Natalia Peart

The applicant mother sought leave to advance a Status Review Application under s. 115(5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, aiming for a final order placing the child in her joint care with the father.

The court granted leave, finding that the mother met the established criteria, including good faith, lack of alternative remedies, unusual circumstances (child in continuous care without permanent placement), and a prima facie case.

The court also found the child continued to be in need of protection.

However, due to insufficient evidence regarding the child's special needs, current services, and the impact of transition, the court deferred the disposition of care, ordering an expedited hearing for supplemental evidence.

The Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society brought a motion within a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and an extension of the statutory time limit for the child to remain in care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection by consent of the parties.

However, the court dismissed the Society's request for a six-month extension of the child's time in care, finding it was not in the child's best interests given the lack of a concrete permanency plan after 24 months in care and the parents' ambivalence about resuming care.

The matter was set down for trial for further litigation planning.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking a finding that the subject child (S) is a Metis child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that the child has no connection to or engagement with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis community.

The child's father claimed Metis ancestry but did not self-identify as Metis nor identify the child as such.

The mother denied any Indigenous status.

The court found the evidence insufficient to support the Society's motion, noting critical gaps in the affidavit evidence regarding the basis of the father's Metis claim, the source of the relatives' self-identification, and the child's own preferences.

The court adjourned the motion pending better evidence and clarification of the Society's contradictory requests.