Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V.C. et al., 2017 ONSC 5557

Facts and Background:

• The Catholic Children’s Aid Society ("the Society") had ongoing involvement with the family due to concerns regarding domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and neglect.

• The children, A.G.A.M. (born 2006), I.B.L. (born 2013), and L.W.L. (born 2015), were apprehended on June 9, 2016, due to the parents’ failure to adhere to a safety plan and concerns about the children's well-being.

• The mother, V.C., had a history of mental health struggles, including anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder, and inconsistent engagement with treatment.

• The father, I.L., had a history of aggression, substance abuse, and unstable mental health, including reports of hallucinations and suicidal ideation.

• The children were placed in foster care, with the oldest child, A.G.A.M., later transitioning to live with her biological father, R.S.M., in Calgary, Alberta.

• The Society sought summary judgment to place A.G.A.M. with her father permanently and to make the younger two children Crown wards without access to their biological parents.

Procedural History:

• The Society commenced a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

• The Respondent Mother, V.C., opposed the motion and sought a trial to regain custody, claiming she had made progress in her rehabilitation.

• The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) supported the placement of A.G.A.M. with her father but advocated for ongoing sibling access.

Legal Framework:

• Child and Family Services Act (CFSA):

  • Section 37(2)(l): Finding that the children are in need of protection due to the parents' inability to care for them.

  • Section 45(8): Prohibition on publishing identifying information about children in proceedings.

  • Section 85(3): Penalties for contravening section 45(8), including fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.

  • Section 57(1): Available disposition orders where a child is found in need of protection, including supervision orders, Society wardship, or Crown wardship.

  • Section 57.1: Granting custody to a person other than a foster parent.

  • Section 59(2.1): Test for granting access in Crown wardship cases (relationship must be meaningful and beneficial and not impair adoption opportunities).

• Case Law:

  • Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T. (K.), 2000 CanLII 20578 (ONCJ) – Onus on the responding party in a summary judgment motion to provide evidence demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.

  • Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. A.M. and T.L., 2012 ONSC 6828 (SCJ) – Blanket denials are insufficient to resist summary judgment.

  • Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 – Summary judgment must provide a fair and just adjudication and is appropriate where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

  • CAS of Waterloo v. S. (R.), [2000] O.J. No. 4880 (OCJ) – The importance of timely resolution in child protection cases.

  • CAS of Toronto v. M. (S.), 2015 ONCJ 651 (OCJ) – The best interests of the child are paramount, and delay should not be used to "buy" a parent time to develop parenting ability.

Issues:

• Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the parents’ circumstances.

• Whether the children should be made Crown wards with no access to the parents.

• Whether access between siblings should be ordered.

Findings:

• The court found that all three children were in need of protection.

• A.G.A.M. was placed with her father, R.S.M., under a custody order pursuant to section 57.1 of the CFSA.

• I.B.L. and L.W.L. were made Crown wards with no access granted to the parents, as the parents failed to demonstrate sufficient progress in stabilizing their circumstances.

• The court determined that sibling access should be encouraged but did not make a definitive order regarding it.

Rationale:

• The parents' history of inconsistent access visits, domestic violence, mental health concerns, and substance abuse demonstrated a continued inability to provide stable care.

• The court emphasized that a child’s need for permanency planning takes precedence over a parent’s desire for additional time to rehabilitate.

• The best interests of the children required a stable and secure placement.

Conclusion:

• Summary judgment was granted.

• The children’s placements were finalized in accordance with the Society’s request.

• The decision underscores the courts’ commitment to ensuring children’s safety and stability in accordance with statutory mandates and established case law.

​

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. J.G.​

• Date: October 20, 2016

• Issue: Family and Children’s Services (FCS) sought Crown wardship without access for two children, S.L.E.W. (4 years old) and L.A.K.W. (1 year old), due to concerns about their mother’s (J.G.) ability to care for them.

• Father's Status: The father, B.D.W., did not participate and had no contact since June 2015.

Key Findings

Background & Concerns

• The mother, J.G., faced mental health struggles and substance abuse issues.

• The children were placed in FCS care in June 2015 under a Temporary Care Agreement.

• The mother showed initial improvement in mental health and substance abuse treatment but relapsed in April 2016, leading to concerns about her long-term ability to care for the children.

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

• The court followed Rule 16 of the Family Court Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014 SCC 7), which allows summary judgment if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

• The test is whether the summary judgment process can fairly and justly resolve the dispute.

Mother’s Attempts at Rehabilitation

• Initially, the mother attended programs, took prescribed medications, and passed drug tests.

• However, in April 2016, she stopped attending programs, missed medical appointments, and admitted to using crystal meth.

• In August 2016, she was discharged from a residential drug treatment program after only four days due to her unstable mental health.

• By the hearing date, she had enrolled in school but had no substantial evidence of stability.

Children’s Best Interests

• The children had been in stable foster care for over a year, meeting developmental milestones.

• The mother had inconsistent supervised visits and struggled to develop a relationship with her younger child.

• The judge found no reasonable prospect that the mother could provide a stable home in the near future.

Court’s Decision

• Crown wardship granted: The children were placed in permanent care under Family and Children's Services.

• No access granted: The mother failed to prove that her relationship with the children was both meaningful and beneficial.

• The judge emphasized the importance of stability for the children, stating that child development cannot wait.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of Family and Children's Services, granting permanent Crown wardship without access to the mother. The judge found that the mother’s mental health and substance abuse struggles made reunification too risky, and the children’s best interests were served by remaining in their foster home with adoption as the likely outcome.