Rachel Buhler

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.

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 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 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.

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.

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act wherein the applicant society sought to place a child in its care and custody with access at the society's discretion.

The respondent mother sought an order placing the child in her care subject to society supervision.

The child's counsel supported the mother's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care based on the mother's history of involvement with child protection agencies, her failure to protect children from relationships with men posing risk, and her lack of insight into protecting her children.

The court determined that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect the child given the mother's past non-compliance and her strongly held belief in the alleged perpetrator's innocence.

The court ordered the child placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 65(1)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act to vary an order placing a child in the care of his mother and instead place the child in the temporary care and custody of his paternal grandparents.

The motion was brought following an Early Status Review Application due to concerns about the mother's ongoing alcohol abuse, her inability to meet the child's needs, and the child's emotional distress.

The court found that the society had met its onus to demonstrate a material change in circumstances warranting a change in placement in the child's best interests.

The order was varied to place the child with his paternal grandparents, with access to the mother at the discretion of the society.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to make two children crown wards without access to their parents for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding placement in her care or with alternative caregivers.

The father of one child consented to crown wardship but opposed the no-access provision.

The court found no triable issue regarding disposition and ordered the children to be made crown wards, but found triable issues regarding access that required a full trial to determine.

This is a child protection trial concerning a child (A.) born in 2010, nearly three years old at the time of trial.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a crown wardship order with no access for purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed this and sought the child's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The mother consented to a protection finding under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm.

The child had been apprehended twice: first in October 2010 when the mother experienced a mental health crisis, and second in March 2012 when the mother's mental health again deteriorated.

The court found that while the mother had made significant personal gains and her mental health was currently stable with psychiatric treatment, she had not made adequate gains in her parenting abilities.

The court determined that the child required a permanent, stable placement and ordered crown wardship with no access to facilitate adoption.