Tara Nazerali

The father (K.C-P.) brought a motion to change the child's placement from temporary joint care with non-biological paternal grandparents (the S's) to his sole care, supported by the paternal grandmother.

The court considered the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (FNIM Act), emphasizing the priority of placement with an Indigenous parent for an Indigenous child.

Despite the S's providing good care, the court found it was in the child's best interests, particularly given her Indigenous heritage, to be placed with her father, with a transitional period.

The motion was granted, and the S's request for costs was denied.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order placing a three-year-old child in extended Society care for the purpose of adoption, with no access to the father and limited access to the mother.

The child had suffered serious, unexplained injuries as an infant while in the parents' care, including a fractured clavicle, broken rib, and subdural hematomas.

The court applied the unexplained injury principle and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to provide a consistent or medically plausible explanation for the injuries.

The court granted the summary judgment, placing the child in extended care with access to the mother limited to letters and pictures, and no access to the father.

The Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in the deemed custody of their maternal aunt.

The father opposed the motion, seeking a finding under a different subsection and an order placing the children in foster care.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the children in need of protection due to the father's substance abuse, domestic violence, and failure to protect them from sexual abuse.

The court gave significant weight to the children's strong and consistent wishes to remain with their aunt and ordered deemed custody to her, with access to the father and paternal grandparents subject to the children's wishes.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the deemed joint custody of the parents, with primary residence to the father.

The mother opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the child's chronic school absenteeism while in the mother's care and the mother's lack of insight into the emotional harm caused by the absenteeism and parental conflict.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering primary residence to the father with specified access to the mother.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services (the Society) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding the child, L.M., in need of protection and placing him in extended Society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents, K.R. (Mother) and M.M. (Father), opposed the motion, arguing that there were genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking expanded access.

The court, exercising exceptional caution due to the Charter implications in child protection cases, allowed limited oral evidence and cross-examination of the parenting capacity assessor.

The court found that the parents, both with significant cognitive and emotional limitations and a history of non-cooperation, had not demonstrated any measurable improvement or ability to provide "good enough" parenting.

The assessment concluded no attachment relationship existed between L.M. and either parent, and severing the relationship would have no negative consequences for the child.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding L.M. in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access for the parents, for the purpose of adoption, subject to sibling access.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to have two children placed in extended society care with no parental access.

The children had been apprehended following severe physical abuse and restraint by the respondent parents.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts of the abuse were established and the parents' parenting capacity assessments indicated a high risk of future harm.

The motion was granted, the children were placed in extended society care, and parental access was denied as it was not in the children's best interests.