Rachel Buhler

The applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in extended society care.

The parents opposed the disposition, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the parents' significant cognitive limitations and inability to safely parent despite extensive support.

The court granted summary judgment, found the child in need of protection, ordered extended society care, and granted limited supervised access with the child as the access holder.

The self-represented applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding disability accommodations, kinship worker bias, mental health treatment, and the children's schooling.

The applicant also alleged he was not provided reasons for the termination of an internal complaints process.

Following a full-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had provided multiple opportunities for the applicant to be heard and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions.

The Board noted the applicant's true grievance was with the correctness of the decisions, which falls outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The applicant raised several issues, including concerns about file transfers, worker bias, and conflicting information regarding programming.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and reviewed the respondent's explanations for each allegation.

The Board found that the respondent had provided sufficient explanations and had complied with all terms of the settlement agreement.

The application was closed.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, Z, seeking placement with the paternal grandparents (MY and LY) subject to supervision.

The father (ZF) and aunt (AR) sought to maintain the child in their joint care.

The mother (W-D) did not participate.

The court found that the grandparents and father had joint pre-intervention charge of the child.

The court dismissed the father's request, finding that placing the child with the father and aunt would pose a risk of harm due to parental non-compliance with no-contact orders, self-help tactics, and the aunt's inability to cooperate.

The court ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the grandparents, subject to society supervision, and set out terms for parental access.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the society to provide written reasons and explanations regarding the applicant's file, including access limitations and parenting assessments, and to hold an in-person meeting.

Following a hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society complied with most terms, partially complied with one term regarding the parenting assessment, and failed to comply with terms requiring an in-person meeting and timely communication.

The Board ordered the society to provide a summary of the parenting assessment process and to make best efforts to respond to communications within 48 hours.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged that the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding worker bias, the welfare of his children, and allegations of physical discipline, and failed to provide reasons for verifying allegations of physical abuse against him.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while some of the Applicant's concerns were heard, the Society failed to adequately hear his allegations of bias and his requests to speak with a supervisor.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide adequate written reasons for its verification decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to hold a meeting with the Applicant to hear his concerns and to provide detailed written reasons for its verification decisions.

This child protection trial concerned whether the two-year-old child, EL, was in need of protection and the appropriate dispositional orders.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought extended society care due to concerns about the mother's cognitive limitations and inability to protect the child from the stepfather, who had a significant history of sexual assault and criminal convictions, including against a child.

The mother and grandmother sought the child's return to their care, subject to supervision, and access.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and sexual harm.

It ordered extended society care, granted the mother and grandmother supervised access, and denied the stepfather any access, citing his high risk and the mother's inability to protect the child from him.

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 for its decisions regarding her child.

The mother raised numerous issues, including allegations of abuse by the father, the child's behaviour at school, the need for trauma counselling, and the requirement for supervised access.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including testimony from the mother and the society's child protection worker, as well as transcripts of access conferences.

The Board found that the society had met its obligation to hear the mother's concerns in a timely manner and had provided sufficient reasons for its decisions, even though the mother disagreed with the society's conclusions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The parties reached a settlement agreement through mediation.

The applicant later alleged non-compliance with the settlement agreement and raised new concerns.

At the compliance hearing, the adjudicator advised that new concerns were beyond the scope of the hearing.

The applicant declined to proceed with reviewing the settlement terms and withdrew the application.

The file was closed as settled.

The appellant father (B.K.) appealed a final order from the Ontario Court of Justice that placed his children in the care and custody of the respondent mother (D.A.) subject to the Society's supervision.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding who had pre-intervention charge of the children and the children's true wishes, and alleged misconduct by the Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings of fact and mixed fact and law, emphasizing the high degree of deference owed to trial judges in child protection proceedings.

The court also dismissed the appellant's motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the required standard of being highly relevant and decisive to the children's best interests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion for final orders regarding the child E., including joint custody to the father and paternal grandmother, decision-making authority to the father, and discretionary supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed, seeking joint custody and generous unsupervised access.

The court applied the Hryniak framework for summary judgment, with the caution required in child protection cases (Kawartha principles).

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's untreated mental health issues, history of instability, and failure to engage with services.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, finding them to be in the child's best interests, and dismissed the mother's opposing requests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order that the child, D.B., was in need of protection, placement in extended society care with no access for adoption planning, and statutory findings regarding identity.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for a trial and the child's return.

The court found overwhelming evidence of risk to the child due to the mother's untreated mental health issues, anger, and unstable living situation, and her inability to engage with services.

The motion was granted, finding the child in need of protection and ordering extended society care with limited, non-physical access for the mother.

The self-represented applicant mother filed a complaint alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding the apprehension of her children, access restrictions, and the assignment of a child protection worker.

Following a full-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations under section 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as staff had provided adequate reasons verbally on multiple occasions and in writing through documents filed in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The Society brought a motion to vary a temporary child protection order to permit unsupervised access between the mother and two children (ages 12 and 8).

The children had been placed in the father's care following allegations that the mother and her sisters subjected them to physical discipline during fundamentalist religious practices.

The mother faced criminal charges which were resolved through a peace bond.

The court found sufficient change in circumstances to warrant expanded access, including the resolution of criminal charges, the mother's participation in counselling and parenting courses, removal of the aunt primarily responsible from the home, and the children's expressed desire to see their mother more.

The court ordered a phased approach to access beginning with day visits, progressing to overnight weekend visits, with various protective terms and conditions including restrictions on prayer, contact with the removed aunt, and compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant, a custodial parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints, refused to proceed with them, and failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions made during a child protection investigation involving her daughter at the other parent's home.

The Board found that the Society failed to respond to the applicant's complaints in a timely manner and refused to proceed with them.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the Society made no meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant or permit her to express her concerns, thereby failing to provide her with an opportunity to be heard or satisfactory reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to invite the applicant to an Internal Complaint Review Panel and provide a letter acknowledging its failures.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns regarding the welfare of her children and their interactions with their fathers, particularly concerning unverified allegations of sexual abuse by one father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons on some issues, such as the refusal to require supervised access.

However, the Board ordered the Society to provide written explanations for other issues, including its refusal to conduct home visits immediately following access, its delay in facilitating birthday access, and its failure to explain changes in assigned workers.

Father brought a motion to change a temporary care and custody order made on September 29, 2017, seeking to have temporary care and custody of his three children returned to him, or in the alternative, seeking extended unsupervised access.

The children had been placed in the temporary care and custody of a community member (D.S.) due to protection concerns including the father's inappropriate discipline, yelling and swearing at the children, inadequate supervision, domestic conflict, possible substance abuse, and non-cooperation with the child protection society.

The court dismissed the motion for return of placement but granted an increase in access on a gradual basis.

The court found that while the father had made recent positive changes including cooperation with the society, participation in anger management and parenting programs, and positive access visits, the protection concerns remained significant and the children expressed fear of returning to his care and preference to remain with D.S. The court ordered a gradual increase in access with specific terms and conditions, with a return date set for case conference.

In a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent father brought a motion for temporary care and custody of his three children.

The applicant society introduced evidence of a positive urine screen test.

The court found the evidence did not meet the threshold of credibility and trustworthiness required by the Act and ordered a voir dire to determine admissibility.

The society subsequently withdrew reliance on the urine screen test results, and the evidence was struck from the record.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving three children (ages 10, 8, and 6).

The Society sought protection orders based on risk of physical harm.

Following a temporary care and custody hearing on August 10, 2017, the children were placed in the Society's temporary care and custody.

On September 27, 2017, the court heard three motions: the Society's motion to place children with a community member (granted on an unopposed basis), the father's motion for temporary care and custody or expanded access (adjourned), and the mother's motion for specified supervised access (granted).

The endorsement addresses the admissibility of urine analysis evidence the Society sought to introduce regarding the father's alleged substance abuse.

Two children who were Crown wards brought motions for temporary openness orders to maintain contact with their biological mother following their placement for adoption with their maternal grandmother and her partner.

The mother also brought applications for openness orders.

The court dismissed the children's motions for temporary openness orders, finding that while the children desired contact with their mother, such contact was not in their best interests given the mother's demonstrated inability to support the adoption placement, her undermining behaviour toward the adoptive family, and the destabilizing effect visits had on the children's emotional well-being and school behaviour.

The court emphasized that openness orders must prioritize the security and stability of the child in the adoptive home.