Paul Heinen

The moving party children's aid society brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order of the Superior Court of Justice – Family Branch placing the children in the care and custody of their maternal aunts under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the appeal properly lies with the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's actions.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, arguing the issues were subject to an ongoing child protection proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

Applying the test from Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., the Board found that complaints regarding the child's wellbeing in foster care, delays in kinship placement, and access visits were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and could proceed.

Complaints regarding the reasons for the child's removal were dismissed as being substantive issues before the court.

The applicant mother submitted her fourth and fifth applications to the Child and Family Services Review Board, raising concerns about the respondent children's aid society's actions regarding the removal and placement of her children.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed and the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the issues as they had either been decided by the court or fell outside its statutory authority.

Applying the factors for vexatious litigants, the Board concluded that the applicant was re-litigating decided issues and seeking unavailable remedies, thereby abusing the process.

The applications were dismissed, and the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant requiring permission for future filings.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding the alleged fraudulent redirection of her welfare payments to her children's foster parents.

The Board directed a hearing in writing.

The Board found no evidence that the applicant had raised these concerns with the respondent prior to filing her application.

Furthermore, the respondent subsequently provided written correspondence confirming that no social assistance payments had been redirected to the foster parents and explaining the legal redirection of the Canada Child Benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order finding his two children in need of protection and placing them in the custody of their maternal aunt.

The father argued ineffective assistance of counsel, procedural unfairness, and errors in fact-finding regarding his sobriety and history of domestic violence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the ineffective assistance claim failed because former counsel was not given notice, there was no procedural unfairness, and the motion judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and free of palpable and overriding error.

The court held that the children required stability and permanency, which the current custodial arrangement provided.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Niagara sought summary judgment for extended care of a child without access, for the purpose of adoption, under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The child was found in need of protection.

The mother and First Nation did not participate.

The father, M.M., opposed the motion, arguing for access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining that continued access would not be in the child's best interests and would impair future adoption opportunities, given the parents' inability to provide consistent care and the child's lack of significant bond with them.

The Society's motion was granted, and the child was placed in extended care without access.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care without access.

The parents had a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to comply with safety plans.

The father consented to the order, while the mother did not file responding materials but attended the hearing, acknowledging her ongoing drug use and inability to parent.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests to facilitate adoption.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care for two children, with access only to each other.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or placement with a friend or relative.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's history of physical abuse, lack of insight, and failure to engage in programming.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended care for adoption and sibling access, finding it was the only prospect for a safe childhood.

In an application for a status review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the respondent father moved for a temporary order for supervised access with specific terms, including an alternative supervision agency.

The Children's Aid Society (applicant) and the respondent mother agreed to supervised access but opposed the father's proposed terms, particularly the agency.

The court reviewed the father's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and instability, finding his proposed alternative agency unsuitable.

The court ordered supervised access at Pathstone when available, with virtual or telephone access in the interim, and stipulated that repeated missed visits would terminate access.

The father's specific requests for an alternative agency were denied.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment to grant custody of a 13-year-old child to his maternal aunt.

The mother, who was self-represented, failed to file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The court noted the mother's outstanding criminal charges, mental health issues, and inability to fulfill her proposed plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and ordered custody to the maternal aunt under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with access to the mother at the aunt's discretion.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction and sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that impecuniosity does not immunize a party from costs, particularly where the action should not have been brought.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not reach the required threshold of reprehensible behavior.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $25,000 and $35,000 for fees, plus disbursements and HST.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been apprehended after suffering severe injuries while in the mother's care, leading to the mother pleading guilty to aggravated assault.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's inability to safely parent and the child's need for permanency.

The motion was granted, and the child was made a Crown ward with no access.

In a child protection status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing the child in the custody of kinship caregivers pursuant to s. 57.1.

The evidence demonstrated that the child had lived with the kinship caregivers for over two years, had improved academically and behaviourally in their care, and required permanency and stability.

The mother had pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against another child and had failed to engage meaningfully with services, while the father had disengaged from the proceedings and presented no parenting plan.

Applying the summary judgment test and the best interests of the child analysis under the Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Custody was granted to the kinship caregivers with parental access restricted to supervised visits.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the one-year-old child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had made progress in addressing protection concerns.

The court found that the mother had failed to adequately address long-standing issues with substance abuse and mental health, and that there was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without access.

The accused pleaded guilty to importing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

She was caught at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie with 62 pounds of marijuana hidden in vehicle panels.

The Crown sought two years imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence or blended sentence.

The court rejected a pure conditional sentence but imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent sentence (served on weekends over approximately seven months) for the importation offence and a 21-month conditional sentence with strict conditions for the possession for trafficking offence.

The court balanced the seriousness of the offence against the offender's personal circumstances, including her lack of prior record, financial desperation, role as a courier, and family responsibilities.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The police arrested the accused without a warrant based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, finding cocaine and cash.

A subsequent search warrant for the accused's residence yielded more cocaine and cash.

The court found the arrest and warrantless search were based on reasonable grounds and did not violate the Charter.

While there was a technical breach of section 8 due to the late filing of a report to a justice regarding the search warrant, the court held that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as the police acted in good faith and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breach.