Lorelee Messenger

In a child protection matter, the respondent parents sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a case conference.

The Society had breached a court-ordered access schedule by failing to provide five community visits to the father over a five-week period.

Although the Society acknowledged the breach as inadvertent and subsequently complied with the order, the court found the breach to be significant and ongoing, occurring during a critical period for assessing parental capacity.

The court awarded costs to both parents, finding that a reasonably informed person would consider the Society's conduct unreasonable.

The Society's failure to comply with clear court orders, despite having the same family service worker throughout the case, was found to be sloppy and negligent.

The court emphasized the importance of child protection agencies complying with court orders to maintain the integrity of the child protection system.

In a child protection disposition hearing, the court determined that a child apprehended at birth and in foster care for over 16 months should be made a Crown ward without access to the mother.

The mother proposed placing the child with a friend as an alternative to the Society's adoption plan, but the proposed caregiver had not met the child, lacked adequate documentation of her circumstances, and the assessment process was incomplete.

The court found that the mother's plan was not sufficiently viable and that Crown wardship for adoption purposes was in the child's best interests.

The court also declined to grant access to the mother, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial and meaningful to the child.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a child protection application.

The applicant sought findings that two children (R.A.N.B., age 3, and E.J.B., age 17 months) were in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a) and (b) of the Child and Family Services Act, and a disposition order making them crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion.

The court found both children in need of protection based on evidence of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, instability, and neglect.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered crown wardship without access, finding no triable issue existed and that this disposition was in the children's best interests.