4 total
The Court of Appeal clarified the transitional provisions of the CYFSA and the cautious approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases.
This appeal concerns a mother's request for access to three of her six children in extended care following their apprehension by the Children's Aid Society in 2015.
The motion judge granted Crown wardship without access.
The Divisional Court affirmed the decision but applied the old Child and Family Services Act rather than the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the transitional provisions of the new Act applied, the record was insufficient to satisfy the expanded access test, the children's Indigenous heritage was not properly considered, and the approach to summary judgment in child protection matters was misapplied.
The matter was remitted to Superior Court for determination under the new legislation.
The court dismissed a father's motion for summary judgment in a child protection case and ordered temporary Society supervision with access to a vulnerable child based on the child's wishes.
A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto against parents E.S. and F.S. regarding three children (N., M., and A.) who had been exposed to domestic violence during the marriage.
The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the protection application, arguing that the Society had failed to establish grounds for protection and that the application constituted an abuse of process.
The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the Society's motion for temporary supervision with conditions, including that the father's access to the vulnerable child M. be subject to the child's wishes, while allowing unsupervised access to the younger child A. pending a full protection hearing.
Summary judgment Crown wardship upheld where no genuine issue requiring trial existed.
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.
The court ordered Crown wardship without access for a three-year-old child due to the mother's unmitigated paranoid personality disorder.
A status review application for crown wardship of a three-year-old child.
The applicant child protection agency sought crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.
The respondent mother opposed the application and sought return of the child to her care.
The court found the child continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's paranoid personality disorder, which was pervasive and enduring, contributing to her inability to provide adequate care and stability.
The mother's parenting was significantly impaired, characterized by inability to respond appropriately to the child's cues, inconsistent attendance at access visits, and failure to accept responsibility for her circumstances.
The court made an order for crown wardship with no access.
