There is no protection from civil liability for
Children's Aid Society workers who act in bad faith or in a manner that
would be viewed as not being in a child's best interests. There are 7
components to the role of a Children's Aid Society in the Child
Protection field.



1. Investigation before apprehension

2. continued investigation subsequent to an apprehension

3. consideration of all appropriate protective measures

4. formation of a fair and defensible position

5. reassessment of that position as circumstances warrant

6. USE OF PROPERLY TRAINED WORKERS

7. access to INDEPENDENT experts in the field of child psychology



If a Society is negligent in adhering to the above mentioned
components and even one is not satisfied it would be considered
sufficient grounds to meet the test for an adverse costs order.



Excerpt from the Ontario Family Law Practice 2008



One key part of a Children's Aid Society's duty to protect children
is to ensure that it exercises due diligence, reason and good faith in
its investigations. A Society is not free to assume that "if there is
smoke there must be fire". Nowhere is a Society authorized, in the name
of the powers entrusted to it by the legislature, to ignore or trample
on a parent's rights.



It is possible to commence an action for damges against a
Children's Aid Society whose workers have acted in bad faith. At the
bottom of this post there is some relevant and informative case law
provided for your review and use if necessary.



No one in Canada with the exception of such distinguished criminals
as Justice Marvin Zuker are immune to an action for damages. Many of
you may not know but the Attorney General has quashed any further
attempts by Mr. Harry Kopyto to have Justice Zuker prosecuted for
altering official court transcripts. The Office of the Attorney General
has the madate to protect the public's interest in the administration
of Justice. It appears that our Attorney General is politically
motivated to protect criminal judges. I am sure the public would feel
that prosecuting a criminal judge who has abused his position of trust
would certainly be in there interests.




Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(T.)

at Paragraph 24:



[24] In my view, a children’s aid society, through its employees,
exercises the coercive power of the state in prosecution of the many
laudable purposes set out in the Child and Family Services Act. The
society is the beneficiary of invasive and incursive powers that the
legislature felt necessary to enable its corporate agent to effect the,
again, laudable end of protecting children from abuse, neglect, and
endangerment; however, I do not see the legislature acting by or
through incorporated agents, or the obvious social benefit of the goal
to be achieved as detracting from a characterization of the society as
an agent of government. I agree with Professor Thompson that the
society and a social worker preparing a society case are obvious
instruments of government within the meaning of subsection 32(1) of the
Charter.

In certain cases, parents are liable for the actions of their underage child. Example would be theft, where the parents are obligated to pay what was stolen.....