Tara MacDougall

Child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 in which the court was asked to make statutory findings as to whether the children are Indigenous within the meaning of the CYFSA and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The respondent mother self-identified as First Nations and one child had a clearly established First Nation and Métis paternal lineage supported by extensive genealogical and historical documentation.

The court held that the two legislative schemes impose distinct evidentiary thresholds, with the Federal Act being more stringent than the CYFSA, and declined to find that a CYFSA finding automatically produces a Federal Act finding.

Applying the framework articulated in the prior related decision, the court found that the children's self-identification, ancestral connection, and sustained acceptance by and engagement with the modern Indigenous community in Ottawa satisfied the evidentiary requirements under both statutes.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children (I.D., A.D., H.D.) were in need of protection and an order for their placement with the maternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court found the children to be Inuit based on their strong self-identification and cultural participation, despite some uncertainty regarding ancestral connection.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's failure to protect them from a father with sexual offense charges, her emotional dysregulation, and health issues affecting her parenting capacity.

The court ordered the children's placement with the maternal grandmother for six months under Society supervision, emphasizing the augmented best interests test for Indigenous children under the Federal Act.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order for the child, L.S., in favour of his paternal great-aunt, with supervised access to the mother.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding either the custody disposition or the access arrangements.

The mother had failed to take meaningful steps to address the Society's concerns, and the child was thriving in the great-aunt's care.

The court granted the custody order to the great-aunt and set conditions for the mother's supervised access, emphasizing the child's best interests and the need for permanency.

This motion addressed whether J.A. qualified as a "parent" of the child A.H.H. under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The court examined the definitions of "settled intention" and "lawful custody" as per Section 74(1) of the CYFSA.

J.A. failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a settled intention to treat A.H.H. as his child, citing vague details, lack of consistent financial support, and failure to assert legal rights during periods of separation.

The court also found that J.A. did not have lawful custody, as there was no court order or written agreement.

Consequently, J.A.'s motion to be declared a parent was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion to reduce the mother's access to the child and remove the stepfather's access, while providing access to the paternal great-aunt.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking the child's return to her care.

The court denied the mother's cross-motion, finding she had not met the high threshold under s. 113(8) of the CYFSA for returning the child to her care, primarily due to her inconsistency and the child's need for stability.

The court granted the Society's motion to vary access, reducing the mother's minimum access to once per week, removing the stepfather's access, and granting the paternal great-aunt access, finding these changes were in the child's best interests, considering both the CYFSA and the augmented best interests test under the Federal Act for Indigenous children.

In a child protection proceeding, the Office of the Children's Lawyer abandoned a request to present the children's views without a clinician's affidavit.

Counsel for the foster parents sought costs for the attendance and requested an adjournment of an upcoming summary judgment motion due to a scheduling conflict.

The court noted counsel's unprofessional conduct and mischaracterization of a previous hearing involving a student-at-law, but ultimately granted the adjournment to ensure the foster parents could be represented by their counsel of choice.

A timeline for written costs submissions was established.

The children's aid society brought a motion for a temporary supervision order to place a four-year-old Indigenous child in the care of the mother pending trial.

The child had been residing with a non-relative kin caregiver for approximately two years.

The court applied the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, noting its paramountcy over provincial legislation and its priority of placement for parents.

Finding that the mother had made significant progress in mitigating child protection concerns and that a return to her care was in the child's best interests, the court granted the motion and ordered the child placed with the mother subject to society supervision.

The children's aid society sought a temporary order placing a one-year-old Inuk child in the care of the father in Nunavut, subject to a supervision order.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to her care.

The court found that the child could not be safely returned to the mother due to ongoing concerns regarding substance misuse and mental health.

Applying the placement priorities for Indigenous children, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the father and extended family in their community.

The society's motion was granted.

In a child protection proceeding, the father brought a motion to vary a temporary care and custody order to have the children placed in his care.

The children had previously been placed in the interim care of the Society after being removed from the mother's care.

The court applied the test for varying a temporary placement order, finding that the father's consistent and positive access, along with his viable plan for the children's care, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court determined it was in the children's best interests to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to Society supervision and a gradual integration plan, while maintaining the mother's access.

This endorsement addresses the re-opening of a child protection trial due to material changes in circumstances and establishes detailed procedural guidelines for its continuation via videoconferencing.

The court outlines protocols for evidence submission, witness examination, document management, and technological requirements to facilitate a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing upon best practices for remote hearings.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton brought a motion for summary judgment seeking extended society care for two children, F.M.-C. and L.M., and findings of need of protection.

The mother, supported by the father and maternal grandparents, opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including her progress in addressing Society concerns and the improper admission of evidence as business records.

The court dismissed the Society's motion, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial for both children, particularly regarding the mother's progress in addressing homelessness, substance use, and mental health, and the admissibility of the Society's evidentiary record.

The court emphasized the cautious approach required for summary judgment in child protection cases due to the high stakes and Charter rights involved.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought an extended care order for ABR, born in 2017, due to ongoing domestic violence between the mother (JR) and father (DB).

ABR had been in foster care since three months old.

The court found ABR was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child due to insufficient evidence of a meaningful connection to a specific community.

The court determined that ABR remained in need of protection due to the persistent risk of physical and emotional harm from the parents' toxic relationship and JR's inability to sever ties with DB, despite extensive support from the Society.

The court concluded that an extended Society care order for adoption was in ABR's best interests, as JR had not demonstrated the necessary changes to ensure ABR's safety and permanency.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought an order for temporary care and custody of two children, M. and C., pending disposition for extended Society care.

The mother sought the children's return under a supervision order, supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court dismissed the Society's request for temporary care and custody, finding that the children could be adequately protected by a supervision order with strict conditions, and ordered the children to be placed in the temporary care and control of the mother subject to the Society's supervision.

The court also ruled on the inadmissibility of hearsay statements from the children due to insufficient detail in the child protection worker's affidavit regarding the circumstances of the statements.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection, custody to the father, and supervised access for the mother.

The mother failed to file responding materials and left the courtroom.

The father supported the motion.

The court reviewed extensive evidence regarding the mother's severe alcohol addiction and mental health issues, and the father's efforts to address his past substance abuse and criminal involvement, supported by his family.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment, determining the child was in need of protection, granting custody to the father, and ordering supervised access for the mother.

In a child protection trial, the father served a summons to compel the 12-year-old child to testify.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to quash the summons, supported by the applicant society and the mother.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that compelling the child to testify posed a significant risk of emotional harm and that the father's primary purpose was to impeach her credibility rather than prove material facts.

The court also ruled on the father's request to introduce the entirety of the child's police interview video, holding that only specific prior inconsistent statements relating to substantive issues, and not collateral facts, could be admitted.

In a child protection application, the applicant sought to introduce out-of-court statements made by the child to child protection workers and a counsellor for the truth of their contents.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the threshold reliability of these hearsay statements.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court evaluated the circumstances under which the statements were made, including the child's spontaneity, the absence of leading questions, and the timing of the recordings.

The court found that the majority of the statements met the threshold reliability test and were admissible, with the exception of one response to a directive question.

The maternal grandparents of two Crown wards brought a motion for leave under s. 65.1(5) of the Child and Family Services Act to bring a status review application.

The children had been in care for over four years, and the children's aid society had recently identified an adoptive family and was preparing to place the children for adoption.

The court applied the five-part test for granting leave and found that the grandparents failed to demonstrate unusual circumstances or a prima facie case that a status review would result in the children being placed in their care.

The court emphasized the children's need for permanency and stability, and dismissed the motion for leave.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship for a 15-year-old child and a custody order to the paternal grandmother for a 14-year-old child.

The children were apprehended due to physical altercations and parent-child conflict.

The mother ultimately did not oppose the Crown wardship but sought conditions on access, and initially contested the custody order for the younger child.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determined the children were in need of protection, and granted the Society's motion, ordering Crown wardship for the older child and custody to the paternal grandmother for the younger child.