Nancy Theresa Charbonneau

This case involves two Status Review Applications brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning four children.

The Society sought extended society care for all children, while the father sought a twelve-month supervision order for all children to be placed with him.

The mother agreed to extended society care for the children.

The court assessed the children's best interests, considering their special needs, the parents' ability to provide consistent care, and the father's history of non-compliance and undermining placements.

The court found the father unreliable and secretive.

Ultimately, the court ordered extended society care for all four children, with specific access provisions where the children are the access holders, and the parents are the recipients, subject to the children's views and the society's discretion.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 116(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to vary a December 10, 2018 order placing a 12-year-old child in the mother's care.

The society sought to place the child in its temporary care and custody.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to retain custody or alternatively place the child with her sister (the maternal aunt).

The court found that the mother had breached substantially all terms of the supervision order, including failing to maintain stable housing, refusing to sign consents for the society to communicate with medical professionals, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court determined that the child's best interests required removal from the mother's care and granted the society's motion for temporary custody with access in the society's discretion.

The society was directed to investigate a kinship placement with the maternal aunt.

A motion to vary a temporary care and custody order under section 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been placed with maternal great aunts following apprehension due to inappropriate discipline by the mother's boyfriend.

The placement subsequently broke down due to the children's difficult behaviour, particularly one child's mental health deterioration.

The court considered whether to place the children with the father or in the care of the society.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the four-part test from K.D., ultimately determining that placement with the father remained inappropriate due to his lack of insight into domestic violence exposure, failure to address the children's special needs, and breach of court orders.

The court ordered the children placed in the temporary care and custody of the society with access at the society's discretion.

On a temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether four children should be placed with their father or remain in kinship care with maternal relatives under society supervision.

Evidence showed a history of domestic conflict between the parents, concerns about discipline practices in the mother’s home, and significant behavioural and developmental needs for one child.

The court found substantial deficiencies in the father's proposed plan of care, including lack of insight into the children’s needs, instability in the proposed household, and concerns regarding cooperation with the society.

The kinship caregivers had been meeting the children’s needs and provided stability.

The court concluded that continued placement with the maternal relatives was the least disruptive placement consistent with the children’s protection.

This is a temporary care and custody motion concerning four children.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the children in the care of their maternal great aunts, a position supported by the mother and counsel for the children.

The father sought placement of all four children in his care or, alternatively, increased access in his home.

The court found that the children should remain in the care of their maternal great aunts due to the mother's failure to protect them from physical abuse and inappropriate discipline by her boyfriend, and due to significant concerns regarding the father's plan, including his lack of insight into the effects of domestic violence on the children, inconsistencies in his evidence, and his unwillingness to comply with society conditions.

The court ordered that the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the maternal great aunts subject to society supervision, with both parents having access at a minimum of once per week at the society's discretion.

The appellant mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal from a child protection disposition making the child a Crown ward without access.

She alleged numerous palpable and overriding errors relating to the child’s behavioural problems, her parenting abilities, mental health, judgment, and the child’s dietary needs, and argued material evidence had been ignored.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge gave extensive and considered reasons, that any misstatements did not amount to palpable and overriding error, and that the evidence of the infant mental health counsellor had been considered.

Applying a deferential standard of review in child welfare matters, the court found no basis to interfere.

Following the dismissal of an inmate's application for judicial review of a disciplinary decision, the respondents sought $7,000 in costs.

The inmate argued that no costs should be awarded on public interest grounds.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the inmate raised bona fide issues of procedural fairness that were of potential importance to all inmates.

Recognizing the inmate's vulnerable position and the chilling effect a costs award would have on future inmates seeking to protect their rights, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The applicant, an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, sought judicial review of a decision finding him guilty of assaulting another inmate and imposing a penalty of 10 days in segregation.

He argued the process was procedurally unfair and that the disciplinary system violated section 7 of the Charter due to institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was treated fairly, as he was informed of the charge, offered counsel, and given the opportunity to question his accuser and call witnesses, which he declined.

The Court also declined to decide the Charter issue, noting the lack of an evidentiary record to support the claim of institutional bias.