Shamshad Begum Bee

At the first appearance in child protection proceedings, the Society sought to place a child in the care of the maternal aunt.

The mother had been charged with assault on her six-year-old child and was released on a recognizance prohibiting contact except under CCAS supervision.

The court found the term "supervision" in the bail condition to be ambiguous and noted that supervision under the Child and Family Services Act encompasses a spectrum of possible levels.

The court declined to make orders due to this ambiguity and suggested the Society support the mother in an application to vary the bail condition, recommending that contact be subject to a valid family court order under the Child and Family Services Act.

A temporary care and custody motion concerning a three-month-old child apprehended at birth due to security concerns at the hospital involving the mother's family and the mother's own developmental disabilities.

The mother sought return of the child to her care under a supervision order, with an alternate plan for placement with her godmother.

The court dismissed the mother's primary plan, finding that her functional deficits—including illiteracy, short-term memory challenges, and poor judgment in personal relationships—combined with her demonstrated inability to cooperate with the child protection agency, meant that no supervision order could adequately protect the child from risk of harm.

The court granted the mother's alternate plan, placing the child in the temporary care and custody of the godmother under a supervision order with specified terms and conditions.

The appellant mother appealed a child protection decision granting summary judgment that two children were in need of protection and making them Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the motions judge improperly relied on hearsay, opinion, and business record evidence and that this reliance violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court held that unopposed affidavit material, verbal agreements, and concessions made during a summary judgment hearing may properly be relied upon, particularly where the parties are represented by counsel and no objection was raised.

The court found no breach of the Charter and concluded the motions judge correctly applied the legal test and made appropriate statutory findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a child protection application.

The applicant sought findings that two children (R.A.N.B., age 3, and E.J.B., age 17 months) were in need of protection under sections 37(2)(a) and (b) of the Child and Family Services Act, and a disposition order making them crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion.

The court found both children in need of protection based on evidence of parental substance abuse, domestic violence, instability, and neglect.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and ordered crown wardship without access, finding no triable issue existed and that this disposition was in the children's best interests.