Paul Matthews Mingay

A child protection application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a child born to parents with a history of prior child protection findings.

The respondent father had been convicted of serious sexual offences including sexual abuse of a child, possession of child pornography, and indecent exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed with the paternal grandmother and uncle.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under clause 74(2)(d) (risk of sexual abuse or exploitation) and sought placement with the paternal grandmother and uncle under Society supervision.

The respondent parents sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the child to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that placement with the parents under Society supervision was in the child's best interests, recognizing the father's prosocial behaviour over many years, the mother's demonstrated protective capacity, and the child's strong attachment to both parents.

A kinship care provider sought to be added as a party respondent to a child protection proceeding and requested disclosure of a parenting capacity assessment.

The child, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, had been placed in the kinship care provider's home since 12 days old.

The Society and biological parents had reached a settlement agreement to return the child to parental care with supervision.

The court determined that kinship care placements are akin to foster care placements and that the kinship care provider, having continuously cared for the child, was entitled to enhanced participation rights under the Child and Family Services Act.

Rather than adding the provider as a full party, the court granted enhanced participation rights including disclosure of key documents and participation in settlement conferences.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child remains in need of protection and an order of Crown wardship without access.

The Society sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the child's siblings to third parties.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of these statements under both the state of mind exception and the principled approach to hearsay.

The court found that certain statements met the threshold reliability requirements and were admissible, while others did not satisfy the criteria for admission.