Tracy Engelking

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown Wardship without access for two young children.

The mother did not present a plan of care but sought access.

The maternal grandmother's partner presented a plan for a kinship placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the kinship placement, noting it would essentially return the children to the same environment where they suffered neglect.

The court also found no genuine issue for trial regarding access, as the mother's relationship with the children was not beneficial and meaningful.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the children were made Crown Wards without access for the purposes of adoption.

The appellant father appealed a Family Court order granting the mother sole custody of their two children with supervised access to him, and allowing the Children's Aid Society to withdraw its protection application.

The father argued the motions judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances, hearing the matters simultaneously, allowing the withdrawal without a full hearing, and improperly relying on a section 54 assessment report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly applied the test for varying custody due to parental alienation, correctly exercised discretion to hear the matters together, held an appropriate hearing for the withdrawal, and did not improperly rely on the assessment report.

In a child protection costs motion following withdrawal of the protection application, the father sought over $100,000 against the children’s aid society and the mother, alleging the society had failed to investigate properly and had acted unfairly.

The court held that costs against a society arise only in exceptional circumstances and found the society had acted fairly, even-handedly, and in good faith throughout, including by reassessing its position as new information emerged and making repeated reasonable settlement offers.

The father’s allegations of conspiracy, bias, and misconduct were rejected as unsupported and frequently based on misreadings of the record.

The father’s claim for costs was dismissed, the mother was awarded $600, and the society was awarded $6,000 on its cross-motion, with a bar on further proceedings against the society until those costs were paid.

The parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting temporary care and custody of their premature child to the children's aid society.

The order was made to facilitate an emergency blood transfusion which the parents had refused on religious grounds.

The parents argued they were denied procedural fairness and their Charter rights were violated due to short notice and lack of counsel at the emergency teleconference hearing.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents received a fair hearing attenuated to the urgent medical circumstances, and that the issues were highly fact-specific rather than of general public importance.

The moving party father sought an extension of time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a trial decision granting Crown wardship without access.

The father missed the 30-day deadline under Rule 38 of the Family Law Rules but had expressed his intention to appeal shortly after the judgment.

The court applied the factors for extending time, finding the 30-day delay was not excessive, the intention to appeal was clear, and there was insufficient prejudice to the child's adoption prospects to deny the extension.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The mother of a Crown ward brought a motion to increase her access under section 58 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society objected, arguing that because the child had lived with the same foster family for over two years, the mother was required to seek a status review under section 64 and obtain leave under subsection 64(5).

The motion judge ruled that section 58 provides a stand-alone route for access variations.

The Society appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a party seeking merely to vary an access order to a long-term Crown ward may apply directly under section 58 and is not required to embark upon a status review.