“When the Court grants an order for Crown Wardship, there is presumption in the legislation against access. The onus is then on the party seeking access to demonstrate that the criteria under s. 59(2.1) [of the Child and Family Services Act (Ontario)] are fulfilled to rebut the presumption against access. The presumption will not be rebutted unless the party seeking access can show that access would be meaningful and beneficial to the child. In addition, the party seeking access must demonstrate that an access order would not interfere with the child’s opportunity for a permanent placement.
In Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. V.J.(M.), (2004), 2004 CanLII 2667 (ON SC), 4 R.F.L. (6th) 245 (ON SC), the CAS obtained a crown ward status for six children. Access was found not to be beneficial or meaningful to three of the youngest children and termination of access would not have a negative impact on them.
On p. 9, para. 45, Justice Quinn indicates the following:
A beneficial relationship is one that is advantageous. A meaningful relationship is one that is significant. Consequently, even if there are some positive aspects to the relationship, that is not enough. It must be significantly advantageous to the child.
Justice Quinn speaks of:
…an existing relationship between parent and child and not a future relationship as it precludes the Court from considering whether a parent might cure their shortcomings as to create, in time, a relationship that may be beneficial and meaningful to the child. This accords with common sense for the child is not expected to wait and suffer while his or her mother or father learns how to be a responsible parent.
In Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. K.W.H., 2007 ONCJ 169 at paras. 40-43, Justice Murray stated that “case law has observed that the fact that a relationship is pleasant is not sufficient for it to be beneficial and meaningful. The relationship must be significantly advantageous to the child.”
In Children and Family Services for York Region v. J.E., [2008] O.J. No. 3948, Justice Graham noted at paras. 174-180:
Some evidence indicates that access visits with Ms. E are meaningful to child P. In particular, P has stated that Ms. E is special to her. P enjoys the visits and is sad when they do not occur. On the other hand, as noted by Ms. Sheehan, the degree of attachment demonstrated by P towards Ms. E is limited and as noted by Ms. W, P is easily consoled when visits are cancelled. Further simply enjoying visits and having an emotional bond with the visitor are not sufficiently significant to be meaningful.
At para. 179, he was noted as follows:
Ms. E has shown only a limited commitment to P. Although her attendance and her conduct at access has improved, she has not had sufficient commitment to P to complete an anger management course or parenting course prior to trial despite having had 3 ½ years to do so.” Further, her access continued to be supervised at the Society. The Court found that “Ms. E had not met her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that her relationship with P is meaningful and beneficial to P within the meaning of s. 59(2)(a) of the CFSA.”
In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.R.M, [2006] O.J. No. 1741, Justice Zuker interpreted s. 59(2) at para 168 and added at paras 169 and 170:
I read s. 59(2) as speaking of an existing relationship between the person seeking access and the child and not a future relationship…
Even if the relationship is beneficial and meaningful as a final precaution I think that there must be some qualitative weighing of the benefits to the child of access versus no access, before an order is made.
In Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, (supra), Justice Gordon concluded at para. 242:
There is some attachment or bond established over time; however it appears to be done out of routine and not from parenting. D.H. enjoys time with his parents and there is obviously some benefit to him.”
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. T-L.L, 2016 ONSC 2128 (CanLII) at 320-327