Martha Louise Chamberlain

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to suspend the mother's in-person access visits with the child, C.B., citing concerns about the mother's conduct during visits, including unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations against the father and coaching the child.

The father supported the motion, while the mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) opposed it.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test for varying an access order, requiring a change in circumstances that renders the existing order no longer in the child's best interests and that the new order sought is in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the Society's request to suspend in-person access, finding it too drastic and contrary to the child's expressed wishes and special needs.

Instead, the court varied the access order by imposing conditions on the mother's conduct during visits, such as prohibiting discussion of adult or court-related matters and recording the child.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the issues were dealt with in a child protection trial.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming his children were not permitted to practice their Islamic faith while in foster care.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues overlapped with the child protection proceeding, which was currently under appeal.

To avoid inconsistent results, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the appeal.

A child protection trial concerning a young child apprehended at birth by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found the child in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's pattern of neglect, lack of insight, criminal involvement, and exposure to domestic violence, as well as the father's domestic violence history, lack of commitment to parenting, criminal record, and refusal to acknowledge protection concerns.

The court ordered the child to be made a Crown Ward without access, for the purpose of adoption by the father's sister who was already caring for the child's two older siblings.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning four young children who were apprehended due to severe neglect and developmental delays.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for crown wardship without access.

The father sought return of the children to his care, either pursuant to a section 57.1 order or with supervision.

The mother sought access.

The court found that the children continued to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and emotional harm and developmental delays.

The court determined that the father lacked the insight, judgment, and capacity to meet the complex medical and developmental needs of the children, despite community supports.

The court ordered that all four children be made crown wards for the purpose of adoption with no access to either parent.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended due to inadequate parental care and weight loss.

The child's mother sought return of the child to her care under supervision, while the Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order without access.

The court found that despite the mother's cognitive limitations, the substantial supports now in place—including counselling, parenting enhancement services, and community support—were sufficient to mitigate the original risk factors.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's care under a 12-month supervision order with specific conditions.

Motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order for crown wardship without access.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The father consented to the orders sought.

The court found that the mother's cognitive limitations, inability to provide adequate instrumental care, difficulty meeting her own needs, and lack of demonstrated improvement despite years of involvement with child protection services established a clear case for crown wardship.

The mother's plan for care, involving a recently engaged partner whom she had known for only a few months, lacked credibility and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted summary judgment and made the child a crown ward without access.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order granting Crown wardship without access following summary judgment under the Child and Family Services Act.

She argued the motions judge failed to review video evidence of access visits and erred in not extending statutory timelines to permit reunification efforts.

The appeal judge reviewed the same evidentiary record and concluded that even accepting the video evidence as favourable to the mother, it did not address her ability to resume parenting within the statutory timelines.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, no procedural unfairness, and no misapplication of the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order remained in place.

The father appealed a summary judgment order in a child protection proceeding that made the child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

He argued that the motions judge erred by failing to apply the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, by preferring expediency over fairness, and by improperly assessing his evidence, criminal history, and alleged drug use.

The court held that the Combined Air test did not apply to summary judgment under rule 16 of the Family Law Rules in child protection proceedings and confirmed the distinct jurisprudence emphasizing the child’s best interests and timely permanency.

The court found the father failed to put forward sufficient evidence or a viable plan of care and had not complied with prior supervision conditions relating to drug testing and parenting responsibilities.

Concluding that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed and that the child’s best interests supported permanency through adoption, the appeal was dismissed.