Salvatore Garcea

In a child protection proceeding, the maternal grandmother moved late in the process to be added as a party and advance a custody proposal for the children.

Applying the established discretionary factors for adding parties in child protection matters, the court held the motion materials were late, weak, and insufficiently responsive to the Society’s serious concerns about the proposed placement.

The court found adding the proposed party would not be shown to be in the children’s best interests, would inevitably prolong the proceeding, and was unnecessary because her proposed involvement could be advanced through the mother and by witness evidence.

The motion to add the maternal grandmother as a party was dismissed, the Society’s summary judgment motion was scheduled, and the existing order continued.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.

The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.

The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.

The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order of Crown wardship with no access for an eight-month-old child.

The parents, who both have profound cognitive delays, opposed the motion and sought to have the child returned to their care or placed with the maternal grandparents.

Relying on a previous parenting capacity assessment and current evidence of the parents' inability to safely care for the child, the court found no genuine issue for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption.

In a child protection proceeding involving two children, the mother brought a motion seeking a parenting capacity assessment of the father who sought custody of one child.

The Society, the father, and counsel for the younger child opposed the request, arguing that sufficient evidence already existed and that the request amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court reviewed the legal framework under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act and Ontario Regulation 25/07, emphasizing that such assessments are discretionary and should only be ordered where reasonably necessary to assist the court.

The judge found that the evidentiary record already provided comprehensive information about the parents and the children, and that no unresolved clinical issues required expert evaluation.

The motion for a parenting capacity assessment was therefore dismissed.

The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown Ward without access to the biological parents.

The mother opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial, while the father was in default and did not participate.

Applying Family Law Rule 16 and the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Evidence from a parenting capacity assessment and consistent observations of social workers demonstrated that the mother had not developed the ability to safely parent despite extensive services and supports.

The court concluded that the child’s best interests required permanent Crown wardship without access to allow prompt adoption.

The parents appealed a summary judgment order making their child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for her entire life (23 months) and the statutory time limit for temporary wardship had lapsed.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's best interests, noting the father's ongoing substance abuse and criminal issues, and the mother's lack of insight into the risk he posed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the application judge erred in applying the Miglin test and that there was inadequate disclosure by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly applied the Miglin test.

The Court also held that the respondents made proper documentary disclosure, and the appellant's failure to review the documents or seek legal advice did not render the disclosure inadequate.

The moving parties, the parents of a child made a Crown ward, sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for failure to perfect, and requested an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The respondent Children's Aid Society argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the child had already been placed for adoption following the Registrar's dismissal.

The Divisional Court held that the placement of the child for adoption overrides the opportunity for a review of the Registrar's order under Rule 61.16(5), subject to the child's best interests.

Finding that further delay in permanent placement would not be in the child's best interests, the court dismissed the motion.

The Children's Lawyer appealed an order requiring it to prepare a report and mandating that the report be authored by a different worker than the one who prepared a previous report.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the judge of first instance lacked jurisdiction to require a report to be made or to dictate which designated worker must author it.

The Court held that while a judge may request a different worker, it remains for The Children's Lawyer to decide whether to participate on those terms.

The father brought a motion to stay an order making his child a Crown ward with no access, pending his appeal.

The child had been apprehended multiple times and placed in foster care.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the Crown wardship, finding it was not in the child's best interests.

However, the court granted a stay of the no-access order, allowing the father supervised access pending the appeal, as he posed no risk and temporary access would not impair future placement opportunities.