Mark Erik Hecht

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns about worker bias and failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Procedure.

The Board found that the respondent did not adequately hear the applicant's concerns regarding bias, as there was no evidence of active listening or meaningful discussion.

The Board also found that the respondent failed to provide written notice of complaint eligibility within seven days, breaching procedural requirements.

The respondent was ordered to provide written reasons demonstrating how it considered the applicant's concerns about bias.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother and former kin caregiver, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the children's aid society.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues were already before the Superior Court of Justice in child protection proceedings.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the applicant's complaint regarding the internal complaints review panel because it was not filed in the required format.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over the access complaint as it was an issue before the court.

However, three of the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to hear her concerns and provide reasons were found to be separate from the court proceedings and were allowed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests, specifically regarding an out-of-care assessment.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues had already been decided in a recent child protection court proceeding.

The adjudicator reviewed the issues and found that several were indeed before the court and could not be reviewed by the Board, while others were separate and different and could proceed to a hearing.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged that the society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding multiple issues, including staff misconduct, false allegations, and the cancellation of his access visits.

The Board found that the applicant met his onus only with respect to the society's failure to provide reasons for cancelling his visits with his son in March 2011.

The society was ordered to provide those reasons, and all other complaints were dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa applied for a custody order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to place the child, VP, in the permanent care of her kin caregivers, S.V. and J.V. The child's mother, S.P., sought a supervision order for gradual reintegration, while an assisted care provider, G.C., sought custody or access.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse, mental health issues, and exposure to domestic violence.

Ultimately, the court granted custody to S.V. and J.V., finding their plan to be in the child's best interests, while ordering supervised access for the mother, scheduled access for the father, and denying access to G.C.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the child, AM.

The Society sought a final custody order for TR, the father’s partner, but the court found there were significant triable issues, including the child’s Indigenous status, the adequacy of kinship assessments, and the best interests of the child regarding care and access.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was sent to trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of three children with their paternal grandmother due to the mother's untreated substance addiction, mental health issues, and chaotic lifestyle.

The father and paternal grandmother supported the Society's motion.

The mother opposed, seeking shared decision-making and parenting time.

The paternal grandmother also brought a cross-motion for a change of the youngest child's surname.

The court granted the Society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and placed the children in the paternal grandmother's custody with specific supervised access for the mother.

The paternal grandmother's cross-motion for a name change was dismissed as moot.

G.C. (an added party) sought an order for access to the child, V.E.B.P., and S.P. (the mother) brought a cross-motion seeking to have G.C. supervise her access to the child.

The Children’s Aid Society, the father, and the child's kin caregivers opposed both motions.

The court denied G.C.'s motion for interim access, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial or meaningful to the child, citing concerns about G.C.'s transparency, involvement in adult conflict, and negative messaging about the father.

The court also denied the mother's request for G.C. to supervise access, concluding that G.C. was not a suitable supervisor due to lack of neutrality and past conduct.

The child's stability and positive development in kin care were significant factors in the decision.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for not approving her plan for a foster child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not in receipt of services and the matter was before the court.

The Board found that conducting a caregiver evaluation constituted a service, and that the complaint regarding the failure to provide reasons was separate from the substantive child protection proceedings before the court.

The application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for interim care and custody of baby R. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, citing concerns about the parents' mental/emotional health, domestic conflict, and non-cooperation.

The parents, K.T. and E.M., opposed the motion, arguing they had made significant progress and that an interim supervision order would adequately protect the child.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was a risk of emotional harm to R. if returned without conditions, but ultimately determined that an Interim Supervision Order with detailed terms and conditions, including cooperation with external service providers and the Society, would adequately mitigate the risk.

The motion for Society care was dismissed, and the child was returned to the parents' care under supervision.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her three grandchildren.

The children had recently been placed in her temporary care under a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party at this early stage would cause delay, unnecessarily complicate the proceedings, and escalate conflict, which was not in the children's best interests.

The court noted the grandmother could reapply if circumstances changed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of police and medical records regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents consented to the release of police records but opposed the release of their medical records, citing significant privacy interests related to their complex medical care as transgender individuals.

The court dismissed the motion for medical records, finding no sufficient nexus between the Society's concerns about emotional health and the predominantly endocrinological treatment the parents received.

The court held that the parents' privacy interests and the need to maintain their therapeutic relationships outweighed the probative value of the records at this stage.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order to place a child with his biological father, J.W., under an interim supervision order.

The child's parents, K.T. and E.M., sought the child's return to K.T.'s care under an interim supervision order.

The court found the child was at risk of emotional harm due to exposure to adult conflict between the parents.

However, given that the parents were now living separately, the court determined that the child could be adequately protected by an interim supervision order returning the child to K.T.'s care, with terms reflecting the Society's notice of motion.

The Society's request for placement with J.W. was dismissed, and the child was returned to the mother, K.T., under supervision.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to communicate with her and facilitate access to her children.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the children had been made Crown Wards with no access by a court order in 2015.

The Board found that the issues of parental rights and access had been decided by the court, and therefore section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 barred the Board from reviewing the complaint.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

In a child protection proceeding, the child's caregivers brought a motion to remove the biological father as a party to the proceeding.

The biological father brought a cross-motion for interim parenting time or care of the child.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the biological father as a party, finding that he met the statutory definition of a parent and that removing him would be a denial of natural justice.

The court granted the biological father's motion for interim access, ordering supervised visits to foster a relationship between him and the child.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa (Society) brought a motion seeking to continue a temporary order for the care and custody of a three-month-old child (M.K.) on a with prejudice basis, placing the child in the Society's temporary care.

The Respondent Mother opposed the motion, requesting the child's return to her care with conditions.

The Respondent Father was removed as a party after a paternity test revealed he was not the biological father.

The court applied the two-part legal test under subsections 94(2), (4), and (5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of a risk of harm to the child due to the Mother's long-standing, unresolved mental health issues, including chronic delusional disorder and recent bipolar diagnosis, her inability to cooperate with professionals, and an insufficient support network.

The court concluded that the child could not be adequately protected by an interim supervision order.

The Society's motion was granted, and the child remained in the Society's care and custody, with access to the Mother at the Society's discretion, pending the completion of proceedings.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to follow its Internal Complaint Review Process and denied her an opportunity to be heard regarding child protection proceedings.

The Board proceeded with a written hearing and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

The Board found the applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard, the society lacked jurisdiction to review matters already decided by the court, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, such as returning the children or striking court orders.

This is a status review application by the Children’s Aid Society seeking a custody order for three children in favour of their maternal grandmother, with access to the mother at the grandmother's sole discretion.

The mother sought the children's return under a voluntary service agreement or supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of engaging in violent relationships, domestic violence occurring in front of the children, and drug use.

The court dismissed the mother's plan and granted custody to the maternal grandmother, finding it to be in the children's best interests, emphasizing stability, safety, and the grandmother's ability to meet their needs.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking an extended society care order for a two-year-old child with a plan for adoption.

The mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted the extended society care order, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court also determined that the order could not be silent on access, as requested by the Society, and instead explicitly ordered no access for either parent, while leaving open the issue of the child's access to her sibling and maternal grandparents.

The respondent-father sought costs against the respondent-mother in a child protection matter.

The court found that the mother's conduct throughout the litigation was unreasonable, in bad faith, and disproportionate, causing unnecessary delays and costs.

Despite the general presumption against costs in child protection cases, the court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to award costs due to the mother's conduct, including refusal to cooperate, defiance of court orders, and failure to address protection concerns.

Costs were fixed at $16,000.