Ruling notes lawyer should not undermine mother’s position on key issues
Following an order transferring two children from their mother’s care to the care of their respective fathers, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice appointed an amicus curiae, who would devote their best efforts to advance the mother’s theory of the case.
In HCFS v. S.K. et al., 2025 ONSC 6719, Tammy W. Law, as the case management judge, issued an order dated June 13 to remove two children from the mother’s care and place them in the care of their fathers.
The mother stated her theory of the case in previous appearances. She alleged that the court should not issue a finding that her children were in need of protection and should respect her rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The mother also asserted that she had no mental health concerns that would affect her children, did not put them at risk by her actions, and should resume caring for them.
In the present proceeding, Justice Law addressed a motion to appoint an amicus for the mother. All attending parties, which excluded the mother, did not oppose the appointment of an amicus.
The motion seeking to appoint an amicus preceded an upcoming summary judgment motion on the issue of whether the court could find that the children needed protection or issue six-month supervision orders placing them with their fathers.
Justice Law of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice appointed Cathryn (Toni) Hammond-Grant as amicus curiae to assist the mother in presenting her case to ensure fairness for the mother and abide by the principles of fundamental justice.
Justice Law noted that the upcoming summary judgment motion would engage evidentiary and legal issues that the mother would have difficulty managing on her own.
Justice Law ordered amicus to consider the mother’s views and preferences on relevant matters and make efforts to advance her theory of the case, but refrain from taking the mother’s instructions.
Justice Law emphasized that amicus should respect the limitations imposed in the court order and refrain from undermining the mother’s litigation decisions, including her position on key issues.
Considering the mother’s objections in prior appearances, Justice Law acknowledged that she opposed the appointment of an amicus and wished to represent herself and control her own case.
However, Justice Law identified the following concerns, which called for the appointment of an amicus.
First was the mother’s previous presentation before the court. According to Justice Law, letting the mother move forward without assistance would risk rendering the proceedings unfair and derailing an eventual trial or summary judgment.
Second was the mother’s failure to attend the present hearing despite multiple attempts to contact her. Justice Law explained that her refusal to participate would affect her relationship with her children.
Justice Law noted that the prior order – which transferred both children from their mother’s care to their fathers’ care with supervised access – engaged the mother’s rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
