Roderick Roland Catford

Foster parents moved to be added as parties in a child protection proceeding involving three children who had been in their care for 22 months.

The Sarnia-Lambton Children's Aid Society and the children's parents sought a final order based on a Statement of Agreed Facts, which proposed placing the children in three different kin homes.

The court dismissed the foster parents' motion for full party status, finding they did not qualify as statutory parents and lacked a legal interest for discretionary party status.

However, recognizing their significant role and the need for all relevant evidence, the court granted the foster parents expanded participatory rights, including the ability to file evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make submissions regarding the children's disposition of care.

The court also declined to issue the final order based on the Statement of Agreed Facts due to concerns about the proposed plan and missing evidence, requiring a focused hearing on disposition.

The father brought a motion to dismiss a child protection application on the basis that a customary care agreement had been signed by the parents, the First Nation, and the Children's Aid Society.

A former foster parent brought a cross-motion to be added as a party to the proceeding.

The court granted the father's motion, emphasizing that customary care is the preferred approach for Indigenous children and that the agreement was valid and in the child's best interests.

The former foster parent's motion was dismissed as adding her would cause undue delay and conflict in a resolved proceeding.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation claim against the County of Simcoe and its employee, as well as the substantial indemnity costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of malice to defeat the respondents' qualified privilege in gathering information for an Ontario Works file.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the applicant made specific allegations relating directly to the personal conduct and decisions of both individuals regarding her accommodation request.

The Tribunal concluded that these allegations formed a central part of the proceeding and provided a compelling reason to continue the application against them personally.

The request for removal was denied.