4 total
The court granted summary judgment finding two children in need of protection and affirmed the appropriateness of bifurcated hearings.
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.
The respondent mother had a lengthy history of involvement with child protection services in multiple provinces, with documented concerns regarding mental health issues, substance abuse, poor home conditions, and domestic violence.
The court found that the mother had failed to put forward sufficient evidence to dispute material facts and granted summary judgment in favor of the Society, finding both children in need of protection.
The court also addressed the procedural issue of bifurcating the protection finding from the dispositional hearing.
The court dismissed a motion to transfer child protection proceedings to another territorial jurisdiction.
A motion by the Children's Aid Society of the County of Renfrew to transfer child protection proceedings involving two children from Renfrew County to Ottawa, where the children currently reside with their father.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish a preponderance of convenience favouring transfer.
The court considered the statutory test under section 48(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the best interests of the children, the location of witnesses, the children's connections to both jurisdictions, and the availability of court resources.
The court also addressed a related summary judgment motion regarding a third child, which resulted in a consent order placing the child with the mother subject to supervision.
Appeal allowed; denial of adjournment and cultural considerations required new child protection trial.
Appeal in child protection proceedings where a First Nation community and a family member challenged a Crown wardship disposition.
The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing a short adjournment when approximately 1500 pages of disclosure were provided on the first day of trial, preventing meaningful review and the ability to obtain counsel.
They also argued the trial judge failed to give adequate consideration to the children’s Indigenous identity, culture, and heritage in determining their best interests, particularly where the foster placement had relocated the children to the United Kingdom.
The court held that denying the adjournment constituted a denial of natural justice and that insufficient weight had been given to cultural identity considerations.
The original judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered before a different judge.
Society ordered to conduct internal review panel meeting after failing to hear applicant.
The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society portrayed him in its records as a child abuser and a risk to his children without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
The Society did not attend the hearing.
The Board found that the Applicant had not been given the opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations as required under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.
The Board ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard.
