Stephen J. Fuerth

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo sought an order directing that charges against the defendants for engaging in a prohibited activity on courthouse premises be tried by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice rather than a justice of the peace.

The defendants had been charged under the Trespass to Property Act for protesting and distributing literature on the courthouse steps on August 9, 2013.

The defendants raised a Charter challenge alleging breaches of sections 2 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown and the intervenor (Ontario) consented to the application.

The Regional Senior Justice granted the application, finding that the broader public interest, precedent value, and complexity of Charter issues warranted judicial assignment despite the usual practice of assigning provincial offence matters to justices of the peace.

This is a child protection trial concerning the disposition of a child born in 2010 who was placed in foster care at birth.

The applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother proposed placement with her mother (the grandmother) under a custody order.

The father did not participate in the trial.

The court was required to determine the child's best interests under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, considering competing plans for permanent placement.

An application by a children's services society for an order under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act authorizing delivery of children to child protection authorities in Quebec.

The respondent parents had fled Quebec with their children to Ontario to evade child welfare proceedings.

The court determined that the children were habitually resident in Quebec at the time proceedings commenced there, and that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the Quebec court's provisional custody order.

The court rejected arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction, standing of the society, and alleged Charter violations.

The court ordered the society to deliver the children to the Quebec agency, with a stay pending appeal.

The respondent parents brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the Children's Services society, along with copies of all correspondence, retainer agreements, and exchanges between the society and investigators since November 2012.

The parents alleged they had observed unknown persons conducting surveillance of their home and taking photographs.

The society claimed litigation privilege over the surveillance materials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the society has a broad disclosure obligation under Stinchcombe principles, litigation privilege protects work product prepared in contemplation of litigation, including surveillance conducted for litigation purposes that has not been relied upon as evidence.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services seeking Crown wardship of two children with no access.

The respondent parents had histories of drug use and criminal activity.

The father had engaged in ongoing criminal conduct including break and enter offences and was facing drug charges.

The mother had demonstrated some progress in addiction treatment through methadone programming but continued to test positive for illicit drugs including amphetamines and methamphetamines.

Both children had been in care well beyond the statutory period requiring permanency planning.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.