7 total
Child protection motion adjourned to address criminal undertakings prohibiting parents' contact with child.
The society brought a child protection application and place of safety motion regarding three children of a refugee family.
The parents were arrested for assault and assault with a weapon after the eldest child disclosed physical discipline.
The parents were released on criminal undertakings prohibiting contact with the eldest child.
The court found that the criminal release terms encumbered its ability to make a least intrusive family court order under the CYFSA.
The court adjourned the motion to be addressed contemporaneously with the criminal charges to allow for a potential variation of the undertakings.
The court ordered temporary care to the mother and professionally supervised access for the father.
This decision concerns a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving serious sexual offence charges against the father, Dr. RW, unrelated to his own children but occurring in the family home.
The Ontario Court of Justice considered the admissibility and reliability of evidence from police and society workers, rejecting double hearsay and parental testimony about children's views.
The court emphasized the paramountcy of children's best interests and protection, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk if placed in joint parental care.
The interim order places the children with the mother under society supervision and restricts the father's access to supervised visits, denying unsupervised access or cohabitation due to the risk of sexual and emotional harm.
Access term limiting travel distance did not unlawfully direct placement.
The appellant society appealed temporary child protection orders that required access arrangements for a child in temporary society care and limited placement to a residence within a two-hour travel time to facilitate in-person family access.
The appeal argued that the motion judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively controlling placement under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act while the child remained in temporary society care.
The court held that the judge lacked authority to direct placement itself but retained broad jurisdiction under s. 94(8) to make access orders and ancillary terms consistent with the child's best interests and family reunification.
The impugned distance restriction was found to be ancillary to access, reasonable on the facts, and not an impermissible placement direction.
The appeal was dismissed.
Foster parents lack standing to oppose a temporary kin placement in child protection proceedings.
The Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports (Society) brought a motion to vary a temporary care order for the child K.M., seeking to place the child with the paternal grandparents.
The child's parents and maternal grandparents consented to this placement.
The foster parents, with whom K.M. had resided for 22 months, opposed the motion, seeking to retain care and pursue adoption.
The court granted the Society's motion, emphasizing the legislative priority of kin placement over foster care, even where a strong attachment to foster parents exists.
The court reiterated that foster parents do not have standing to advance a permanent care plan at this stage of proceedings.
The court allowed the mother's appeal, replacing Crown wardship with a supervision order.
The Superior Court of Justice heard appeals from a judgment ordering Crown wardship for the youngest child, T.L., with no parental access.
The father's appeal was dismissed due to his abysmal parenting record and lack of merit in his claims of bias or incompetent counsel.
The mother's appeal was allowed.
The court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to conduct a thorough "best interests of the child" analysis under s. 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, focusing too narrowly on the risk of inappropriate partners without balancing other factors like the child's bond with family.
Fresh evidence, demonstrating the mother's compliance with supervision conditions and positive parenting, further supported returning the child.
The Crown wardship order for T.L. was set aside, and the child was placed with the mother under a six-month supervision order with specific conditions.
The court ordered Crown wardship for two children and returned one to the mother.
A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children of a mother with a history of choosing inappropriate and dangerous intimate partners.
The Society sought Crown wardship with no access for all three children.
The mother sought return of all children under a supervision order.
The father of the youngest child sought placement of all three children with him or, alternatively, access.
The court found the children in need of protection and made the youngest child a Crown Ward with no access for adoption purposes, made the oldest child a Crown Ward with access to the mother, and returned the middle child to the mother's care under a supervision order with strict conditions regarding the mother's relationships and ongoing therapy.
Settlement dismissing action without costs approved over plaintiff's objections due to poor prospects of success.
The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 to approve a settlement dismissing the plaintiff's action against the police without costs.
The plaintiff and his father opposed the motion, arguing the case should proceed to trial.
The court found that the plaintiff lacked capacity to conduct the litigation and that the PGT had properly assessed the case's poor prospects of success.
The court approved the settlement, concluding that proceeding to trial would likely result in a devastating costs award against the plaintiff.
