Mae-Tuin Seto

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.

The appellant father appealed from the dismissal of his Superior Court of Justice appeal from a Crown wardship order without access made in the Ontario Court of Justice in respect of his son.

The child had been in care since he was four months old.

The appellant argued that the trial judge should have weighed the evidence differently and should have given him sole custody.

The Court of Appeal found no errors of law by either the trial judge or the appeal judge.

The appellant had not proposed a plan of care for sole custody at trial, and the trial judge did not err in concluding that continuing access would not be beneficial and meaningful for the child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application seeking to place two children (ages 9 and 7) in the temporary care and custody of their maternal grandfather in the Cayman Islands, subject to supervision.

The father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement of the children with himself and his partner.

The court granted the society's motion, finding that the children had been in foster care for nearly two years and that the father had not met his onus of establishing that the best interests of the children required a change in their care.

The maternal grandfather had demonstrated strong parenting skills with the two younger siblings and had a positive home study.

The court ordered placement with the maternal grandfather effective August 29, 2015, with telephone and Skype access to the father, his partner, and the paternal grandmother.

The children's aid society brought a motion seeking an order to permit three children, who were the subject of a Crown wardship application, to travel to a foreign jurisdiction for an extended access visit with paternal kin.

The society proposed this as a less disruptive alternative to adoption.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed plan was not in the children's best interests due to significant risks, including the potential for unauthorized involvement by the parents, the lack of financial resources of the proposed caregivers, the culture shock to the children, and the jurisdictional difficulties in enforcing any return order if the placement failed.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking permission for three children in its care to travel to Jamaica for an extended access visit with their paternal grandmother, with the intention of assessing the viability of a permanent placement arrangement.

The mother supported the motion, but the Office of the Children's Lawyer (representing the oldest child), the biological father of the oldest child, and the maternal grandmother opposed it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed Jamaica plan was not in the best interests of the children.

The court identified numerous obstacles, including concerns about the father's involvement and his relationship with the mother (whom the society deemed unsuitable), the grandmother's limited financial resources and passive demeanor, the absence of meaningful relationships between the children and the proposed caregivers, and significant jurisdictional and enforcement complications arising from placing the children in a foreign country.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The respondent mother opposed the motion; the respondent father did not file material.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the protection findings or the disposition.

The children had been in temporary Society care for over 23 and 21 months respectively following apprehension due to a home invasion.

The court found the children at risk due to the father's involvement in a lifestyle associated with street-level violence and the mother's history of domestic violence, untreated mental health issues including depression and self-harm, and unstable living circumstances.

The mother's plan lacked detail and corroborative evidence.

The father presented no viable plan.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards.

The applicant children's aid society sought a finding that a five-year-old child was in need of protection due to a risk of physical harm from the father.

The child made consistent disclosures to police and social workers that the father hit her with a belt and slapped her, and she expressed fear of him.

The parents denied the allegations, claiming the father only rarely spanked the child over two years ago.

The court found the child's disclosures credible and reliable, rejecting the parents' evidence.

The court concluded that the father's excessive physical discipline and the mother's failure to protect the child created a real risk of physical harm, finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning whether a child was in need of protection due to risk of physical harm.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child following disclosures of physical and sexual harm by the father.

The society withdrew allegations of sexual harm at trial.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the child had been subjected to inappropriate physical discipline by the father, including hitting with a belt on multiple body parts, and that the child had expressed consistent fear of the father.

The court found the threshold for protection was met under clause 37(2)(b) of the Act, finding the father's discipline was excessive and created a risk of physical harm.

The disposition phase was adjourned to a later date.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for two young children.

The mother had a lengthy history of child welfare involvement, housing instability, and parenting capacity issues.

The father of the younger child had been incarcerated and had never met the child.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as neither parent presented a realistic plan for the children's care.

The children were found in need of protection and made Crown wards with no access, prioritizing their need for permanency.