Mira R. Pilch

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking in-person access to her infant son, who was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents following serious non-accidental injuries sustained while in parental care.

The child was hospitalized with traumatic brain injuries, including subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and bruising.

The society opposed the motion, seeking to maintain virtual-only access due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns, particularly given the child's medical vulnerability.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and upheld the suspension of in-person access, finding that the child's fragile medical condition and the evolving pandemic risks outweighed the benefits of face-to-face contact at that time.

This is a status review application in a child protection matter involving an 11-year-old child who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 33 months.

The court determined that the child was in need of protection and that intervention through a court order was necessary.

The applicant sought extended society care with access at the agency's discretion.

The respondent mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's mental health issues, lack of insight, combative behaviour, and failure to address protection concerns made her unsuitable to care for the child.

The court ordered extended society care with access to the mother at the agency's discretion.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning five children.

The society sought placement of the youngest child (L.O.), born in 2018, in its care due to severe failure to thrive and developmental delay, and placement of four older children with their mother subject to supervision.

The mother opposed removal of the youngest child and sought dismissal of the protection application.

The court found overwhelming evidence of neglect, including the youngest child's severe malnutrition and developmental delay, and a long history of chronic neglect spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the youngest child in the society's care and the four older children with the mother under strict supervision orders.

This appeal concerns a mother's request for access to three of her six children in extended care following their apprehension by the Children's Aid Society in 2015.

The motion judge granted Crown wardship without access.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision but applied the old Child and Family Services Act rather than the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the transitional provisions of the new Act applied, the record was insufficient to satisfy the expanded access test, the children's Indigenous heritage was not properly considered, and the approach to summary judgment in child protection matters was misapplied.

The matter was remitted to Superior Court for determination under the new legislation.

A child protection trial involving four children of C.D. The Children's Aid Society of Peel sought protection findings and various disposition orders.

The court found all four children to be in need of protection based on evidence of physical discipline and inadequate supervision.

The court ordered: M. (globally developmentally delayed) into extended Society care; twins Aa. and As. into the custody of their father G.B.; and D. into the temporary care of a kin caregiver C.S. for six months.

The mother's position that she had never hit her children was rejected based on the totality of evidence, including prior proceedings and the children's statements to police.

A status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning a child found in need of protection.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a final order of extended society care without access to the mother to facilitate adoption.

The mother sought return of the child under a supervision order or, alternatively, access.

The court found that the mother repeatedly breached supervision orders by maintaining contact with her biological father, a registered sex offender with a history of child sexual abuse.

Despite opportunities to address the risk through counselling and support services, the mother demonstrated poor judgment, lack of credibility, and inability to comply with court-ordered conditions.

The court granted extended society care but permitted limited access through cards and letters with the child as the access holder.

The respondent mother brought a Form 14B motion seeking leave to bring a motion for access to her two children, who had been made crown wards without access.

The respondent father brought a Form 14B motion seeking leave to bring a status review application regarding the older child.

The Children's Aid Society sought dismissal of both motions.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the mother's request was improperly framed and that statutory restrictions prevented either parent from bringing the requested proceedings.

The court imposed restrictions on further filings by the parents prior to December 8, 2017.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that two young children are in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access.

The court found both children in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the risk of physical harm resulting from the parents' failure to adequately care for and protect the children.

The court granted the motion and ordered crown wardship without access, finding that the mother's parenting capacity remained inadequate, the father had a history of violence and criminal behaviour, and the mother had demonstrated poor judgment regarding her relationship with the father.

The court dismissed the mother's request for a parenting capacity assessment as untimely and found no genuine issue for trial.

A child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The Society sought to make the children crown wards without access for adoption purposes.

The maternal grandfather brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceeding and to obtain temporary access to the children, with the intention of proposing that they be placed in his care.

The mother opposed the Society's crown wardship application and proposed placement with her parents as her primary plan.

The court granted the maternal grandfather's motion to be added as a party, finding that his plan merited consideration despite the late involvement and the precarious relationship between him and the mother.

The court also granted a graduated access schedule for the maternal grandfather while noting concerns about the children's adverse reactions to visits.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to make the child a crown ward with a plan for adoption.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought the child's return to her care or, alternatively, placement with maternal relatives under a kinship plan.

The court found that while the child could not be returned to the mother's care due to her history of physical abuse and lack of engagement, there remained a genuine issue for trial regarding whether a viable kinship placement with the maternal uncle and aunt could succeed with appropriate therapeutic intervention and family support services.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion and adjourned the proceeding for trial on the discrete issues of the viability of the kinship plan and the child's access to family members.

The mother appealed an Ontario order enforcing a Georgia custody order that granted sole custody to the father.

Pending the appeal, the mother moved for third-party production of documents, and the father cross-moved for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's motion, finding the documents could have been requested earlier and would not meet the test for fresh evidence as they did not address the Georgia court's ability to protect the children.

The Court granted the father's motion for security for costs, finding the mother's appeal to be meritless and a waste of time, and ordered her to post $10,000.