4 total
Crown wardship order varied to add First Nation and cultural access after Society failed to serve Band.
The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for directions after discovering it had failed to serve the First Nation before obtaining a Crown wardship order for an Indigenous child.
The court found the original order was a nullity as against the First Nation due to the lack of notice.
Applying Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court varied the Crown wardship order in accordance with minutes of settlement to add the First Nation as a party, formally recognize the child's Indigenous status, and mandate specific cultural access and community connection provisions.
Crown wardship ordered for five children of deaf parents due to transience and inability to meet needs.
Two child protection agencies sought Crown wardship of five children born to deaf parents.
The four older children had been in care for over five years, and the youngest was apprehended at birth.
The parents sought the return of all children.
The court found all five children to be in need of protection due to the parents' history of transience, inability to meet the children's significant developmental needs, and lack of a stable housing plan.
The court ordered Crown wardship for all five children without parental access, finding that the parents could not provide the necessary stability and that parental access would not be beneficial and meaningful or would impair adoption.
Sibling access was ordered.
Costs awarded against child protection agency for improper warrantless apprehension.
This decision addresses a costs issue following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.
The court had previously found that the society improperly apprehended several children without a warrant immediately after a justice of the peace refused an apprehension warrant, criticizing the society’s reliance on an incorrect statutory provision and its disregard for the earlier judicial decision.
Although costs are not presumptively awarded in child protection matters under r. 24(2) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs may be appropriate where a society engages in procedural misconduct or irregularity causing unnecessary litigation.
The court concluded that the society’s misuse of statutory authority and resulting wrongful apprehension directly caused the respondent to incur additional legal expenses.
A costs award of $3,250 inclusive of disbursements and HST was ordered against the society.
Complaint against CAS dismissed; Society substantially complied with settlement agreement and settled issues cannot be revived.
The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached at a pre-hearing regarding facilitating communication with the mother about access.
He also sought to revive a previously settled complaint about the thoroughness of the Society's investigation into two incidents.
The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society was in substantial compliance with the settlement agreement, as it had proactively offered a service agreement which the applicant initially declined.
The Board also held that the applicant could not revive the investigation complaint, as it had been fully resolved at the pre-hearing.
