Tim Price

The Children's Aid Society sought extended society care for two children against their father and mothers.

The mothers consented to extended society care.

The father opposed, seeking custody.

The court found both children in need of protection due to the father's pedohebephilia diagnosis, untreated impulsivity, chaotic lifestyle, substance use, and history of non-compliance with orders.

The court dismissed the father's plan of care, finding it unrealistic, and ordered extended society care for both children, with silent access for parents but continued inter-sibling access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application seeking Crown wardship of a five-year-old child with severe behavioural and special needs.

The mother did not participate in the trial.

The father, who had an extensive criminal record and had been absent for most of the child's life, sought placement of the child in his care under a supervision order.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inability to manage the child's extreme aggressive behaviours.

The court rejected the father's plan, finding he lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to complete recommended programs in a timely manner.

The child was made a Crown ward with supervised access granted to the father.

Following a 154‑day child protection trial, the father sought full indemnity costs exceeding $3 million against the Children’s Aid Society and the mother.

The court found the mother had acted in bad faith by advancing false allegations that fueled prolonged litigation.

The court further concluded the Society breached its statutory duties by failing to conduct an objective investigation, withholding disclosure, and advocating for the mother rather than reassessing its case as contrary evidence emerged.

While rejecting costs against counsel for the children or the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court held that the Society bore the greatest responsibility for the extraordinary length and expense of the proceedings.

Costs were fixed at just over $2 million, apportioned 70% to the Society and 30% to the mother.

The applicant child protection agency brought an application regarding three children, while the parents concurrently sought a divorce, custody, and property division.

Following a 154-day trial, the court dismissed the protection application, finding that the mother had made false allegations of domestic violence against the father and had a significant, unacknowledged alcohol problem.

The court awarded sole custody of the youngest child to the father, with restricted access for the mother, and ordered the mother to pay child support for all three children.

The court also determined that funds in the father's offshore account were held in a resulting trust and excluded from his net family property.

During a highly complex and lengthy child protection trial, the oldest child turned 18.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to vary the order appointing a lawyer for the child and to remove the OCL as his legal representative, arguing that the child was no longer a 'child' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that while the child aged out of the statutory provisions, fairness and due process required his continued legal representation.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the child's lawyer continue to represent him and that the OCL continue to fund the representation until the completion of the trial.