Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. K.A.W., 2022 ONCJ 33

Procedural History

• The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding and an extended care order for the child, J.J.E.K.

• CAS initially sought an order denying parental access but later amended its request to allow parental access at the Society's discretion.

• The Respondent parents did not file responding materials but contested CAS’s evidentiary sufficiency.

Legal Framework

• Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA)

  • Section 74(2)(b)(i): A child is in need of protection if they are likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the caregiver due to a failure to provide adequate care, supervision, or protection.

  • Section 74(2)(b)(ii): A child is in need of protection if they are likely to suffer physical harm due to a pattern of neglect by the caregiver.

  • Section 74(3): Criteria for determining the best interests of the child regarding placement and access.

• Relevant Case Law

  • New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC): Highlighted the significant impact of custody decisions on both parents and children.

  • Kawartha and Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316: Emphasized the power imbalance in child protection proceedings and the need for fairness.

  • Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. B.B., 2012 ONCJ 646: Stressed that summary judgment motions should be based on admissible evidence and not lower evidentiary standards.

Decision and Reasoning

• Summary Judgment Motion:

  • The court dismissed the CAS motion for summary judgment concerning disposition (placement and access) due to insufficient and inadmissible evidence.

  • The court criticized CAS for relying on hearsay and not providing an adequate evidentiary record.

  • The judge emphasized the importance of due process and fairness in child protection proceedings.

• Protection Finding:

  • The court found the child in need of protection under section 74(2)(b)(i) (failure to protect from harm) due to the mother’s drug use.

  • There was no sufficient evidence to establish a pattern of neglect under section 74(2)(b)(ii).

• Disposition:

  • The motion for extended care was dismissed.

  • The case was adjourned for a trial management conference on placement and access.

Conclusion

• This decision reinforces the necessity of robust and admissible evidence in child protection cases.

• CAS failed to meet its burden to justify summary judgment for extended care but succeeded in obtaining a protection finding.

• The case proceeded to trial management to determine the child’s long-term placement and parental access rights.

 

Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.T., 2017 ONCJ 965

Case Overview​

• Key Issues:

  • Motion for summary judgment to terminate the supervision order or declare the child a crown ward.

  • Consideration of the child’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).

  • Status review application by the maternal grandmother for increased access.

Legal Framework

Statutory Provisions

1. Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules – Governs motions for summary judgment in family law cases:

   • Rule 16(1): Allows for summary judgment when no genuine issue requires a trial.

   • Rule 16(6.1): Grants courts expanded powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences​.

2. Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) (now repealed and replaced by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017):

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

   • Section 37(3): Lists factors courts must consider in determining the best interests of the child, including:

     • Physical, mental, and emotional needs.

     • Importance of continuity in care.

     • Child’s views and wishes, if ascertainable​.

   • Section 65(1): Provides the authority to vary or terminate a child protection order in a status review​.

Key Case Law Referenced

1. Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 – Supreme Court decision affirming that summary judgment motions should be broadly interpreted to favor proportionality and timely access to justice​.

2. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 SCR 165 – Emphasizes that status review applications must consider both continued need for protection and the child’s best interests​.

3. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H. and M.N., [2000] O.J. No. 5853 – Court held that legal proceedings should not be used to "buy" time for parents to develop parenting skills​.

4. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G., [1999] 3 SCR 46 – Supreme Court recognized the importance of procedural fairness in child protection matters​.

5. Catholic Children’s Aid Society v. M.M., [2012] O.J. No. 3240 – Found that maintaining a connection with family and knowing one's roots is a significant factor in determining access​.

Court's Findings

• Termination of the Supervision Order: The court rejected the argument that the order should be terminated solely based on parental consent to adoption. It emphasized the necessity of a full legal review under CFSA s. 65(1)​.

• Crown Wardship Order: The court ruled that making the child a crown ward was in her best interests, citing the need for permanency, stability, and continuity of care​.

• Access Motion by the Grandmother (M.T.): The court denied M.T.’s request for expanded access, finding that her role was that of a supporting figure rather than a primary caregiver​.

Conclusion

The court’s decision underscores the paramountcy of the child’s best interests in child protection matters, ensuring that all decisions align with continuity of care, stability, and emotional well-being. It also highlights the importance of timely resolution in child welfare cases to avoid unnecessary delays that may disrupt the child's development.