Vanessa Kaljaste

This case concerns a temporary care hearing for a 13-month-old child, G.R., whose parents are J.R. (mother) and S.J. (father).

The Children's Aid Society intervened due to the mother's continued relationship with an individual facing sexual assault charges, her lack of insight into the associated risks, and her inability to meet the child's basic needs, including medical care and safe sleeping arrangements.

The court found the child to be at high risk if returned to the mother's care and determined that a supervision order would be insufficient to mitigate this risk due to the mother's unreliability and repeated breaches of the safety plan.

The court also addressed the interpretation of "charge" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, concluding that both parents shared charge.

The child remained placed with the father, and the mother's access was ordered to be supervised, removing the Society's discretion for unsupervised access, as the court found unsupervised access incongruent with the child's best interests given the mother's credibility issues and non-compliance.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a status review application.

Within this, the respondent mother, A.C., brought a motion to relocate with the child, J.C-T., from Brantford to Petawawa.

The respondent father, J.T., opposed this move and brought a cross-motion seeking to prohibit the relocation or, alternatively, for primary care of the child.

The court applied the mobility provisions of the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYSFA) proceeding, finding that the proposed move constituted a relocation.

The court determined that both parties bore the burden of proof on this interim motion.

The mother failed to demonstrate that the relocation was in the child's best interests, considering factors such as impact on father's access, lack of confirmed supports in the new location, and the mother's ongoing mental health concerns.

The father successfully demonstrated that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Brantford.

The mother's motion to relocate was dismissed, and she was prohibited from moving the child's primary residence.

This is a temporary care hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children.

The central issue determined by the court is who had charge of the children immediately prior to the Society's intervention.

The court found that the two older children were in the charge of their father, M.S., and the youngest child was in the charge of his father, S.D., immediately prior to intervention.

The mother, A.J., had abandoned the children in August 2015 to pursue substance abuse and was subsequently incarcerated intermittently.

The court applied the legal test for temporary care orders, focusing on the nature of the active caring relationship rather than legal custody.

A child protection trial determining whether three children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children had suffered physical harm inflicted by their parents through excessive corporal punishment, including beatings with belts, use of ginger root inserted anally as punishment, forced confinement to a garage, and threats.

The parents denied the allegations, claiming the children were influenced by the oldest child to fabricate abuse claims.

The court found the children credible and reliable, and determined that the parents had subjected the children to inappropriate and excessive physical discipline causing physical harm, warranting a protection finding.