“The appellants’ primary argument on appeal is that the motions judge erred by misinterpreting the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83. The appellants assert that the motion judge misapplied Syl Apps by precluding foster parents, whom they describe as “trusted agents of FCS,” from bringing actions in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against FCS.
In Syl Apps, the Supreme Court held that child welfare agencies do not owe a duty of care to the biological parents of children under their care. The Supreme Court reasoned that if child welfare agencies owed a duty of care to a child’s biological parents, that duty would conflict with their fundamental, statutory duty of care to the child. This court’s decision in J.B. v. Ontario (Child and Youth Services), 2020 ONCA 198, 445 D.L.R. (4th) 642, at para. 39, leave to appeal refused, [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 129 and [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 151, interpreted Syl Apps to mean that “where entities exist to protect and provide for children’s best interests, to avoid conflicting duties, they must only owe a duty of care to the children they serve” (emphasis added). While the appellants seek to distinguish this case on its facts, J.B.’s statement of law on the duties of child welfare agencies is clear and categorical. In our view, the motion judge correctly held that to “find that a foster parent is owed a duty of care by a child protection agency would run counter to the reasoning of these binding authorities.” Thus, despite assuming the facts pleaded to be true, the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action.”
Fowler v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2024 ONCA 41 (CanLII) at 5-6