Sherri Smolkin

Child protection summary judgment motion regarding two children (ages 14 and 11).

The society sought findings that both children were in need of protection pursuant to subclauses 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and clause 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's volatility, pattern of neglect, transience, mental health concerns, and failure to cooperate with the society.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial, granted summary judgment, and ordered the older child placed with his biological father under supervision and the younger child in interim society care, both for six months.

Access with the mother and stepfather was ordered in the society's discretion with strict conditions including supervision and a letter of expectations.

The appellant mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) for a second appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, which became moot after the CAS withdrew its protection application in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The case involved conflicting interim orders between the two courts and concerns about the CAS's conduct in investigation and presentation of its case, including failing to meet with the mother and withholding relevant information from the OCJ.

The court found the CAS acted unfairly and unreasonably, justifying a costs award, despite the general exception for government agencies in child protection cases.

This decision addresses a motion for costs brought by the mother against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) in a child protection proceeding.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $12,577, alleging the CAS acted unfairly and unreasonably, including late service of materials, mistaken pleadings, and untimely conduct.

The CAS argued against costs, citing its statutory obligations and the specific subrule for child protection cases.

The court reviewed principles for awarding costs against child protection agencies, emphasizing that while not immune, they should not be penalized for carrying out their mandate unless their conduct is patently unfair and indefensible.

The court found the CAS acted reasonably and thoroughly, dismissing the mother's claim for costs.

The parents appealed an extended society care order, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the strengths of placing the children with a former foster parent.

The appeal court found that the trial judge had properly considered the proposed plan and made factual findings that contradicted the alleged strengths.

The trial judge's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence, with no palpable and overriding error identified.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society appealed an order granting a mother access to her child, who had been placed in extended society care.

The Society argued the trial judge erred in his application of the best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, specifically regarding whether access would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the new, broader best-interests approach to access and made findings grounded in the evidence.

A motion by the Society to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

A child protection trial involving three children: JSP (8 years old), JS (4 years old), and RS (9 months old).

The Children's Aid Society sought orders placing JSP and JS in the final care and custody of their paternal grandparents and placing RS in extended society care.

The mother opposed these applications and sought placement of all children in her care or jointly with the maternal grandmother.

The court found that RS was a child in need of protection due to risk of physical harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues, substance abuse, volatile behaviour, lack of insight, and inability to work effectively with service providers.

The court found that intervention through court orders was necessary to protect all three children.

The court placed JSP and JS in the custody of the paternal grandparents and RS in extended society care, with carefully structured access orders balancing the children's need for connection with their mother against the risks posed by her conduct and mental health challenges.

A status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The respondent mother brought a motion to extend timelines to permit late filing of her Answer/Plan of Care.

The court denied the extension with respect to the mother's primary plan to have the children returned to her care, finding no air of reality to that plan given unaddressed protection concerns including unsuitable housing, toxic relationships with brothers living in the home, and lack of insight into the risk factors.

However, the court granted an extension limited to the mother's alternate plan to place the children with her adult son and to her claim for access, finding genuine issues requiring trial on these issues.

This is a focused hearing on access issues following a summary judgment motion in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court had previously made G.C.A. and E.A. crown wards, with a genuine issue remaining regarding G.C.A.'s access with the mother and maternal grandmother.

The focused hearing addressed the terms and conditions of access for G.C.A. with his mother and maternal grandmother, resulting in a detailed access order with graduated hours, overnight visits on specified occasions, and conditions regarding medication compliance and the presence of third parties.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to make two children crown wards with access to the respondents in the society's discretion.

The respondents, the mother and maternal grandmother, opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to their care.

The court heard oral evidence from the mother and maternal grandmother pursuant to subrule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to neglect, and that the respondents had demonstrated no meaningful insight into the protection concerns or the children's needs.

The court made final orders making both children crown wards, with access to the respondents in the society's discretion and in consideration of the children's wishes.

A focused hearing was scheduled to determine the access arrangements for the older child.

A motion brought by the maternal grandmother of two young children to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding.

The children were apprehended following the arrest of both parents on serious charges involving child sexual abuse and exploitation.

The Children's Aid Society opposed the motion, arguing that the grandmother's plan could be presented by the mother and that adding her would cause undue delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that adding the grandmother as a party was in the best interests of the children, that she had a legal interest in the proceeding, that her plan merited serious consideration, and that she had demonstrated commitment and cooperation.

The court limited her participation to the issue of disposition.

A motion for summary judgment in a child protection status review application seeking to make a child a crown ward.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with supervised access to the parents.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care or unsupervised access.

The child had been in care since 2012 due to neglect and had experienced multiple placement breakdowns.

The child had significant behavioral, emotional, and developmental challenges requiring specialized care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted crown wardship with weekly supervised access to both parents.

The court also addressed sibling access issues and made reciprocal access orders to preserve the child's voice in future adoption proceedings.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place the children in its care, citing concerns regarding parental neglect, exposure to domestic violence, unsafe transportation practices, unsupervised medication use, and the mother's repeated breaches of a temporary supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that she had begun to address her issues through counselling and parenting programs and that supervision orders would be sufficient.

The court found that the society had proven reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of physical harm and that supervision orders could not adequately protect them.

The court ordered the children placed in the care of the society with access to both parents at the society's discretion, minimum twice weekly.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking crown wardship of M.B., born in 2011, with no access order.

The respondent mother opposed the application and sought placement of the child with her, or alternatively with her and her stepfather subject to society supervision.

The respondent father died of a drug overdose in December 2013.

The court found the child in need of protection pursuant to clause 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act based on the mother's young age, immaturity, transience, unstable housing, poor judgment, failure to engage in services, inconsistent access, and lack of insight into protection concerns.

The court made the child a crown ward but granted the mother access on alternate Saturdays, finding that the relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child and that access would not impair the child's opportunity for adoption.

Biological parents appealed a child protection order making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal alleged errors in findings of medical neglect, improper assessment of best interests under the Child and Family Services Act, and reasonable apprehension of judicial bias.

The court applied the appellate standards of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings or best‑interests analysis.

Most proposed fresh evidence was rejected except updated caseworker notes relating to the child’s circumstances.

The court held the trial judge properly considered the statutory factors and the ongoing protection concerns, including medical neglect, criminal conduct, and the parents’ abduction of the child.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order with no access was upheld.