Lucia Spampinato

This decision addresses a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving two young children found to be in need of protection due to risks of physical harm and exposure to family violence.

The court carefully analyzed the mental health challenges of the mother, the domestic violence between the parents, and the suitability of placement with the maternal aunt.

The court found the mother lacked insight and compliance with treatment, and the father had a history of family violence.

The children were placed in the care of the maternal aunt with supervision by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and access orders were made for the parents with conditions.

The judgment also provides a detailed roadmap for the parents to address the protection concerns and work towards reunification.

This is a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court ordered a parenting capacity assessment to be conducted by Dr. Walton-Allen to assess the parents' capacity to care for their five children.

At trial, the mother's counsel challenged the admissibility of the assessment report, alleging that Dr. Walton-Allen misrepresented her qualifications.

The mother contended that Dr. Walton-Allen is a school psychologist, not a clinical psychologist as represented, and therefore lacks the expertise to conduct such a complex assessment.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the expert evidence.

The court found that Dr. Walton-Allen intentionally misrepresented her qualifications and that her expertise as a school psychologist was insufficient for the complex psychological and social issues involved.

The court struck the assessment report from the record and disqualified Dr. Walton-Allen from providing expert opinion evidence.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion without notice to C.O., seeking a finding that C.O. is not a "parent" as defined under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and an order removing him as a respondent.

C.O. had been found to be the father of child E. by Justice Agro in 2007 under the former Child and Family Services Act, and this finding had never been appealed or set aside.

The court dismissed the motion on four grounds: (1) C.O. held the legal status of parent and was entitled to notice as a fundamental principle of natural justice; (2) the coming into force of the CYFSA did not retroactively affect the validity of the prior finding of parentage; (3) C.O. was a party affected by the motion and entitled to notice under the Family Law Rules; and (4) the Society failed to meet the test for bringing a motion without notice.

The court also addressed the Society's conduct in attempting to circumvent procedural requirements and imposed restrictions on future similar motions.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society against three respondents concerning three children: A. (age 17), N. (age 14), and S. (age 5).

The mother, J.K.V., suffers from untreated mental illness including bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and substance abuse issues.

The court found all three children to be in need of protection based on patterns of neglect, failure to provide adequate care, supervision, and protection.

The court made A. a Crown Ward, placed N. in his father's care subject to a seven-month supervision order, and granted S.'s father sole custody with no access for the mother.

The decision emphasizes the serious impact of untreated parental mental illness on child protection outcomes and the court's duty to prioritize children's best interests over parental rights.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary care and custody motion in child protection proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society sought protection orders for three children due to concerns about physical and emotional harm, domestic violence exposure, and parental conflict.

The mother supported the society's position and agreed to supervision terms.

The father initially sought joint custody but changed his position at the hearing, continuing to blame the mother for parental alienation.

The court awarded costs to the mother against the father, finding his conduct was unreasonable, disproportionate, and significantly prolonged the proceedings through excessive and repetitive materials and unwarranted attacks on the mother.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place three children in the care of their respective parents subject to extensive terms of supervision.

The children had been exposed to significant parental conflict, domestic violence, physical discipline, and emotional harm.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of both physical and emotional harm and granted the society's application with 65 detailed terms and conditions governing parental conduct, access arrangements, counselling, school attendance, and communication protocols.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a 14-year-old child who had been apprehended from her mother's care.

The child had experienced significant trauma including physical and sexual abuse while in her father's care in the United States, and subsequently suffered from self-harm and suicidal ideation while in her mother's care in Ontario.

The mother failed to ensure consistent counselling, regular school attendance, and adequate supervision.

The court found that the child could not be adequately protected by an order returning her to the mother with or without supervision, and ordered that the child remain in the care and custody of the society with supervised access.