Ronald Burnett

This is the second appeal concerning the protection of a four-year-old child.

The Ontario Court initially found the child in need of protection but issued a one-year supervision order.

The Society successfully appealed to the Superior Court, which substituted a protection order placing the child with his grandmother and uncle.

The parents (J.C. and J.C.) then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal.

However, during the appeal process, the matter returned to the Ontario Court for a Status Review, where the parents consented to an order for the child to reside in the grandmother's home.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the parents' appeal as moot, as the underlying issue had been resolved by consent.

The Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (WECAS) applied to extend a stay of an order from the Child and Family Services Review Board, which had directed the return of a child (S.G.) to foster parents J.T. and C.T., pending WECAS's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court, sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court, applied the three-stage test for a stay or interlocutory injunction.

The court found it questionable that WECAS would succeed on appeal, given the reasonableness standard of review for the Board's decision.

Furthermore, the court determined that J.T., C.T., and the child would suffer greater irreparable harm if the stay were granted.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed, and WECAS was ordered to return the child to J.T. and C.T. by March 19, 2020.

A kinship care provider sought to be added as a party respondent to a child protection proceeding and requested disclosure of a parenting capacity assessment.

The child, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, had been placed in the kinship care provider's home since 12 days old.

The Society and biological parents had reached a settlement agreement to return the child to parental care with supervision.

The court determined that kinship care placements are akin to foster care placements and that the kinship care provider, having continuously cared for the child, was entitled to enhanced participation rights under the Child and Family Services Act.

Rather than adding the provider as a full party, the court granted enhanced participation rights including disclosure of key documents and participation in settlement conferences.

The respondent mother brought a motion to remove Mark Hurley as counsel of record for the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society in a pending status review proceeding involving four children.

The motion was based on a conflict of interest arising from the fact that Hurley's law partner, Frank Philcox, had previously represented the respondent mother in protection proceedings involving the same children.

The court found that a solicitor-and-client relationship existed between the mother and Philcox, that confidential information was shared, and that insufficient safeguards were in place to protect the mother's solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the motion and ordered Hurley's removal from the file.