Court File and Parties
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengary v. T.B., 2016 ONSC 2129
COURT FILE NO.: 14-785
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF STORMONT, DUNDAS & GLENGARRY – Applicant v. T.B. - Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
COUNSEL: Peter Chisholm/Melanie Verdone, for the Applicant Helene Desormeau, for the Respondent, T.B.
HEARD: Final Written Submissions Received March 3, 2016
RULING ON COSTS
[1] This was a five day trial on the issue of whether the child CB born […], 2002 was a child in need of protection, if affirmative what the appropriate order should be, and if Crown Wardship was ordered the nature and scope of any access to be given to the child’s mother.
[2] The trial started February 8, 2016 and was completed on February 12, 2016, on that day the court delivered an oral judgment, that judgment mirrored a formal offer to settle filed on behalf of the respondent mother on January 26, 2016.
[3] Counsel for the respondent submits that she should be entitled to costs on the basis of the offer to settle, their success at trial, and of the unreasonableness of the CAS in proceeding to trial.
[4] In CAS of Hamilton v. L.(K.) 2014 ONSC 3679, 2014 CarswellOnt 8154 (S.C.J.) Justice Chappel said the following with respect to the issue of costs in child protection cases:
The special approach to cost claims against Children’s Aid Societies recognizes the extremely important and difficult task which those agencies are entrusted with, and the challenging judgment calls which child welfare professionals must make on a regular basis in carrying out their mandate to protect children. Child protection staff must be encouraged to err on the side of caution in favour of protecting children in situations where they have reasonable grounds to do so, without having the added burden whenever they are required to make difficult judgment calls of having to embark upon a taxing costs/benefit analysis as to whether they can financially afford to protect the child in question.
[5] I agree entirely with these comments. An award of costs against a Children’s Aid Society should be the exception not the rule.
[6] In the case at bar the CAS did not act unreasonably or in bad faith, they advocated a position they believed to be in the interest of the protection of this child. This was not a straightforward matter, it involved a 13-year-old girl and a mother that the court described as nitro-glycerin (the combination of the two being explosive). In my view the CAS workers were acting out of an abundance of caution. It is not a case where costs should be awarded.
[7] Therefore, there will be no order as to costs in this matter.
Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Date: March 29, 2016
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengary v. T.B., 2016 ONSC 2129
COURT FILE NO.: 14-785
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF STORMONT, DUNDAS & GLENGARRY – Applicant v. T.B. - Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
COUNSEL: Peter Chisholm/Melanie Verdone, for the Applicant Helene Desormeau, for the Respondent, T.B.
RULING ON COSTS
Released: March 29, 2016