Samantha-Leigh Levenson

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society sought a protection finding on summary judgment based on drug abuse concerns at the time of apprehension two years prior, while seeking only an order for the child to remain with the respondent mother with no supervision order.

The respondent mother opposed the summary judgment motion and sought dismissal of the application.

The court addressed the critical issue of whether the timing for determining if a child is in need of protection is at the date of apprehension or at the date of the hearing.

The court rejected the restrictive approach limiting consideration to the hearing date and held that courts have discretion to consider circumstances at the apprehension date, the hearing date, or other dates depending on circumstances.

Both summary judgment motions were dismissed as there remained a genuine issue for trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking statutory findings, a protection finding, and an order making two young children (ages 2 and 1) wards of the Crown.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The respondent father did not participate.

The court found no triable issue on the statutory findings and protection finding, granting summary judgment on those issues.

On disposition, the court found the mother had a long history with the society, significant unaddressed mental health and medical issues, a pattern of missing access visits and Plan of Care meetings, and had not demonstrated any meaningful change.

The father was found to be disengaged and unreliable.

The court granted summary judgment on crown wardship as the least disruptive order in the children's best interests.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the access issue, finding insufficient evidence to fairly determine whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The matter was adjourned for a structured hearing on access.

A mother appealed a Crown wardship and no-access order made following a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s findings regarding kinship placement with the maternal grandmother and alleged errors in weighing evidence, assessing the grandmother’s plan, and considering expert psychological evidence.

The court held that the trial judge applied the correct statutory framework under the CFSA, properly considered kinship placement, and made factual findings supported by the evidence.

The appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error or an error of law.

Fresh evidence regarding the grandmother’s post‑trial efforts did not justify disturbing the disposition given the child’s need for stability and permanency.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her appeal from a trial decision making her child a Crown ward.

She argued the appeal judge erred in applying s. 57(4) of the Child and Family Services Act by failing to properly consider fresh evidence of community members willing to care for the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the appeal judge that the fresh evidence did not present an actual plan of care, though it noted positive developments regarding a relative's new plan of care.

Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.

The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.

Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.

The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.

This is a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a four-year-old child with significant developmental delays and special needs is in need of protection and should be made a crown ward for adoption.

The mother opposed the application and proposed placement with the paternal aunt under a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to physical and emotional harm risks, including unsanitary home conditions, the mother's untreated mental health issues (including auditory hallucinations and depression), and the child's unaddressed special needs.

The court rejected both the mother's and paternal aunt's proposed plans as inadequate, finding neither capable of providing appropriate full-time care.

The court made a crown wardship order to enable adoption placement.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection.

The mother had experienced marijuana-induced psychotic episodes.

The younger child had been living with his father since apprehension, while the older child, who suffered from severe anxiety and selective mutism, was in foster care.

The court found both children in need of protection.

The younger child was placed in his father's custody subject to supervision.

The older child was made a Crown ward.

The court ordered ongoing access between the mother and the older child, finding the relationship beneficial and meaningful, and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities.