Michelle Cheung

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to determine the appropriate sentence for Trinity Bible Chapel and six individuals (the "Contemnors") who were found in contempt of a January 22, 2021 court order.

The order restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons, contravening Ontario Regulation 82/20.

The Contemnors had intentionally and publicly breached the order, having previously expressed an intent to engage in civil disobedience rather than challenge the legislation constitutionally.

The court considered proportionality, mitigating and aggravating factors, deterrence, denunciation, and similar sentences.

The court imposed fines totaling $38,000 ($15,000 for Trinity Bible Chapel, and varying amounts for the individual Contemnors based on their involvement) and fixed costs of $45,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The appellant, J.L., appealed a Crown wardship order without access for his child, JLC, and sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding JLC's native heritage.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it did not meet the test.

The court also rejected the procedural unfairness argument regarding J.L.'s exclusion from the courtroom, deeming the trial judge's actions reasonable given J.L.'s disruptive behavior.

The Crown wardship decision was upheld, as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding J.L.'s drug abuse and anti-social behavior posed a significant risk to JLC.

Regarding access, the court found the trial judge erred in conflating "beneficial" and "meaningful" in the s.59(2.1) test of the Child and Family Services Act, but ultimately upheld the denial of access.

The court concluded that access would not be beneficial to JLC due to J.L.'s inability to control emotions and behavior, and would impair JLC's future adoption opportunities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought access to youth criminal justice records of A.C., now an adult, for use in child protection proceedings regarding A.C.'s infant son.

The records were created when A.C. was a young person and are protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court was required to balance the society's interest in protecting the child against A.C.'s privacy rights under the Act.

The court granted limited access to two records within the statutory access period (robbery and breach of recognizance charges) but denied access to all other records that fell outside the access periods.

The court imposed strict conditions on the use and distribution of the records granted.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child in care of the Children's Aid Society.

The child was placed in care due to parental drug addiction and related neglect.

The Society sought a final order of crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

Both parents sought return of the child under supervision orders, with access as an alternative.

The court found that both parents had uncontrolled long-standing drug addictions, engaged in a dysfunctional and violent relationship, and lacked the capacity to provide adequate care.

The father exhibited severe behavioral and emotional control issues.

The court determined that crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests, as neither parent could provide the stability and support the child required.

The appellant mother appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order making the child a Crown ward without access.

She argued the children’s aid society failed to fulfill its statutory duty under the Child and Family Services Act to provide guidance, counselling, and other services to assist the family, and that the trial judge erred in declining to extend the period of society wardship.

The court held there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge’s findings that the mother’s repeated involvement in violent domestic relationships and inability to regulate anger posed ongoing risks to the child.

Although the society could have communicated better in some respects, the record showed that many attempts to provide services were refused or frustrated by the mother’s conduct.

The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error and concluded an extension of society wardship would not have been appropriate in any event.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.

A mother appealed a child protection summary judgment that found the child to be in need of protection and placed the child in the care of a child protection society as a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, misapprehended the evidence under s. 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, and erred in denying access under s. 59(2.1).

The court held that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test under rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and carefully reviewed extensive largely unopposed evidence demonstrating significant parenting risks and inability to meet the child’s needs.

Fresh evidence regarding the mother’s updated plan of care did not sufficiently address the safety concerns identified in the original decision.

The court deferred to the motion judge’s findings and upheld the Crown wardship and no‑access order.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and an order for crown wardship without access.

The child had been apprehended from the mother's care due to parental conflict, inadequate parenting ability, and the mother's inability to cope.

The parents had received extensive services and supports, including a therapeutic access program, but demonstrated insufficient progress.

The mother opposed the crown wardship order and sought return of the child to her care with supervision.

The court found no triable issue that the child was in need of protection and that crown wardship was in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the mother's argument that improvements in supervised access visits demonstrated capacity for full-time parenting, noting that the child had been in care for nearly 22 months, well beyond statutory time limits, and required permanency planning.

A father appealed a summary judgment order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made two children crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the motions judge misapplied the summary judgment test and that a triable issue existed regarding reunification.

The Superior Court held that the correct legal test had been applied and that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The record showed long-standing concerns about the father’s judgment, instability, criminal conduct, and inability to provide safe parenting.

The appeal was dismissed and the crown wardship order remained in effect.

This is a four-day crown wardship trial concerning a child (J.1) aged 1½ years.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

The maternal grandmother opposed this and sought placement of the child in her care.

The mother filed an answer but did not participate in the trial.

The court found the child to be in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and determined that crown wardship with no access was in the child's best interests, despite the maternal grandmother's offer to provide care.

The court considered the maternal grandmother's history with child protection agencies, her pattern of transience, changing family constellation, and the risks associated with placing an additional child in her already high-needs household.