Nicole Horowitz

This is a costs decision arising from a summary judgment motion in a child protection proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for three children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding access.

The court granted the society's motion for Crown wardship without parental access but with sibling access.

Foster parents subsequently sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer on a full recovery basis.

The court dismissed the costs request, finding that the Office of the Children's Lawyer properly represented their child client's views and preferences and that no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award against a government agency in this child protection proceeding.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for three children without access to their parents.

The children had been in cumulative care for approximately 2.5 years after being apprehended twice—initially in November 2013 due to chronic neglect, physical and emotional abuse, and exposure to domestic violence, and again in December 2015 after the father breached supervision order terms by allowing the mother unauthorized contact with the children.

The court found ongoing protection concerns, determined Crown wardship was in the children's best interests, and dismissed claims for parental access, finding that any access order would impair the children's adoption prospects with their foster parents.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (F.D., V.D., and D.D.) who were apprehended by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in January 2014 after exposure to domestic violence between their parents.

The mother sought return of the children to her care, either with or without a supervision order.

The father initially supported the mother's plan but abandoned it at trial.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported Crown wardship for two of the three children with access to their mother and mandatory sibling access.

After a 10-day trial, the court found that the children should be made Crown wards without parental access for the purpose of adoption, while maintaining regular sibling access.

The court found the mother lacked credibility, had not addressed the society's protection concerns, and would be unable to meet the children's significant needs.

The father's access was terminated due to his emotionally abusive and threatening conduct toward the children and society staff.

A motion by the father for unsupervised access to his two young sons on a gradually increasing schedule was opposed by the Children's Aid Society, which sought to reduce his current supervised bi-weekly access to once every two months.

The court considered the father's significant mental health history, including schizophrenia and substance abuse issues, his recent stabilization following an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board in December 2014, and the quality of his interactions with the children during supervised visits.

The court found that while maintaining contact with the father and paternal family was in the children's best interests, the father had not demonstrated the ability to meet the children's needs without supervision and had not shown meaningful improvement in parenting skills over 22 months of supervised access.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place two young children in its care with discretionary parental access.

The parents sought return of the children subject to supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children faced risk of harm based on unsanitary home conditions, developmental delays, inadequate stimulation, and drug trafficking activities.

However, the court determined the children could be adequately protected through strict terms and conditions of supervision, making the least disruptive placement with the parents subject to comprehensive supervision orders.