Maureen Eileen Bulbrook

The Anishinaabe Abinooji Family Services (AAFS) brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a 12-year-old Indigenous child, M.P., who was apprehended after threatening self-harm if forced to return to the care of Traci Lockman, a non-Indigenous former caregiver.

The child's biological father, N.J., and the G.N. First Nation (GNFN) supported the AAFS's position to place M.P. with her elder sister, S.P., in the First Nation community.

Ms. Lockman sought the child's return to her care.

The court applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA) and the paramount federal An Act Respecting the First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children Youth and Families (Federal Act).

The court found that AAFS discharged its onus, establishing reasonable and probable grounds of risk of harm if the child returned to Ms. Lockman.

Emphasizing the Federal Act's priority of placement scheme and the child's best interests, including cultural continuity and connection to the Indigenous community, the court determined that S.P., as an adult family member, had priority over Ms. Lockman, who was not considered family by the First Nation or the father.

The court dismissed Ms. Lockman's request and ordered M.P. to remain in the temporary care and custody of S.P. under AAFS and GNFN supervision, with structured access for Ms. Lockman.

This endorsement resolves a preliminary objection regarding the participation of foster parents, D.T. and S.C., in a motion to add prospective kin placement D.M. and R.A. as party respondents in a child protection application.

The court examined the definition of 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that an interlocutory motion constitutes a 'hearing,' thereby entitling the foster parents to participate.

A child protection application brought by Brant Family and Children's Services seeking Crown wardship without access for two young Indigenous children was resolved by consent order.

The children's mother sought their return to her care subject to supervision.

The court approved a staggered reintegration plan whereby the younger child would immediately return to the mother's care under supervision for twelve months, and the older child would be reintegrated over a two-month period.

The central legal issue concerned the interpretation of section 70 of the Child and Family Services Act, which imposes time limits on society wardship.

The court held that the statutory time limits should be viewed as presumptive ceilings rather than hard caps, allowing for extensions consistent with the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that three children be made wards of the Crown without access to their biological parents.

The respondent parents had a lengthy history with child protection services dating back to 2007, involving domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and failure to cooperate with service providers.

The children had been in and out of Society care multiple times.

The mother conceded that the children should be made Crown wards but sought ongoing access.

The father opposed Crown wardship but did not present a viable alternative plan.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the children continued to be in need of protection and that Crown wardship without access was in their best interests, particularly given the need for permanency planning through adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought summary judgment motions in two child protection applications concerning two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motions and sought a trial.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the mother's ongoing marijuana use, inability to maintain a safe home, mental health concerns, financial instability, lack of cooperation with the Society, and inconsistent access attendance.

The court granted summary judgment and made the children Crown wards without access to facilitate adoption by their current kin caregivers, finding that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient change over three years to rebut the Society's prima facie case.