6 total
Board orders children's aid society to provide further written reasons to comply with settlement agreement.
The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, but the applicant subsequently alleged the respondent society failed to comply with several terms requiring written explanations for its child protection decisions.
The Board reviewed the written submissions and found the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for several terms, including its assessment of the applicant's mental health and its application of the Eligibility Spectrum.
The Board ordered the respondent to provide a further letter with specific details to comply with the agreement.
Board decision overturning foster parents' adoption approval quashed as unreasonable; child to remain with foster family.
The applicants, foster parents who had cared for a three-year-old child since birth, sought judicial review of a Child and Family Services Review Board decision that overruled the Children's Aid Society's approval of their adoption application.
The Board had directed the child be placed with the respondents, who had previously adopted two of the child's maternal half-siblings, citing the importance of the child's Métis heritage and biological siblings.
The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting it applied differential standards to the evidence, ignored the child's strong bond with the foster family, and relied on speculation regarding the child's ability to transition to a new home.
The application for judicial review was allowed, the Board's decision was quashed, and the Society's decision approving the applicants' adoption was restored.
The court varied a temporary child protection order, placing the infant with the maternal grandmother due to the mother's mental health issues.
The Children's Aid Society of Niagara brought a motion under s. 121(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for a temporary order for care and custody of a child and a stay of a previous order by Bale J. The previous order had returned the child to the mother with conditions.
Justice Ramsay clarified the Divisional Court's jurisdiction for appeals under the CYFS Act, noting an appeal as of right.
The court found a palpable and overriding error in Bale J.'s decision to return the child to the mother given serious concerns about the mother's mental health and anger management, as reported by the maternal grandmother.
The motion was granted, varying Bale J.'s order to place the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.
The motion for a stay was dismissed as unnecessary.
Appeal of temporary child protection order dismissed; no palpable and overriding error in supervision terms.
The appellant children's aid society appealed a temporary order placing a newborn child in the care of the respondent parents subject to supervision terms.
The society argued the application judge erred by imposing terms irreconcilable with his findings regarding the mother's mental health and the father's prior criminal conviction.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the test under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and made no palpable and overriding error.
The Court also dismissed the society's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the paternal grandfather's criminal record, applying a relaxed test but finding the evidence would not have affected the result.
Temporary care of newborn granted to Society pending appeal due to fresh evidence of risk.
The Children's Aid Society moved for temporary care and custody of a newborn child pending its appeal of a motion judge's order that placed the child with the parents under supervision.
The Society argued the motion judge erred by omitting a statement of the plans of care and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the mother's mental health and the paternal grandfather's history of allowing a sex offender to reside in his home.
Applying a modified test for a stay pending appeal, the court found a serious issue to be tried based on the fresh evidence and concluded that the risk of irreparable harm to the child outweighed the harm of temporary separation from the parents.
The motion was granted, and the child was placed in the Society's care pending the appeal.
Appeal from Crown wardship without access dismissed; contact not in child's best interests.
The appellant mother appealed an order for Crown wardship without access regarding her child.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that the mother failed to provide evidence showing a realistic possibility that contact would be meaningful, beneficial, and in the child's best interests.
Fresh evidence regarding another child was deemed of limited assistance due to differences in age and the mother's involvement.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming Crown wardship without access.
