm, the statutory language of section 37(2)(b)(i) requires that the risk be caused by or result from the acts or omissions of "the person having charge of the child." The court determined that the father, as the sole custodian, was the person having charge, and that the mother's supervised access did not constitute having charge.

The court found some evidence of the father's failure to protect the child from domestic violence exposure and confusion regarding access restrictions, sufficient to support a finding under section 37(2)(b)(i).

The court granted a section 57.1 sole custody order to the father with supervised maternal access.

Application by Chatham-Kent Children's Services regarding five children in need of protection.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to chronic neglect, physical abuse, parental cognitive limitations, and exposure to domestic conflict.

The mother and father of the two youngest children proposed returning all five children to their care in Quebec, but the court rejected this plan as inadequate and unsafe.

The court ordered that the three oldest children be placed in kinship care or as Crown wards with specified access arrangements, and that the two youngest children be made Crown wards with no parental access to facilitate adoption.

Parents appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order enforcing a Quebec youth protection order requiring their children to be returned to Quebec after the families relocated to Ontario.

The lower court had relied on the Children’s Law Reform Act to recognize and enforce the Quebec order.

The Superior Court held that a children’s aid society is not a “person” with standing to seek enforcement under the CLRA in this context and that the Act’s enforcement provisions were designed for private custody disputes, not state child protection proceedings.

The court further found that certain parents had not received proper notice of the Quebec proceedings.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement order requiring the children’s return to Quebec was set aside, with the matter remitted for Ontario child protection proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act.

Media organizations brought a motion seeking access to the transcript and materials from an in camera child protection apprehension hearing after an order excluded the media due to urgent circumstances involving missing children.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck framework governing limits on the open court principle and freedom of the press.

While recognizing the strong presumption of openness, the court held that protection of vulnerable children and the administration of justice justified continued limits where some children remained missing.

However, once several children were safely in the care of the child welfare authority, the continued blanket restriction was no longer necessary.

The court ordered that a redacted transcript be made available to the media, removing identifying information and information relating to children still missing.

An application by a children's services society for an order under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act authorizing delivery of children to child protection authorities in Quebec.

The respondent parents had fled Quebec with their children to Ontario to evade child welfare proceedings.

The court determined that the children were habitually resident in Quebec at the time proceedings commenced there, and that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the Quebec court's provisional custody order.

The court rejected arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction, standing of the society, and alleged Charter violations.

The court ordered the society to deliver the children to the Quebec agency, with a stay pending appeal.