Paula DeBoer

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.

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 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.

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.

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.