Michelle Meighoo

A case conference in a child protection matter under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought to place a newborn child (born March 14, 2018) who had been apprehended on March 16, 2018 due to the mother's serious mental health concerns.

The father attended court and expressed willingness to plan for the child.

The court directed the society to assess the father's strengths, develop a service plan, provide expectations, and facilitate the father's input.

At the June 14, 2018 case conference, the society reported comprehensive compliance with the court's directions and demonstrated significant progress in working with the father, including overnight visits and parenting instruction.

The case was adjourned to July 18, 2018 for motions to place the child in the father's temporary care and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee for the mother.

A costs endorsement following a successful motion by a stepmother for temporary access to a nine-year-old child.

The stepmother sought costs of $4,571 after obtaining one weekend per month access, which the parents had opposed entirely.

The court awarded costs of $2,400 total, with the father paying $1,600 and the mother paying $800, payable in monthly installments.

The decision addresses the principles governing costs awards for self-represented litigants and the application of Family Law Rules cost factors.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a 13-year-old child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting custody be granted to the father with access to the mother at the father's discretion.

The father and child supported the motion.

The unrepresented mother opposed it but did not file responding material.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the society's evidence was replete with inadmissible hearsay that violated the trial-worthy evidentiary standard required on summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

The court found the evidentiary violations unjustly hindered the self-represented mother's legal interests and prevented the court from having confidence that the case could be justly resolved through summary judgment.

A stepmother sought temporary access to a nine-year-old child on alternate weekends and three weeks during summer.

The biological parents opposed all access.

The court found that the stepmother had formed a settled intention to treat the child as her own and had a close, loving relationship with the child spanning from age one to age nine.

The court granted limited temporary access on one weekend every four weeks, finding that parental autonomy does not extend to excluding a person who has assumed the role of a third parent.

The court rejected the parents' allegations against the stepmother as lacking credibility and found the parents were acting arbitrarily and in bad faith.

Two child protection matters raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the five‑day statutory deadline for bringing an apprehended child before the court under s. 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondents argued the applications were late because the societies waited until the sixth calendar day following apprehension.

The court held that the computation provisions in the Legislation Act, 2006 apply unless a contrary legislative intention appears.

Because the fifth day fell on Easter Monday when the court was closed, the statutory deadline was extended to the next business day.

The applications were therefore brought within the legally defined five‑day period and the court retained jurisdiction.

Two consolidated child protection cases raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the interpretation of the five-day time limit in subsection 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent A.H. argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Children's Aid Society failed to bring the matter before the court within five calendar days of the child's apprehension, as the fifth day fell on Easter Monday, a statutory holiday.

The court held that the provisions of the Legislation Act, 2006 apply to the time limit, extending it to the next day that is not a holiday when the deadline falls on a holiday or when the court office is closed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear both cases.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her appeal of a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of her two children with no access.

The mother alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on the summary judgment motion and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the appeal judge's conclusion that motion counsel performed competently and followed instructions.

The Court also denied the admission of fresh evidence, noting it was an attempt to re-litigate the case and would not have changed the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Crown wardship order.