Rebecca Kingdon

This motion, brought by Wahgoshig First Nation and supported by Native Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFS), sought to transfer a child protection proceeding from Toronto to Timmins.

The child, nearly 9 years old, had resided in Wahgoshig First Nation for 8 years under a Customary Care Agreement, which was recently terminated.

Kunuwanimano Child & Family Services (Kunu) opposed the transfer, arguing Toronto was the proper venue and raising concerns about service capacity.

The court found a preponderance of convenience favored Timmins, given the child's long-term residence, connections, and the location of current protection concerns.

Despite NCFS initially lacking territorial jurisdiction to file in Toronto, the court, relying on the Family Law Rules, ordered the transfer to Timmins to ensure the child's best interests and avoid legal limbo.

The Native Child and Family Services of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children (Au.

B., Aa.

B., and M.P.) due to chronic neglect, poor home conditions, hygiene issues, and the mother's inability to manage her mental health and parenting.

The mother (A.B.) opposed, seeking the children's return.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing Au.

B. and Aa.

B. in the Society's temporary care and custody, and M.P. in his father's (L.P.) temporary care subject to Society supervision.

The court emphasized the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care and the need for culturally appropriate support, finding that the children could not be adequately protected by a supervision order alone given the complex issues and the Society's past ineffective supervision.

This is a ruling on whether the definitions of "Indian" and "Native" person in the Child and Family Services Act violate equality rights under section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant society sought summary judgment in a child protection application, requesting that the child be found not to be an Indian or Native person under the Act.

The child's mother is Indigenous and the maternal grandmother is a registered member of the Qalipu Mi'kmak First Nations Band.

However, the child does not have Indian status under the Indian Act because the mother has not applied for membership in the Band.

The court found that the statutory definitions create a distinction based on an analogous ground and perpetuate disadvantage to Indigenous children who do not fall within the narrow definitions, thereby violating section 15(1) of the Charter.

The court granted the child an individual remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, ordering that the child be treated as if he were an Indian, Native person or Native child for all purposes of the protection application and any related proceedings.

This is a motion for summary judgment in a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act.

Native Child and Family Services of Toronto sought an order making two young children (ages 5 and 3) crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The mother, who had previously lost four other children to the child protection system, opposed the motion and sought return of the children.

The father, with a significant criminal history and mental health issues, also opposed the motion.

The court found that the parents' plan for care was not viable and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court granted summary judgment and made orders for crown wardship without access to either parent, finding that the children required certainty, finality, and permanence.

A custody trial concerning a two-year-old child born in 2010.

The applicant, a non-biological father who has acted as the child's parent since birth, sought custody against the respondent, the child's maternal aunt, who sought custody on behalf of the biological family.

The biological mother, who suffers from serious drug addiction, supported the aunt's claim.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining stability with his psychological father and primary caregiver, rather than being transferred to the biological family.

The court considered factors including the child's strong attachment to the applicant, the length of time in a stable home environment, the permanence of the applicant's plan versus the temporary nature of the aunt's plan, and the child's biracial heritage.