Shannon C. Kinch

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children: M.M. (age 13, non-verbal with global developmental delay), and twins A.B.1 and A.B.2 (age 5).

The respondent mother, C.D., opposed the motion and sought return of the children to her care, with or without supervision.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to C.D. due to her history of physical discipline, lack of insight into protection concerns, and inconsistent parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing M.M. in the Society's temporary care and the twins in their father G.B.'s care subject to Society supervision.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for four children in the care of C.D. The motion addressed whether the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that K.B. suffered severe physical injuries while in C.D.'s exclusive care, including fractures, subdural hematomas, and genital injuries.

The court made protection findings under multiple subsections of s. 37(2) of the Act for all four children.

The other three children (M.M., A.B., and AA.B.) were found to be at risk of physical harm based on C.D.'s overwhelmed state and the serious injuries inflicted on K.B. The matter was adjourned for a disposition hearing.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody orders for three children under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to placement of all three children with the maternal grandparents.

The father of two of the children sought placement in his own care.

The court determined that both the maternal grandparents and the father qualified as "persons in charge" under the Act.

However, the court found that placement with the father was in the children's best interests, as it would minimize ongoing parental conflict and prioritize placement with a parent over grandparents.

The mother had breached an existing domestic court order by placing the children with the maternal grandparents without consulting the father.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings, a finding that the child L.W. was in need of protection, and an order making the child a Crown ward for purposes of adoption.

The child was born prematurely with significant health concerns and was apprehended shortly after birth.

The mother had five older children, all of whom had been found to be children in need of protection and permanently placed outside her care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding statutory findings or protection findings based on the mother's chronic inability to provide adequate care, poor home conditions, and lack of insight into her parenting deficits.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the child a Crown ward without access, and denied the mother's requests to amend her plan of care and for a section 54 assessment.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The society sought a Crown wardship order with no access, while the respondent mother sought the return of the child to her care.

The court determined that a further order was necessary to protect the child and that the society had met its onus on a summary judgment motion to demonstrate there was no genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the mother had failed to address the risks to the child, had not consistently engaged with counselling services despite court orders, and had demonstrated significant ambivalence toward parenting through inconsistent access patterns.

The court granted the Crown wardship order with no access, finding that the mother had not satisfied the statutory test for access to a Crown ward.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that two children were in need of protection, and that they be made wards of the Crown for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother contested the motion and sought return of the children to her care pursuant to a supervision order.

The respondent father sought an adjournment.

The court found that the children were in need of protection based on the chronically poor condition of the mother's home, her inability to consistently meet the children's needs, and findings from a parenting capacity assessment indicating developmental delay and personality features that prevented adequate parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the children Crown wards, and ordered supervised access for the mother at least once every two months.