top of page

CAS v. W., 2012 ONSC 3635

Facts

The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) of Simcoe County sought an order for Crown wardship of two minor children, A.W. (born 2010) and L.L.-W. (born 2011), with no access to the biological parents to facilitate adoption. The CAS alleged that the children were in need of protection due to concerns over the respondent mother's substance abuse, transiency, and exposure to domestic violence.

The respondent admitted to a history of substance abuse, including crack cocaine use, and had previously lost custody of an older child, R.D. Despite efforts at rehabilitation, she continued to relapse. CAS argued that the risk of harm due to her ongoing substance abuse justified a permanent order of Crown wardship.

Legal Framework

Statutory Provisions

The case was decided under the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the "Act"), which governs child protection matters in Ontario.

  • Section 1(1): The paramount purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children​.

  • Section 37(2): Defines when a child is in need of protection, including when there is a likelihood of suffering harm due to a caregiver’s failure to adequately care for, supervise, or protect them​.

  • Section 57(1): Outlines the available orders a court may make upon finding that a child is in need of protection, including:

    1. Supervision order

    2. Society wardship (temporary custody by CAS)

    3. Crown wardship (permanent custody by CAS)​.

  • Section 57(3): The court shall not remove a child from parental care unless it determines that less disruptive alternatives would be inadequate to protect the child​.

  • Section 59(2.1): Establishes a presumption against access orders once a child is made a Crown ward, unless it can be shown that maintaining contact is beneficial and will not impair adoption prospects​.

Case Law References

  • Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. T.B., 2011 ONSC 2702: This case established that protection hearings involve a two-step process: first, determining whether a child is in need of protection under s. 37(2), and second, determining the appropriate order under s. 57(1)​.

  • Children’s Aid Society v. A.M. (2002), 26 R.F.L. (5th) 265: Differentiated between a risk that a child "might" suffer harm versus a reasonable probability of harm occurring​.

  • Lennox and Addington Family and Children’s Services v. S.W., 2010 ONSC 2585: Affirmed that a parent’s substance abuse can establish a risk of harm, justifying Crown wardship​.

  • Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.C., 2003 CanLII 67754: Found that ongoing drug abuse significantly impacts a parent’s ability to provide a stable and safe home​.

Decision

The court found that the respondent’s ongoing drug use and instability posed a significant risk of harm to the children. Given her history of repeated relapses despite interventions, the court concluded that she was unable to provide a stable and safe environment. The judge determined that Crown wardship was in the children's best interests and ordered them to be made Crown wards with no access, allowing for adoption​.

Conclusion

The ruling in CAS v. W., 2012 ONSC 3635 underscores the principle that the best interests of the child take precedence in child protection cases. The court’s reliance on statutory provisions and case law highlights the strict standard required for a parent to retain custody when there is evidence of ongoing substance abuse

 

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.G., 2020 ONSC 79

Nature of the Case

This case involved child protection proceedings under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), concerning the four children of M.G. and G.C. The Children's Aid Society (CAS) sought:

  1. Placement of the eldest child (B.S.) with his paternal grandmother.

  2. Extended society care (previously known as Crown wardship) for the other three children, with the intent of placing them for adoption.

Key Issues

  1. Child Protection Concerns – The CAS alleged ongoing neglect, parental substance abuse, domestic conflict, housing instability, and failure to meet the children's medical and developmental needs.

  2. Parental Fitness – The ability of M.G. and G.C. to care for their children was questioned, including concerns about M.G.'s mental health and drug dependency.

  3. Cultural and Indigenous Rights – The case considered the First Nations and Métis status of the children under the CYFSA.

  4. Access to Children – The parents' inconsistent attendance at visits with their children was a factor in the court's determination.

Legal Framework

Statutory Provisions

  1. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1

    • Section 74 – Best interests of the child are the paramount consideration in child protection cases.

    • Section 87(8) – Prohibits publishing information that could identify the children, their parents, or foster parents.

    • Section 142(3) – Imposes penalties for violating publication bans, including fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to three years.

    • Section 123 – Defines "extended society care," previously called Crown wardship, where a child is placed in long-term care under CAS supervision.

Case Law Considered

  1. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.G., 2019 ONSC 6142

    • This earlier decision in the same case determined that the children were First Nations children under the CYFSA, requiring additional procedural protections.

  2. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), 2002 ONCJ 6

    • This case set precedent regarding parental fitness and the conditions under which a child should be placed in extended society care.

  3. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46

    • The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized the constitutional rights of parents in child protection cases and the importance of procedural fairness.

Court’s Findings

  1. Parental Unfitness

    • M.G. had a history of failing to follow through with medical care, addiction treatment, and parenting programs.

    • G.C. demonstrated hostility toward CAS workers and failed to engage with counseling and mental health services.

  2. Child Welfare Considerations

    • The children had significant unmet medical, developmental, and educational needs.

    • The court found that returning the children to parental care would pose an unacceptable risk.

  3. Cultural Considerations

    • Although the children were identified as First Nations and Métis, the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan declined involvement in the case.

  4. Final Orders

    • B.S. placed in the custody of his paternal grandmother with parental access at her discretion.

    • Z.C., F.C., and J.G. placed in extended society care, with the goal of adoption.

Conclusion

The court determined that the parents had not demonstrated sufficient improvement in their ability to provide a safe and stable environment for their children. Given the ongoing protection concerns, the court granted the CAS’s request for extended society care for three of the children and placed the eldest child with his grandmother.

Would you like any modifications or additional details on specific legal points?

bottom of page