Lorne Vincent Glass

The Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 9-year-old child, D.S., due to concerns about the mother, Z.Y.'s, deteriorating mental health, which manifested as paranoid delusions impacting the child's safety, well-being, and academic/medical needs.

The mother denied mental health issues and sought the child's return without supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm if returned to the mother's care, and that supervision terms would be inadequate.

The motion was granted, placing the child in the society's temporary care, with access to the mother at the society's discretion, considering the child's needs and the mother's mental health.

The father sought costs against the child's privately retained counsel, Lorne Glass, following the dismissal of a child protection application brought by the 13-year-old applicant.

The father claimed that Mr. Glass acted improperly by bringing an abuse of process proceeding devoid of merit, wasting court time, and failing to seek proper court authorization for his representation of the child.

The court found that Mr. Glass's conduct caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily by commencing a collateral proceeding for an improper purpose—to stay the father's pending custody trial—rather than seeking appointment as counsel under the Family Law Rules.

Despite finding unnecessary costs were incurred, the court applied the "extreme caution" test and awarded only $5,000 in costs against counsel, recognizing the importance of protecting resolute advocacy in child protection matters.

A 13-year-old child commenced a child welfare proceeding against her parents and the local children's aid society, seeking a finding that she and her siblings were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father moved to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and for failure to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the child had commenced the proceeding under the influence of her mother as a tactical measure to interfere with concurrent Superior Court custody proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and raised no genuine issue for trial.

A child protection application brought by a child welfare society seeking temporary care and custody of two children (ages 12 and 9) from their parents.

The father opposed the motion and sought custody with society supervision, while the mother supported the society's position.

The court found that both children had suffered significant emotional harm due to high-conflict parenting, with evidence of parental alienation, emotional abuse, and the father's controlling behavior toward the children and mother.

The court determined that the children could not be adequately protected in either parent's care and ordered temporary placement with the society, with access discretionary to the society.

A payment order was imposed on both parents proportionate to their incomes.

In a child protection matter under the Child and Family Services Act, the father sought costs related to two appeals to the Superior Court of Justice arising from procedural orders made by an Ontario Court of Justice judge during settlement conferences.

The first appeal had been allowed on procedural fairness grounds after the settlement conference judge extended trial timelines without notice or consent.

A second appeal later became moot after the underlying protection application was dismissed and interim orders were varied.

The court held that, given the narrow basis of the earlier appeal decision and the ultimate dismissal of the protection application by another judge who had a full evidentiary record, it was inappropriate to assess the parties’ conduct for costs purposes.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to award costs on either appeal.

Appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice order made at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.

The settlement conference judge removed the matter from trial assignment court and extended the timeline under Rule 33 of the Family Law Rules without notice, relying on settlement conference materials and discussions.

The appellate court held that settlement conference briefs and discussions are protected by Rules 17(23) and 17(24) and cannot form the basis for adjudicative orders absent consent or proper notice.

The judge erred in extending the statutory timeline based on settlement conference materials and without procedural fairness.

The appeal was allowed and any future request to extend timelines was directed to be heard by a different judge.

A status review application for crown wardship of a three-year-old child.

The applicant child protection agency sought crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought return of the child to her care.

The court found the child continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's paranoid personality disorder, which was pervasive and enduring, contributing to her inability to provide adequate care and stability.

The mother's parenting was significantly impaired, characterized by inability to respond appropriately to the child's cues, inconsistent attendance at access visits, and failure to accept responsibility for her circumstances.

The court made an order for crown wardship with no access.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children, J.B. (age 14) and S.B. (age 12), whose parents have a lengthy history of conflict spanning approximately eight to nine years.

The children's emotional distress, particularly J.B.'s suicidal ideation and hospitalization, was directly linked to parental conflict over school choice and ongoing litigation.

The court determined that J.B. was at risk of emotional harm if returned to his father's care, as the father continued to involve the child in parental disputes despite court proceedings being ongoing.

The court ordered J.B. to remain in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to both parents, and S.B. to remain with his mother under society supervision.