Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)

Charter – Family law – Protective agencies and institutions – Children’s aid societies – Child in need of protection – Best interests of child – Permanent appointment or Crown wardship – Termination of parental rights – Mother gave birth while incarcerated – Father cared for child for her first five months, until his incarceration – Child resided with foster parent from age of five months onward – Trial judge later made child a Crown ward, for the purpose of adoption, without parental access – Father appeal – Whether importance of biological family and father’s relationship to child was adequately considered by trial judge – Whether trial judge erred in finding father did not meet either prong of two-part statutory test set out in Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, in order to be granted access to the child – Whether unconstitutional to terminate parents’ access to child.

The applicant’s daughter – born November 19, 2011 – is now almost five years old. She has been in the continuous care and custody of The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto since she was just under five months old, and has resided with her foster mother – and proposed adoptive parent – throughout that time. The finding that the applicant’s daughter was a child in need of protection was made on an uncontested basis on June 13, 2012, because both parents were incarcerated then. A status review was held when the child was two years old. On April 29, 2014, the trial judge made the child a Crown ward, for the purpose of adoption, without parental access. The child’s father appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Justice. On March 31, 2015, the appeal judge dismissed the father’s first appeal and on October 19, 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed his second. (See the father’s related file, number 36913.)

---

---