Melanie Sager

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that two children be found in need of protection pursuant to clauses 37(2)(b) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act and be made Crown wards with access to their mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to her care.

The court found that the children were in need of protection based on uncontested evidence of the mother's inability to provide stable housing, her use of the children to sell chocolates to supplement income, the children's excessive school absences, and the mother's failure to cooperate with the society or maintain consistent contact with the children during their time in care.

The court granted the society's motion and made the children Crown wards, with the issue of access to be determined at a further hearing.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (F.D., V.D., and D.D.) who were apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in January 2014 after exposure to domestic violence between their parents.

The mother sought return of the children to her care, either with or without a supervision order.

The father initially supported the mother's plan but abandoned it at trial.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported Crown wardship for two of the three children with access to their mother and mandatory sibling access.

After a 10-day trial, the court found that the children should be made Crown wards without parental access for the purpose of adoption, while maintaining regular sibling access.

The court found the mother lacked credibility, had not addressed the society's protection concerns, and would be unable to meet the children's significant needs.

The father's access was terminated due to his emotionally abusive and threatening conduct toward the children and society staff.

The applicant sought a retroactive reduction in child support and daycare contributions based on his inability to return to work as anticipated when income was imputed to him in the original April 2014 order.

The applicant had been on long-term disability since May 2013 due to mental health issues and physical ailments.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the circumstances existed at the time of the original order and therefore no change in circumstances had occurred.

The court found that the applicant's inability to return to work in July 2014, contrary to expectations, constituted a change in circumstances warranting a retroactive reduction in support.

The court reduced the applicant's child support obligation from $419.00 to $195.00 per month and adjusted daycare contributions based on the applicant's actual income of $24,408.00 from long-term disability benefits.

The court also ordered a review in 18 months to assess whether the applicant was making reasonable efforts to return to work.

In a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a child be made a Crown ward.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the society's motion.

The child, who had been in the society's care for approximately two and a half years and was only three years and eight months old, had minimal contact with the mother (only five visits over 22 months).

The mother had not meaningfully addressed the society's protection concerns regarding alcohol abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and parenting capacity.

The court found that Crown wardship was in the child's best interests and that no access order would be made.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a four-year-old child with Down's syndrome.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a Crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, return of the child to her care without supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for and supervise the child, including her resistance to accepting the child's Down's syndrome diagnosis, her failure to cooperate with service providers, her inappropriate expectations of the child, and her pattern of suspending and resuming access to the child.

The court made a Crown wardship order without access.