Marco Pasquale Frangione

In a child protection motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court considered whether customary care agreements for Indigenous children were valid despite the absence of parental consent where both parents had been properly served but remained wholly absent and unlocatable.

The court held that parental consent, while generally critical, is not an absolute precondition where exceptional circumstances exist, sustained efforts at engagement have failed, the agreements are comprehensive, culturally grounded, and preserve parental rights, and robust mechanisms for review and judicial oversight remain in place.

The court emphasized the statutory preference for customary care for Indigenous children and distinguished appellate authority where inadequate safeguards and insufficient First Nations involvement had rendered reliance on a customary arrangement impermissible.

The motion was granted, the parents were noted in default, the requirement for their signatures was dispensed with, and the protection application was withdrawn in favour of the customary care agreements.

A motion concerning parental access to five children in the temporary care and custody of a child protection society.

The children were removed following extremely serious abuse allegations.

The respondent parents were subsequently charged criminally and released on conditions restricting contact with the children.

The court addressed the interaction between criminal release orders and child protection orders, determining that criminal court orders prevail to the extent of any conflict.

The court then assessed appropriate access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, balancing the risks of harm from alleged abuse against the harm of complete separation from parents.

The court ordered supervised daytime access for the mother (minimum once weekly for three hours) and more restricted supervised access for the father (once weekly for maximum 90 minutes), with no access for the oldest child who disclosed the most severe abuse.

Access remains subject to criminal court release conditions.

The Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services applied for warrants for two children, leading to a child protection application.

The mother and First Nation challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the agency failed to bring the application within the five-day statutory limit following two apprehensions (one in October 2023 and one in December 2023).

The court found that the October apprehension was without legal authority due to lack of consent and failure to comply with the five-day rule, but deemed it a discrete event that did not preclude a subsequent intervention.

For the December apprehension, the court applied the Family Law Rules for calculating time and found the agency complied with the five-day limit.

The court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the current child protection proceeding.

The applicant, Jacqueline Pommer, sought final orders for ongoing and retroactive spousal support from the respondent, Joseph Caron, who was noted in default and did not appear.

The court, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, determined the respondent's income from 2019 to 2023 and ordered him to pay significant retroactive spousal support totaling $122,704, along with ongoing monthly support of $2,603.

The applicant's other claims, including equalization of net family property and child support, were abandoned and dismissed.

The appellant biological mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent customary caregiver specified parenting time with the child.

The appellant also sought to stay the caregiver's application under the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over matters engaging the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the Superior Court held that the Ontario Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to hear such proceedings and oversee customary care disputes.

The appeal to stay the application was dismissed, and the temporary parenting time order, as previously varied, was continued.

This motion, brought by Wahgoshig First Nation and supported by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS), sought to transfer a child protection proceeding from Toronto to Timmins.

The child, nearly 9 years old, had resided in Wahgoshig First Nation for 8 years under a Customary Care Agreement, which was recently terminated.

Kunuwanimano Child & Family Services (Kunu) opposed the transfer, arguing Toronto was the proper venue and raising concerns about service capacity.

The court found a preponderance of convenience favored Timmins, given the child's long-term residence, connections, and the location of current protection concerns.

Despite NCFS initially lacking territorial jurisdiction to file in Toronto, the court, relying on the Family Law Rules, ordered the transfer to Timmins to ensure the child's best interests and avoid legal limbo.

This sentencing decision concerns H.T., an Anishnaabe-ikwe, found guilty of three counts of simple assault and one count of mischief under $5000, arising from an intimate partner relationship.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors, including intergenerational trauma from residential schools, child welfare system involvement, sexual exploitation, and substance abuse, which significantly diminished her moral culpability.

Despite the Crown seeking incarceration, the court granted conditional discharges with probation, emphasizing H.T.'s significant rehabilitative efforts, sobriety, and commitment to parenting.

The decision highlights the importance of rehabilitation and restraint in sentencing Aboriginal offenders, particularly when systemic factors have contributed to their circumstances.

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike a custody application brought by the foster parents of an Indigenous child.

The child had been placed with the foster parents under an alternative care agreement, while a customary care agreement was in place with the child's First Nation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that out-of-court customary care agreements fall outside the CYFSA.

The court held that the applicants were foster parents and thus prohibited from bringing a custody application under the CLRA, and that deference was owed to the placement decision of the agency acting under the authority of the First Nation.

This case concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, for two children, JS1 and DA.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought to place the children in its temporary care due to concerns of physical harm and neglect by the parents, including inappropriate discipline, failure to meet children's needs, and substance abuse.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk, citing consistent allegations from the children, the parents' uncooperative behaviour, lack of insight, and failure to complete rehabilitative programs.

The court ordered the children into the temporary care of the agency with supervised access for the parents.

This decision concerns the temporary care and custody of a child, S., apprehended at birth by the Children's Aid Society.

The agency relied on a prior parenting assessment report regarding the parents' first child, which the court ultimately rejected due to concerns about the assessor's qualifications, methodology, and potential bias, particularly concerning the Metis mother.

Despite the child's serious medical condition, the court found no evidence that the mother was unable or unwilling to provide necessary medical care.

The court emphasized that children should not be removed from parents solely because specialized medical services are not available in their rural community.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the mother's temporary care, subject to supervision and a detailed plan for medical support and training.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

The applicants, who are Indigenous caregivers, sought custody of a child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent agency sought to strike the application, arguing that the child was subject to an out-of-court customary care agreement under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and that the applicants were foster parents prohibited from bringing such an action.

The court held that out-of-court customary care agreements operate outside the statutory framework and lack procedural safeguards, that the applicants are customary caregivers rather than foster parents, and that deference cannot be given to the agency's placement decision due to procedural fairness concerns and the application of principles other than the best interests of the child.

The motion to strike was dismissed and the applicants were granted interim custody.

A child welfare agency brought a protection application seeking to have two children declared in need of protection based on allegations of physical harm, sexual abuse, and failure to provide treatment.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal.

The court found that the agency failed to meet the mandatory five-day deadline under s. 88 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to bring the matter before the court following apprehension, resulting in loss of jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the court found insufficient evidence to support any of the three grounds alleged by the agency.

The motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to the respondent father.