The Ontario Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) is a provincial law that sets out the rules for child protection and the rights of children. The CYFSA states that a child is in need of protection when there is a risk of physical harm or neglect. If a child is deemed to be in need of protection, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) can become involved.

 

The CAS is a voluntary, non-profit organization that works to protect children and help families. The CAS can provide services such as counselling, medical care, and financial assistance to families in need. The CAS can also apply to the court for a Child Protection Order if they believe that a child is in need of protection.

 

The Canadian Laws for Responsible Parenting Act (CLRA) is another provincial law that sets out the rights of parents and children when it comes to parenting. This law is intended to ensure that children are raised in a safe and nurturing environment. The CLRA states that all parents have a responsibility to care for, protect, and support their children.

​

For more information on child custody in Ontario, click here.

For more information regarding child support in Ontario, click here.

​

If you are involved in a Family Law Proceeding or Child Protection Proceeding and require legal representation, contact us. We can help.

​

 

Child Custody- Children’s Aid Society Involvement

In Ontario, the involvement of Children’s Aid Societies (CAS) in child custody cases has become increasingly common. CAS agencies intervene in family dynamics when it is deemed that a child has been neglected or suffers abuse, and they can then play a major role in determining who should have custody.

 

One of the most noteworthy cases involved the acrimonious split of the Klugman family in 2008. Caroline and Dave Klugman separated after a 24-year marriage, with their two teenage sons in the middle of the dispute. Of particular contention was whether the boys should continue to live with their mother or move to their father's longtime residence in British Columbia. Both parents sought custody, but the case went before the Divisional Court because CAS recommended the boys stay in Ontario. After multiple rounds of assessment from counsellors, psychologists, and other professionals, the court ultimately sided with CAS and granted the father access rights, but denied him the ability to bring his sons back to BC. Not surprisingly, both parents found this ruling highly dissatisfying; however, CAS maintained its decision was made in the best interest of the children. 

 

Another major court case came to fruition in 2012, when Marvin and Angelina were disputing custody and living arrangements for their one-year old daughter, Kyriah. The family appeared numerous times in Family Court over the span of two years, with CAS appearing as a third party intervenor several times during their proceedings. At an impasse, the court suggested a three-month trial period where Kyriah would live with her father — an arrangement both parents were initially reluctant to accept. In the end, Angelina reluctantly agreed, and Marvin was awarded temporary custody. Following this period, Kyriah was able to reside with either parent, though further court visits defined parental access and responsibility agreements. 

 

These examples show how the involvement of CAS in child custody cases continues to grow in Ontario. By assessing family dynamics, intervening on behalf of dependents, and becoming intimately familiar with the details of the case, CAS agencies are often able to make decisions which are in the best interests of the child and both of their parents.

 

 

The use of mental health in Canadian legal proceedings has been on the rise. In recent years, there has been a greater understanding of the impact of mental illness on behaviour and decisions, which has resulted in Ontario courts recognizing an “accused person’s mental disorder as an integral part of the justice system.” In the context of child protection matters, mental illness may result in Child Protective Services (CPS) intervention if it becomes clear that a parent may not be able to adequately respond to a child’s needs. 

 

One case is Ontario (Children’s Aid Society) v. M.S., a decision released by the Ontario Court of Appeal in January 2019, which examined the issue of whether parental mental illness can result in Child Protection Services involvement in certain situations. This case dealt with M.S., a nervous but devoted mother with schizophrenia. According to the evidence before the court, M.S. had taken steps to manage her condition and provided important care for her children despite her illness. Ultimately, the court concluded that although a parent suffering from mental illness may rightfully be considered a “risk” to their children, CPS must ensure that this risk assessment is accurately contextualized around the meaning and severity of the mental illness in question. 

 

In another appeal case, Warman v. Cottrell, the Court of Appeal outlined principles to consider when dealing with cases involving parental mental illness. The court highlighted the importance of looking at each individual case on its own merits and considering such conditions in accordance with their severity and the potential impact on children. Notably, the court explicitly held that there may be circumstances where the Children's Aid Society may need to intervene, such as in a situation where parental mental illness is of a nature and degree that compromises the children’s safety or well-being. 

 

Both M.S. and Warman demonstrate that Ontario courts are increasingly cognizant of mental illness in relating to parental fitness and ability to adequately care for children.  To best explore the details applicable to a specific mental health situation and associated childcare regulations, individuals seeking representation should consult with an experienced lawyer who will help them navigate the complexities of these cases.

​

 

A Motion for Summary Judgement- Child Protection Proceedings

Navigating the court process in Ontario’s child protection system can be overwhelming and difficult. One tool that can be helpful to families navigating this system is a motion for summary judgement. A motion for summary judgement is a request to the court to make a decision without the need for a full trial. This can be beneficial to the parties involved by saving time and money.

 

When considering a motion for summary judgement in child protection proceedings in Ontario, there are some important factors to consider. First, the court must be provided with sufficient evidence to make an informed decision. This evidence must support the position of the moving party, meaning it must be clear that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested.

 

Second, it is important to consider the legal arguments being made and any conflicting facts that must be resolved. If the facts are undisputed, the court can proceed with a summary judgement. On the other hand, if there are issues of fact in dispute, an assessment of how those contradicting facts may impact the case needs to be done.

 

Finally, it is essential to consider the interests of the parties and any person who may be affected by the decision. The court must be aware of these interests and ensure that the award is just and appropriate. This includes considering any relief for the parties if the motion is granted and any possible consequences for the other party.

 

In conclusion, a motion for summary judgement can be a great tool in child protection proceedings in Ontario. By considering the legal issues, evidence, and interests of the parties, the court can efficiently and justly make a decision.

 

Motion for Summary Judgement (MFSJ) is an important procedural step in a civil litigation action in Ontario. It is an effective tool to resolve disputes and other legal issues without going to trial. With a Motion for Summary Judgement, either party can move the court to decide the dispute without further litigation.

 

The process of filing and hearing a Motion for Summary Judgement in Ontario includes:

 

1. Drafting a Notice of Motion: The Notice of Motion must include a statement of the facts and law relevant to the motion and evidence in support of your position, such as any relevant documents or affidavits.

 

2. Serving Documents: Once the Notice of Motion is drafted and signed, it should be personally served on the other party.

 

3. Setting a Date for the Motion: Once the Notice of Motion has been served, you can set a hearing date for the motion. Generally, the parties' respective lawyers will contact each other and come up with an agreement for a date to have the motion heard. Alternatively, a party can make a request to the court for a specific date.

 

4. Disclosures: Before the motion is heard, each party should make relevant documents and facts available to the other parties.

 

5. Attending the Hearing: All relevant parties should attend the motion hearing. The parties' respective lawyers will present the available evidence and make their legal arguments before the court.

 

6. The Court's Decision: After both parties have presented their cases, the judge will render its decision. Depending on the circumstances, the court may decide to make an Order granting or denying the motion or may reserve its judgement until a later date.

 

Using a Motion for Summary Judgement can be a more efficient and effective way to resolve legal disputes in Ontario. The process is relatively straightforward and can generally avoid the long delay and costs associated with a trial. 

​

​

​