Simon's Legal Resources

Family - Charter

. Patterson v. Eastern Residential Services Inc. [Charter s.7 application to parenting]

In Patterson v. Eastern Residential Services Inc. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal partially dismisses an appeal, here brought against the "order made on a r.21 motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, which struck his statement of claim against Eastern Residential Services Inc. (“ERS”) and Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions (“SMFC”), except for the breach of contract claim against ERS, which was struck with leave to amend".

The court considers whether Charter s.7 'security of the person' "may be engaged in child protection proceedings and asks this court to extend that principle to foster parents":

[24] The appellant relies on authorities that hold a parent’s security of the person may be engaged in child protection proceedings and asks this court to extend that principle to foster parents: see, e.g., New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46.

[25] In my view, the appellant’s position as a foster parent is not equivalent to that of a parent. Parental status is central to personal identity, and the state-imposed loss of that status may carry serious stigma and emotional consequences. The appellant was not in that position. B.M. had only been in the appellant’s care for about six months before J.P. and E.P. applied to adopt him, and B.M. had already been removed from the appellant’s care when the investigation began. That removal did not engage the appellant’s identity, companionship interests, or social standing in the same way as the loss of parental status. In other words, the Societies neither usurped, nor attempted to usurp, a parental role, nor did they “relieve [the appellant] of custody”: see e.g., G.(J.), at para. 69. Simply put, a foster home does not involve the same degree of intimacy and privacy as a parental home.