Tara Gatten

This decision concerns a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving serious sexual offence charges against the father, Dr. RW, unrelated to his own children but occurring in the family home.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the admissibility and reliability of evidence from police and society workers, rejecting double hearsay and parental testimony about children's views.

The court emphasized the paramountcy of children's best interests and protection, finding reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk if placed in joint parental care.

The interim order places the children with the mother under society supervision and restricts the father's access to supervised visits, denying unsupervised access or cohabitation due to the risk of sexual and emotional harm.

The respondent sought costs of $2,455.04 for preparing for and attending a Legal Aid Ontario-facilitated settlement meeting that did not proceed because the applicant failed to attend.

The court denied the costs award, finding that the voluntary settlement meeting was not a step in the case authorized under the Family Law Rules and therefore fell outside the court's jurisdiction to award costs.

The court distinguished the case from mandatory mediation scenarios and held that policy considerations alone cannot support a costs award for a process beyond the court's authority.

The Superior Court of Justice heard appeals from a judgment ordering Crown wardship for the youngest child, T.L., with no parental access.

The father's appeal was dismissed due to his abysmal parenting record and lack of merit in his claims of bias or incompetent counsel.

The mother's appeal was allowed.

The court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to conduct a thorough "best interests of the child" analysis under s. 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, focusing too narrowly on the risk of inappropriate partners without balancing other factors like the child's bond with family.

Fresh evidence, demonstrating the mother's compliance with supervision conditions and positive parenting, further supported returning the child.

The Crown wardship order for T.L. was set aside, and the child was placed with the mother under a six-month supervision order with specific conditions.

The grandmother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.

The grandmother argued the Society acted unfairly by failing to investigate her as a potential caregiver despite her close relationship with the children and her offer to provide care.

The Society maintained it acted professionally and in good faith.

The court found that while the Society could have been more diligent in investigating the grandmother's plan, its conduct did not amount to unreasonable, unfair, or indefensible behaviour when viewed in context of the emergency circumstances and timeline of events.

The grandmother's request for costs was denied.

A children’s aid society appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access in a child protection proceeding.

The motions judge had refused the order due to concerns about hearsay evidence and insufficient detail addressing statutory requirements under the Child and Family Services Act, including the plan of care and efforts to assist the parent.

The appeal court held that summary judgment is available in child protection cases where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the affidavit evidence was sufficient in context, particularly given the absence of opposition and the parent’s consent.

The court also accepted fresh evidence regarding the child’s placement and adoptability.

The appeal was allowed and the court substituted an order finding the child in need of protection and granting Crown wardship without access.