“The mother and the Society both submit that the test to be applied on a status review application is set out in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. C.M., 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165, at p. 200:
-
-
- Does the child continue to be in need of protection?
-
-
-
- Which of the available range of orders is in the child’s best interests?
-
That said, the mother and the Society disagree on the precise meaning of the test articulated in C.M.
On the mother’s interpretation, the first step of the test requires the status review judge to determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection as that term is defined in s. 37(2) of the CFSA. According to the mother, the Society could not meet that test on the status review application based on the evidence adduced at the review hearing for two reasons.
We do not accept the mother’s interpretation of C.M., namely, that the first step of the test requires the status review judge to determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection as that term is defined in s. 37(2) of the CFSA. At p. 200 of its decision in C.M., the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that, in addition to the factors enumerated in s. 37(2) of the CFSA, a finding of a continuing need for protection could also be premised on the need to protect a child from emotional harm arising from removing the child from caregivers to whom the child had become attached and whom the child regarded as psychological parents.”
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. W.T.C, 2013 ONCA 491 (CanLII) at 28-30, 32.