7 total
The court dismissed an application for secure treatment because the strict statutory requirement of recent serious bodily harm was not met.
The applicant, a psychiatrist, sought an order to commit a 17-year-old youth, J.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The application was opposed by the Family & Children’s Services and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer representing J.P. The court dismissed the application, finding that while J.P. had a mental disorder and a history of substantial threats, the strict statutory criterion requiring evidence of serious bodily harm caused or attempted within 45 days immediately preceding the application was not met.
The court emphasized that secure treatment is an extraordinary measure with significant liberty interests at stake, and the "best interests" of the child, while paramount in general child protection proceedings, is not the test for committal to secure treatment.
The court issued a protection order with supervision and denied the incarcerated father access.
This ruling addresses a status review proceeding by summary judgment motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The court assessed whether the child, "G", remained in need of protection due to emotional harm stemming from past domestic violence involving the parents and the father's ongoing actions.
While the mother had made significant progress in her ability to protect the child, "G" continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors and fear related to the father.
The court denied the Society's request for a deemed custody order, opting instead for a protection order.
This order placed the child in the mother's care subject to nine months of Society supervision, with no access for the incarcerated father until he brings a new application and demonstrates reduced risk.
The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection and ordered supervised access.
The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.
The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.
The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.
The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.
The court declined to grant summary judgment in a child protection status review, ordering a mini-trial to clarify evidentiary deficiencies.
The Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application seeking to terminate its supervision order and impose a deemed custody and no access order for the child with the Mother and against the Father.
The Father opposed, arguing the motion was premature and impacted his access claim.
The court found deficiencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the Mother's therapeutic progress, the child's trauma counselling, and the Father's in-custody rehabilitation.
Consequently, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead directed a mini-trial to gather specific, clarified evidence on these issues to determine the child's need for future protection and best interests.
Motion for temporary care and custody dismissed; children returned to parents under a supervision order.
The applicant society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of six children, three of whom resided in Ontario and three in Algeria.
The society alleged historical abuse by an older sibling and feared the parents would surreptitiously relocate the Ontario children to Algeria.
The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the Ontario children to their care.
The court found it had no jurisdiction over the three children residing in Algeria.
Regarding the three children in Ontario, the court found the society's evidence fell short of establishing reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to their parents.
The court ordered the Ontario children returned to the parents' care subject to a supervision order with strict conditions regarding travel and relocation.
The court granted summary judgment for extended society care of the children and denied parental access due to untreated addictions.
The applicant child welfare agency brought a motion for summary judgment in a child protection application concerning twin infants born prematurely and testing positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine at birth.
The parents did not respond to the motion.
The court found a prima facie case of risk based on the mother's untreated addiction history and the father's inadequate addiction treatment.
The court granted an order for extended society care (Crown wardship) with placement in a kinship home.
The court declined to grant access to the parents, finding that while the parents demonstrated warmth and affection during supervised visits, the unresolved addiction issues and lack of meaningful progress toward rehabilitation made ongoing access not in the children's best interests.
The court granted custody to a foster parent over extended family on a status review, prioritizing the child's secure attachment.
A status review hearing concerning a child in the protection system where the applicant society sought to place the child with paternal grandparents, while the foster parent sought custody.
The court found that the child had formed a secure and selective attachment to the foster parent and that severing this attachment would cause significant trauma.
The court rejected the society's plan and granted custody to the foster parent under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the child's best interests required maintaining the established attachment relationship.
The decision addresses the tension between family reunification principles and the child's psychological well-being, and clarifies the scope of foster parent rights at the status review stage.
