The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim brought by a parent and a minor child against a child protection agency, its employees, and a school vice-principal.
The parent alleged negligence relating to the apprehension of the child, the child’s placement in foster care, and school disciplinary decisions.
The court held that child protection agencies and their staff owe a duty of care to the child, not to the parent, relying primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., and found that the parent’s pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
The court also found statutory immunity under the Child and Family Services Act was not displaced due to the absence of pleaded particulars of bad faith.
The parent’s claim was struck without leave to amend, while the minor’s claim was stayed pending appointment of a litigation guardian represented by counsel.
