Paula M. McGirr

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order to place two children (J.W. Jr. and A.D.) in the permanent care and custody of a kin caregiver (C.R.) under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Society also sought orders regarding access for the mother (S.D.) and fathers, and the kin caregiver's ability to secure documentation and travel with the children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children, but did not file affidavit evidence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's untreated and recurring mental health issues posed a high and unmitigated risk to the children, and her plan of care was not in the children's best interests.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, emphasizing the children's need for permanency, their special needs, and their Métis cultural connection with the kin caregiver.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought extended society care for the child ES, who had been in care for over 26 months.

The mother opposed, seeking return of the child under supervision, while the father supported the society's plan.

The court found a continuing need for protection due to the mother's struggles with finances, housing, employment, mental health, and inconsistent parenting, as well as her lack of insight and litigious behaviour.

The court dismissed the mother's request for return and for a further extension of interim society care, granting extended society care to the society.

The father was designated an access holder, while the mother was designated an access recipient, with both having minimum monthly access.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto applied for a secure treatment order under section 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the child SA, aged 13.

The mother supported the application, while the child and father opposed it.

The court first ruled that SA could not attend the hearing due to potential emotional harm.

After hearing evidence, including from a psychiatrist and social workers, the court found that all six criteria under section 164(1) for secure treatment were met: SA had a mental disorder, had caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days, had a history of such harm/threats within 12 months, secure treatment would be effective, appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the order, committing SA to Kinark Child and Family Services, Syl Apps Youth Centre, for 180 days, emphasizing that this was the only way to provide hope for the child's healing given the exhaustion of all other less restrictive options.

The self-represented appellant father appealed a trial decision terminating his access to his children.

The trial judge had found that the father's erratic, abusive, and controlling behaviour posed a risk of harm to the children, one of whom has autism.

At trial, the father unsuccessfully sought the judge's recusal and subsequently left the courtroom, refusing to participate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the trial judge reasonably proceeded in the father's absence after he voluntarily departed.

A family law application concerning custody, access, and child support following separation and criminal charges of assault and sexual assault.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with no access for the respondent father, while the respondent sought joint custody with unsupervised access.

The court found the father was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive to both the mother and children.

Despite the father's acquittal in criminal proceedings, the civil standard of balance of probabilities supported findings of abuse.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, permitted the father to send letters, cards, and gifts only, and imputed income for child support purposes based on intentional underemployment.

A costs decision arising from a motion for custody and return of a child.

The applicant (mother) sought custody of five children and the return of her 14-year-old son who had been removed from Toronto to Sudbury by the respondent (father) without consent or court order.

After multiple adjournments and temporary consent orders, the mother was successful on the motion, obtaining custody of all children including the son.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding the father's conduct unreasonable though not rising to bad faith, and that the mother's offer to settle was as good as the final order.

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to find an 8-month-old child in need of protection.

The central issue was whether the child qualified as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court determined that the child met the threshold for identification as a Métis child based on information from the maternal grandmother and great-grandmother, despite the lack of identified Métis communities in provincial regulations.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered interim society care with a kinship assessment to proceed.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parental access to a three-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $21,843 from the father.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access substantially closer to her position than the father's position.

The father exhibited unreasonable behaviour including failure to follow court timetables, delayed disclosure of criminal records, breaches of temporary court orders, and failure to make settlement offers.

The court declined to find bad faith but awarded costs reflecting the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable behaviour throughout the proceedings.

This trial determined whether a father with a history of serious sex offences, including convictions for sexual assault and possession of child pornography, should have unsupervised access to his three-year-old son.

The father sought unsupervised alternate weekend visits.

The mother sought supervised access through a private fee-for-service provider.

The court found that despite positive factors in the father-child relationship, the father's extensive criminal history, lack of insight into risk concerns, failure to undergo treatment, and recent breaches of supervision orders necessitated long-term supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access through Brayden on alternate Sundays for up to seven hours, with costs to be paid by the father.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial on child support and a restraining order.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $15,000, while the respondent (father) proposed $3,000.

The court found the mother was substantially successful on both issues: she obtained the restraining order completely and was more successful on the child support issue.

The court considered the factors under the Family Law Rules, including the failure of both parties to make settlement offers, the reasonableness of behaviour, and the father's modest income.

The court fixed costs at $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $200 per month starting May 1, 2017.

A protection application concerning two young twins (M.G. and S.G., born 2014) apprehended in January 2015 following the mother's physical abuse of her older children.

The mother sought return of the younger twins to her care subject to supervision.

The society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The court found that while the mother had committed serious physical abuse against her older children, she had made meaningful progress through extensive counselling and parenting programs over 26 months in care.

The court determined that the risks had been sufficiently mitigated to permit return to the mother's care subject to a strict 12-month supervision order, following a structured two-month reintegration period.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing current risk levels rather than relying solely on past conduct, the necessity of meaningful engagement with service providers, and the principle of least disruptive intervention consistent with child protection.

A trial concerning child support obligations and restraining orders between separated parents.

The mother sought to impute income of $53,473 to the father for child support purposes, while the father claimed he was unemployed and unable to pay.

The court found the father was deliberately unemployed and capable of earning $30,000 annually, resulting in a child support order of $591 monthly.

The mother's claim for a restraining order was granted based on a history of domestic violence, while the father's claim for a restraining order against the mother was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The respondent mother sought costs of $5,000 against the applicant father following a hearing to finalize custody and support arrangements for their 12-year-old child.

The father opposed the costs request.

The case involved a motion by the mother seeking final custody and permission to relocate the child to New Zealand.

The parties resolved most issues at the hearing on January 19, 2016, but disputed three matters: the cost allocation for the child's annual summer trip to Canada, the mother's ability to obtain government documentation for the child without the father's consent, and the mother's ability to travel with the child without the father's consent.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and awarded costs of $1,800 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in three equal instalments.