Trevor Patrick Simpson

This is a child protection motion for summary judgment under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a one-year-old child (T.) is in need of protection, a disposition order, and a determination regarding parental access.

The court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm from the mother's chronic drug addiction, domestic violence involvement, and inability to provide stable care.

The court declined to make a finding on emotional harm grounds due to insufficient evidence.

For disposition, the court ordered the child remain in the care and custody of the paternal grandmother (B.D.) subject to a supervision order by the society for nine months, rather than granting the deemed custody order sought by B.D. The court adjourned the access issue for trial, finding a genuine issue requiring adjudication regarding the scope and conditions of parental access.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion seeking three orders: (1) withdrawal of a prior motion dated June 8, 2018; (2) variation of temporary care and custody of three children from the society to their maternal grandmother; and (3) continuation of existing interim parental access orders.

The court found that the applicant society did not require a court order to withdraw its motion, as parties have the right to withdraw applications subject to cost consequences.

The court granted the variation of temporary care and custody from the society to the maternal grandmother under section 94(2)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as this placement with kin was preferable to placement with the society and would remove a legal impediment to the grandmother obtaining a deemed custody order.

The court found the claim regarding continuation of access orders to be unnecessary as existing orders continue until varied or superseded.

This is a decision on the identification of a child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

The child was previously identified under the former Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), but re-identification was necessary under the new CYFSA framework.

The court examined the statutory requirements for identifying a child as a First Nations, Inuk, or Métis child, including membership in a band and identification with a band or community.

The court found that the child was not a First Nations child, as the child was not on any band membership list and neither parent had indicated the band with which the child identifies.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma brought a motion to transfer carriage of child protection proceedings to Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, a newly designated native children's aid society.

The court examined the ministerial designation of Nogdawindamin CAS and determined that it had jurisdiction only over children who were members of the seven specified First Nations bands residing on reserves or who met specific criteria under the designation.

The court granted the transfer motion with respect to one child (A.M.) who was an identified Indian child entitled to membership in one of the designated bands and residing on reserve.

The court dismissed the transfer motion with respect to three other children (N.M., P.F., and M.M.) who had no connection to the designated First Nations or aboriginal status.

The decision addresses the complexities of jurisdictional issues arising from the creation of native children's aid societies and the interplay between geographical and personal designations.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning four children in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The court conducted a 14-day trial to determine whether the children should be returned to parental care under supervision or made Crown wards.

The Society sought Crown wardship for all four children, citing the parents' inability to adequately care for, supervise, and protect the children, particularly regarding control of problematic child behaviour.

The father sought return of the children under Society supervision.

The children's representatives sought various dispositions.

The court found that the children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act due to the parents' failure to adequately care for, supervise, and protect the children, creating a risk of physical harm.

The court ordered that all four children be made Crown wards of the Society.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access for a child born to a 15-year-old First Nations mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that insufficient evidence regarding the mother's background and available resources had been presented.

The court identified triable issues concerning the mother's upbringing, available community resources, and realistic rehabilitation timeframe, and adjourned the matter to a trial management conference.

A motion brought by the maternal grandfather of a child in a child protection proceeding seeking to be added as a party respondent.

The grandfather claimed statutory party status under the Child and Family Services Act based on a written custody agreement signed by both parents.

The court found that the grandfather qualified as a "parent" under section 37(1) of the CFSA and was therefore a statutory party who should have been named as a respondent by the society.

The court granted the motion and ordered the grandfather be added as a party respondent with thirty days to file an Answer and Plan of Care.