(Case Law decisions courtesy of, etc *)

Here’s important case law that unrepresented people would never know about.  If you have lawyer, email the case law to him/her, if they are good lawyers they will accept and use case law with good grace, if they get nasty, they may be dishonest and intend to do little to help you all along. Some cases here have paragraphs noted for specific issues, other cases without paragraph numbers discuss an issue throughout a decision.  Ontario Case Law is cited here the most since the CFSA is Ontario Law. Case Law from the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) also applies. Using Case Law from other provinces can be helpful as it applies to legal principles, but it may conflict with unique aspects of Ontario Law, consider the interaction of various Ontario Laws and Regulations before use. The Case Law on this site can be downloaded from as PDF files or from here. A subject and paragraph number(s) are added here to the file names so you'll remember what the Case Law was for!  


To establish reasonably uniform outcomes in court decisions, the courts adopted 'Stare Decisis', latin for 'decided before', so that one court does not contradict another court on the same set of facts or evidence.  By selecting Case Law deciding similar issues to your case and /or dealing with CAS abuses similar to your case and using it in court to defend yourself, you have a much better chance of a positive outcome.  The courts in all phases of a case in Divorce, CAS, Civil and Criminal matters rely heavily on Case Law. On any set of facts or claims, the party with the right Case Law has a huge advantage!  Don't be left out! It is critical you apply Case Law correctly within your proceeding before as well as in a CAS Summary Judgment Motion. Many families believe they will have their 'day in court' at a 'Trial' when in fact 95% or more cases end at Summary Judgment. Using Case Law correctly during the 'Hearings' phase is critical.  If you have a Lawyer, watch to see if they apply Case Law in your defence.  If they don't, your chances of success will drop dramatically. 'Good' and 'Bad' Case Law are listed to outline the limits of positive and negative outcomes.   It is wise to consider these limits carefully in your case.

Readers, respondents, parents and unrepresented litigants are advised to always seek independent legal advice as it applies to your matter.

>> 'NEW' CASE LAW or 'OLD' CASE LAW ?                                                                                        

On occasion new decisons are made that modify or build on the principles of older decisions in new cases. If you are pursuing a CAS for Bad Faith conduct, use decisions that existed before or during the conduct of your case. The idea is that the CAS should or could have known better since they are exposed to all Case Law as full time professional litigants.  If on appeal you are pursuing a child's Statutory Interests or Care requirements using either old or new decisions that affect the application of Statutory requirement, then either is acceptable. To show CAS bad faith conduct conclusively, use older Case Law they had to know, then reinforce your claim with newer decisions, this amounts to a '1, 2 punch' that's hard for a court to ignore.   Even now, R v Varette from 1927 still guides the courts today! All the cases posted here speak to basic principles in law that are impossible to reverse. This is good for the unrepresented parent who may actually hear a court complain about 'old' cases, the court knows there is no merit in such a complaint, they expect that you would not know the difference.... now you know.


- Other Provinces: On specific issues within child protection law of your province, using Case Law from in your region is usually best since the Law in other provinces can be different and conflict with the law applied in your case. That being said, overall legal principles apply everywhere and a compelling decision in another province or territory can be helpful. Typically, decisions that discuss CAS abusive tactics elsewhere that are also occurring in your case is a big help to you all other facts being favourable.
- Other Countries:  Canadian courts will often consider decisions in other countries similar to us. Decisions from the United States, the UK and Australia are often considered. The same cautions mentioned above apply here too. Always start your Case Law search as close to your home province / territory first and cover specific issues that apply to the child protection law that applies to you.  
- Overall topics from other areas that may be of interest are:  Disclosure, Bad Faith conduct of an agency, Best Interests of a child, procedural fairness, jurisdiction of the court, expert evidence, assessment practices, mental health, etc.   


When you find false CAS claims and Bad faith acts, review the list here to see what cases are similar, download those cases and use them to show the court they should dismiss CAS claims and actions that violate the CFSA or Case Law! Visit the Publications Page and download the following to help you present the cases correctly in court: 'How to Use Case Law In Court' (download) and 'How to Make Court Submissions' (download).

Use Case Law to defend yourself from a CAS Motion with false or uncorroborated claims that should be dismissed.  Use Case Law to support a your Motion and affidavit during a court hearing. The idea here is to motivate the court to apply previous decisions to your case in your favour! Generally, Case Law is not used during Settlement Conferences or Case Conferences. Case Law can also be used during a CFSA Status Review hearings.  Be sure to understand the differences between a 'Hearing' and a 'Trail' in order to make the appropriate submissions. Download 'CAS Hearings compared to Trials' to learn more (download).

It's not unusual to use several different decisions in Case Law to dismiss various aspects of CAS claims at a hearing or trial, so dig in, it's free! There's plenty of pdf Guides to check out on the Publications Page
covering various aspects of defending yourself from false CAS claims and court procedures you need to know that the lawyers at a Family Law Information Centres (FLIC) in Ontario Courthouses refuse to provide (partially due to their collegial relationship with CAS lawyers).


Ontario posts Practice Directions for courts, lawyers and the public to use. In your proceeding be sure to check current practice directions to avoid having them used against you by the CAS. Cover all the bases and you'll have fewer unpleasant surprises.  List valid from July 1 2014:

>> THE CAS IS A  'SOPHISTICATED LITIGANT'                                                                                     

When making submissions on Bad Faith acts, false affidavits, etc, of a CAS, you need to remind the court that the CAS is a 'Sophisticated Litigant'; they have overwhelming experience in the CFSA and have unavoidable knowledge of the affect of their actions on children, parents and misleading the courts. Thus, any Bad Faith Costs should be as close to the full recovery basis as possible and the sanction of the court in a decision must be with the knowledge the CAS intended to infinge on the court's jurisdiction to know the true facts by misleading it.   Any light treatment of CAS Bad Faith acts amounts to a Double Standard and possibly 'a reasonable apprehension of Bias' or even 'Actual Bias'.

"If you don't use Case Law against the CAS, the CAS will use Case Law against YOU!"

                                                                                                          Would you like to do our website Survey ?  Start Survey 

>> CASE  LAW  CATEGORIES:                                                                                        

For the purposes of this page, the following categories are identified below. However where it is correct to do so, many cases can be used in different  types of litigation.

   - Case Law within a CAS proceeding                          - Case Law at Appeal                                  - Case Law in Lawsuits (Tort)

   - Other Case Law:   - 'Advocates'                              - Defamation, Libel                                     - Lawyer Misconduct

   - Key Supreme Court of Canada Cases         


> Corroboration of CAS claims required, good faith conduct, impartiality:
(The most common CAS abuse is to refuse to: investigate properly, collect all evidence good and bad,
corroborate claims, be impartial, act in the least disruptive manner and revise it's position in the
case equal to the evidence, etc. Thus CASs chose to mislead the courts with false affidavits often
obtaining Crown Ward orders by Fraud that becomes a financial Fraud as they obtain extra
funding with an ill gotten Crown Ward order. In the process CASs actually abuse children by the
denial of treatment by avoiding or suppressing evidence.)

Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region  v.  B.-C.(Z.)
1996 CanLII 4742 (ON C.J.) 
see para 7, sub para  3,  4,  5,  6,  7 a)  to  g)                                              download .pdf

and / or.....

D.B. v Children’s Aid Society of Durham Region                                               
download .pdf
(also known as 1987 CarswellOnt 459 20 C.P.C (2d) 61)

See headings/requirements by Justice Dunn - highlighted
This is a well known & often cited case, there's no reason for a CAS to
ignore it except to mislead the court and obtain a Crown Ward order by Fraud!

and / or.....

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex  v. C.D.B.                               
download .pdf  
2014 ONSC 1414
See paras 14 to 16 - for the court's expectations of CAS conduct in a case
including Bad Faith acts and costs. The $1.4 Million costs against
the CAS is not 'damages' it's what a parent spent to defend themselves
that is paid back. Concentrate on the court's expectations in para 14- 16
when a CAS acts in a similar manner in your case. The CAS trial appeal in
this matter was dismissed, the appeal decision for $1.4 Million is pending.
We'll post it as soon as we get it, (expected before Feb 2015). Watch for
CAS lawyers who will tell the court the decision was 'appealed' and therefore
can't be used in your case - that's untrue.

> Law requires Analysis from Child’s Perspective:
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.A.D.,
2011 ONCA 684
see para 12                                                                                                  
download .pdf

> Judge to Intervene to see Justice is done:
Brouillard Also Known As Chatel  v.  The Queen,
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 39                                                                                        
download .pdf

> Ensure Interests of Justice:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto  v.  C.(S.A.),
2005 ONCJ 274
see para 75 - 76                                                                                          download .pdf     

> Natural Justice:
Children's Aid Society of Hamilton  v.  M.W., P.S.
2003 CanLII 2309 (ON S.C.)                                                                         download .pdf   

> Court requirement for a CAS to disclose evidence to court:
Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M.(R.) (No. 3)
2001 CanLII 25594 (ON C.J.)
see paras 64, 65, 66, 89                                                                               download .pdf 

> Court requirement for treatment services to parents:
   CFSA s 15(3)(c)
Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region  v.  N.(R.R.),
2008 ONCJ 95
see Pg 2……                                                                                                   download .pdf   

> Requirement for fair and balanced dealings with respondents and Expert Witnesses (no manipulation):
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.(A.)
2003 CanLII 57523 (ON C.J.) 
see para 60                                                                                                  download .pdf     

> CAS Expert Evidence goes to far – concludes it’s own credibility:

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. C.(D.)
1987 CanLII 1196 (ON SC)                                                                               download .pdf   

> PCA: Criteria to justify a PCA, also refers to Ont. Reg. 25/07. CAS seek PCA
late in proceeding, etc, NO "fishing expeditions", motions dismissed:  

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M.(P.)                                                         download .pdf      
2008 ONCJ 768    

Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. A.(K.)                                               download .pdf   
2008 ONCJ 273
see para 23 to 43  

> PCA:  If parent "agrees to be bound by recommendations" in report, parent                   (added Jun /15 ! )
is barred from challenging errors, bias, ignored evidence or fabrications.
Don't agree!

Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region  v.  K.L.A. and J.J.M.                            download .pdf
2006 CanLii 33538  (ON  CA)
see para 8 to 27

> Tests for Expert Evidence:
R.  v.  Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9,                                                                   download .pdf  

> CAS ‘Oath Helping’ scams (multiple affidavits to mislead) not permitted by courts: 
Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. G.(M.),
2005 ONCJ 33
(CanLII)                                                                                    download .pdf   
see para 6, 8, 19                                      

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. B.(T.),                          download .pdf   
2010 ONCJ 6
see para 11, 12, 15, 17

> Statutory Care CFSA s 15(3)(d) required but denied / ignored by CAS
> Court Double Standard: Soft on CAS inflicted child abuse - denial of Statutory Care:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v.  V.F and R.B. 
2003 Can LII 49834 (ON CJ) 
see para 18                                                                                                   download .pdf   

Children and Family Services for York Region v. H.C., C.S. and R.C.
2008 CanLII 64678 (ON S.C.)
see para 106, 107, 118 - last 6 lines                                                             download .pdf                                  

> Setting aside Crown Ward Orders, lack of notice, excluded parents:  
Children’s Aid Society of  Metropolitan Toronto v. Lyttle, 
1973 S.C.R. 568    1973canlii13                                                     download .pdf                   

> CAS claims NOT ‘Past Conduct’ under CFSA s 50 (1)(a) & (b):
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.(A.)

2003 CanLII 57523
> see Pg 4,  2nd para                                                                                     download .pdf                                                     

> Transcript from other case NOT ‘Past Conduct’ under CFSA s 50 (1)(a) & (b):
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W. (v.) 

2001 CanLII 28092                                                                      download .pdf  

> Disclosure of Files to Parties (Parents) in Proceeding:
R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326  (Supreme Court of Canada)             download  .pdf     

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma  v.  Deborah P. and Henry L.,                          download .pdf         
2007 CanLII  39363 (Ont. S.C.).  

> 'Scrupulous Disclosure' to Parents in a CAS case:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of  Toronto v  S.(A.)                                          download .pdf                                  
2007 ONCJ 596
See para 13 - 17  

> 'Cease and Desist' dismissed by courts in CAS cases:
Don't make this mistake, address CAS claims directly.

M.D.  v.  Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society                                                download .pdf     NEW  - posted Mar /16
2010 ONSC 2831
Pg 11 para 26

See our Guide:  "Cease and Desist" Forms Harm Parents                              download .pdf   

> Decisions must have reasons per Supreme Court Decision:
R. v. Sheppard  [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869,   2002 SCC 26                                       download .pdf 

> Bias in Court: 'Reasonable Apprehension of Bias' Test:
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto   v   L.C.,  D.F.,  D.H.                          download .pdf     
2002 Canlii 2672  (ON SC)
>  see para 14

> Conduct of the Court, Bias, etc, must be addressed in court as it occurs:                  (posted July 2015)

Leader Media Productions Ltd. v. Sentinel Hill Alliance
Atlantis Equicap Limited Partnership et al.                                         download .pdf
2008 ONCA 463 (CanLII)
see Pg 14 para 40, Pg 15-19 para 46 – 57

> CAS violates 'RES JUDICATA' by repeating claims already dismissed:
The Durham Children's Aid Society v  R.B.                                                        download .pdf    
2005 Canlii 32199  (ON SC)
> see para 4 - 9 and 21 - 23

The Durham Children's Aid Society of St. Thomas  v  M.(J.)                               download .pdf      
2003 Canlii 57513  (ON CJ)

> CAS smear of former Crown Ward dismissed by Court:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto   v   M.(A.)                                                      download .pdf    
2002 Canlii 45665  (ON CJ)
> see para 47  - 52

> CAS limits access to destroy bond, criticized by court:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto   v   M.(A.)                                                     download .pdf           
2002 Canlii 45665  (ON CJ)
> see Pge 12 para 7

> CAS affidavits are NOT 'Credible or Trustworthy':
Children's Aid Society of Toronto   v   M.(A.)                                                     download .pdf           
2002 Canlii 45665  (ON CJ)
> see para 23 - 24  and  54 - 74

> Audio Recordings ARE admissible:
Recordings are admissible as typed transcripts of the recording filed as
an exhibit attached to an affidavit, CDs of the recordings served to all
parties. Recordings must be 'materially relevant' to the proceeding.

R.  v   P. B.                                                                                                     download .pdf         

2011 ONSC 4559 
see para 25 - 34 and 40 - 42

Lamoureux   v.   Lamoureux                                                                           download .pdf         
2011 ONSC 3123 
see para 3 - 7

> Audio Recordings are NOT admissible - recording gaps:
Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region v  D. D.                                            download .pdf         

1995 Canlii 8897  (ON CJ)
> see Pges 4-5 para 4

> 'Emotional Harm' claims requires Expert Evidence:
Children's Aid Society for Owen Sound and the County of Grey v. J.T.,  C.C.,  L.T., and S.B. 
2003 Canlii 52432  (ON CJ)                                                           download .pdf   
> see para 163 - 164

> CAS Complaint Process (CFSRB) is toothless:
P.O.  v.  Family and Children Services Niagara                                                  download .pdf   

2012CFSRB 38 (CanLii)
Also see How-To Guide 'The Useless CAS Complaint Process' for better solutions.          

> Evidence for Crown Ward order must be 'compelling':
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto  v.  M.M.                                           download .pdf 
2012 ONCJ 440
> see para 58
CASs rely on other decisions where the 'ordinary balance of probabilities' (51%)
is used to order children as Crown Wards.  Use the 'compelling' test to
counter the CAS abuse of Crown Ward orders! 

> Courts shall not compare Unrepresented person to a Lawyer:
David v Davids                                                                                               download .pdf 
1999 CanLii 9289 (ON CA)
> see para 36
Trial fairness or the conduct of a case by an Unrepresented person shall not
be compared to a trained competent Lawyer.

> 'Heart Felt Desire To Parent' not considered evidence by Court:

> Summary Judgment: - Expectations of the Court:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v R.H. and M.N.                                            download .pdf   
2000 CanLii 3158 (ON CJ)
> see Pge 3 - Summary Judgment Motions, FLR Rule 16
> See Pge 4 - Line 20 to 24, heart felt desire to parent not enough (seems unfair eh?)
Court requires you to provide a substantive defence and evidence, not just expressed
desire to parent.  Case also discusses requirements for Summary Judgment Motions,
a must read!!

> Summary Judgment: - Court must consider entire 'Evidentiary Record':
Frontenac Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. C.T. and M.T.
2010 ONSC 3054                                                                                        download .pdf    
> See para 29

> Summary Judgment: - Court is not a 'Trier Of Fact':
Children and Family Services of York Region  v. S.S. and M.D.                        download .pdf   

2003 CanLII 2408 (ON S.C.)
> See para 4

> CAS Abuse 'Litigation Privilege'  to Deny Disclosure of Investigator's report:
Chatham-Kent Children's Services   v.  R.T. & H.D.C.                                   download .pdf                                 
2013 ONJC 550 (CanLii)
See our Guide "When decisions Go Wrong
See detailed Forum posting about CAS abuse of Litigation Privilege:       Forum Post
See our Tweet on this case on Oct 31 2013.                                             (link under repair)


> Orders Obtained by Fraud, thresholds to be met:
Dodge  v  Dodge                                                                                       download .pdf 
2007 CanLII 80075 (ON SC)
Delay  -                                       decision para 27 - 29
Duty of Candour  -                      decision para 40 - 45
Fraud -                                       decision para 55 - 75
Due Diligence of complainant -   decision para 64 - 66

> Orders Obtained by Fraud, jurisdiction of the court:
Boivin v. Smith,                                                                                         download .pdf
2010 ONCJ 411
 > See detailed Head Notes on Page 2 
 > Judges comments Page 3 to 15

> 'Badges' of Fraud discussed:

Robert  Campeau v. Ilse Campeau, et al                                                       download .pdf
2005 CanLII 8684 (ON SC)
> see para 26 - 32

> 'Badges' of Fraud leading to a Presumption of Fraud:
Elisa Conte, et al  v.   Joe Alessandro, et al                                              download .pdf 
2002 CanLII 20177 (ON SC)
> see para 20 - 23

> Fraud discussed:
International-Corona-Resources-Ltd v LAC Minerals Ltd                         download .pdf   
1988 CanLII 4534
> see para 53, etc

- - - - - - - - - -


CAS are notorious for false claims of 'Failure to Thrive' where a child has medical issues that are not tied to the lack of care by a parent, yet CASs try to mislead the courts. It is cruelly ironic that CAS handling of children in "care" actually causes 'Failure to Thrive' including Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life (s 215 cc) for as much as 18 years at a time!

> False claim, no parenting issue, Dismissed:
Children's Aid Society of Oxford County  v.  T.K.S                                       download .pdf 
2010 ONCJ 708

> Asthma condition, Supervisory Order:
Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society  v.  B.P., D.C. and T.D.             download .pdf    
2002 CanLii 2736 (ON SC)

> Unknown medical cause, Supervisory Order:
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth  v. A.H. and M.L.     download .pdf  
2004 CanLii 33302 (ON SC)

- - - - - - - - -

> 'Uncooperative' parent - Crown Ward Order:
Tikinagan Child and Family Services  v.  T.(R.)                                            download .pdf  
2009 ONCJ 493

> 'No Presumption of Innocence' in CAS cases - Just so you know!
(parent expected that criminal court rules applied - they don't & they lost)
S.D.N.  v.  Children's Aid Society of Ottawa                                                  download .pdf   

2012 ONSC 1888
> See para 22


Courts can award you your legal Costs in a CAS case where a CAS acts in bad faith,
no claim of malice is required.   However, ‘Costs’ are not ‘Damages’. Family courts cannot award damages.  Damages or injuries are a Tort Law issue via Lawsuit that cannot be filed in family court.  For a high costs award you need to spend the same or more in a justifiable manner. Usually, costs awarded are so low that it amounts to a 'Walmart Discount' for Perjury enabling a CAS to infringe on any court's jurisdiction to know all the facts.  Costs can be 'full indemnity' or 'partial costs'.  Cost Outlines, etc, Form 57B needs to be prepared in advance.  The court will not initiate costs for you. You must Motion for your costs.  If you have no lawyer, your 'costs' will be generally limited to actual expenses in the case, thus the CAS gets another 'Wal Mart' discount for misleading the court. Currently courts refuse to protect their jurisdiction from CASs that abuse public funding to commit a civil fraud in Family Courts including abusing children by denying treatment. Until that is solved, any poor, disabled or unrepresented parent and children can be abused by a CAS right under the nose of the courts with complete safety. Terrible eh?  Ontario CASs having been acting in Bad Faith for the last 100 yrs since the Children's Aid Society Act was passed in 1904!  

Children's Aid Society of Haldimand-Norfolk  v.  V.(H.)                      download .pdf 

2001 CanLii 32830 (ON C.J.)
> See Headnotes, Pg 2 and paras 6 to 33  - Costs $150,000

> See para 22 Children's Aid Society of Algoma  v.  M.(R.) (No 3)    download .pdf 
2001 CanLii 25594 (ON C.J.)
> See Headnotes, and paras 15 to 144  - Costs $77,000

Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region  v.  B. -C.(Z.)                    download .pdf 
1996 CanLii 4742 (ON C.J.)
> See paras 12 to 13  - Costs $200 (costs so low CAS easily infringes on a court's jurisdiction)

Children and Family Services for York Region  v  G.S.    
                   download .pdf 

2011 ONSC 2824
> See para 6  - Guiding principles for Costs

The Children's Aid Society of The County of Simcoe   v.  J.R., N.R.,  B.J., R.B.        download .pdf 
2004 CanLii 21285 (ON S.C.)
> See paras 28 to 32  - Costs $1,500

- - - - - - - - -



CASs like to abuse alcohol testing by claiming FAEE tests on hair are conclusive when they already know false positives occur with hair care products.  They ignore EtG hair test results that show no alcohol abuse. 

Children's Aid Society of Toronto  v. Oxford County  v.  D.B-S                              download .pdf         
2013 ONCJ 405
>  See paras  128 to 136


Other results will be posted in this space.

See our News Page for a Nov 2014 posting on media reports concerning MOTHERISK hair strand tests.

Be aware that CASs abuse the 'balance of probabilities' civil test in family court while criminal courts rely on the higher  'without a doubt' criminal test for a guilty verdict. 

- - - - - - - - -


If your lawyer is a lump of coal in court, makes mistakes, does not follow thru, seems lazy, does not listen to you, says nothing in your defense in court, you may have a case of Ineffective / Inadequate Representation. Never make this claim in a frivolous manner, your credibility in court will be affected. If you have serious concerns, you need to make a Change of Representation, hire a new lawyer and collect evidence how your last lawyer blew your case. Remember, in the meantime you need to keep up with the Child Protection matter, don't let Inadequate Representation overtake your case.  Can also be grounds for appeal where all other evidence is favorable.  

Children's Aid Society of the County of Bruce  v.  J.(D.),                       download .pdf   
2013 ONSC 717
> See Pg 55, then paras 112 to 116, Tests and cases paras 117 to 119

R.  v. G.D.B.                                                                                     download .pdf  
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 520 (SCC)

> See paras 25 to 29

Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region  v.  K.L.A. and J.J.M.               download .pdf    (added Jun /15)
2006 CanLii 33538  (ON  CA)
> See para 57 to 58

See our Guide  'Good and Bad Lawyer Lists'                                       download .pdf     (latest version)

See our Forum post, May 9 2014:        Inadequate Representation   (link under repair)

- - - - - - - - -


Courts dismiss claims by parents for various mistakes. Learn from these cases so the same does not happen to you! In many situations parents that lose can be ordered to pay the legal costs of the CAS! You're allowed only one chance in court to get it right. We'll add notable cases as we find them.

Poorly conducted lawsuit by parent results in ‘abuse of process’ finding:
KAP v CAS et al..                                                                                      download .pdf
2007 CanLII 48631 (ON SC)
> See paras 14-17

Poorly drafted 'Statement of Claim' by parent dismissed by court:
KAP v CAS et al..                                                                                     download .pdf
2007 CanLII 48631 (ON SC)
> See paras 6-13

Claim of ‘Duty of Care Owed to Parents’ dismissed by court.
Highlights the need to know Case Law or it will be used against you:
KAP v CAS et al..                                                                                     download .pdf
2007 CanLII 48631 (ON SC)
> See paras 18-20

- - - - - - - - - -


We'll be adding cases here where sneaky tricks by the CAS to abuse parents and the courts are found and properly decided by the courts:

CAS withdraws Motion just before decision, but ‘reserves’
the right to repeat Motion later! CAS dismissed by court,
ordered to pay Costs:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. SSB                                download .pdf
2013 ONSC 5184
> See paras 10 - 11

Misleading CAS Minutes of Settlement / Statement of Agreed Facts:
CASs often produce these documents and bury a Crown Ward consent clause
( s 37(2)(l) ) within the text that is not explained or supported by the text.  The clause
is then used against the parent at a later date often to stop a proceeding when a
parent gets wise to Bad faith conduct of the CAS.  This amounts to 'Non Est Factum'.
Children and Family Services of York Region  v.  J.E.                           download .pdf         (Posted July 2015)
2007 CanLii 31444 (ON SC)

See para 3 and 19 to 40

- - - - - - - - - - -

>> > >    CASE  LAW  FOR  APPEALS:

Case Law for Appeals is huge and extensive going all the way past 1927!!!  For 1927, a key case was Varette, Supreme Court of Canada, (1927Canlii 11).  Varette (and Stolar) seriously limit evidence in criminal and civil cases.  But the cases for ‘wider fresh evidence’ for a child’s best interests supercedes these cases - good to know!  However, other Appeal Tests applied by the courts seriously limit appeal success. Your appeal grounds must fit within these Tests to even be considered.
Appeal Courts apply a 'Standard of Review' to appeals typically covering:
-    question of law
-    correctness
-    an error of fact
-    palpable and overriding error
-    question of fact and law
-    significant fresh evidence addressing child's Best Interests
-    Crown Ward order obtained by Fraud by the CAS
-    findings not supported by the evidentiary record
-    reasonable apprehension of Bias or Actual Bias
-    evidence withheld by CAS
-    court Order Obtained By Fraud by CAS   
-    Statutory Interests of child not met
The correct application of these depends on whether there was a Trial or a Summary Judgment hearing and other factors.

Avoid the Pitfall where your appeal is a de facto 'rehearing of the case' on the same evidence hoping to force a different outcome. An Appeal Court will always respect a judge's earlier decision unless appropriate criteria are met.

Also avoid the Pitfall of 'overstating' your appeal to the extent that you fail to meet the criteria that the appeal court would apply. Frame your appeal grounds conservatively so that the evidence, fresh evidence, transcripts, etc, fully support your claim.

Don't rely on the Charter Rights for grounds to appeal. Decades ago s 7, s 8, s 11(b) Charter Rights were ruled 'inoperative'
in various decisions, since a CAS case does not result in incarceration. Parents Charter Rights cannot infringe on a child's
'Statutory Interests' in CFSA s 15(3)(d) and s 37(3). However courts seem to be willfully blind to CAS abuses of these same
children and violated Statutory Interests. If you attempt an appeal on Charter grounds, your appeal will fail badly and you can be ordered to pay CAS legal costs for the appeal.

Any appeal must be supported by appropriate Case Law and compiled in a volume called a 'Book of Authorities' as a part of the appeal. Case Law selected to support various aspects of your appeal provides 'Res Judicata' ('decided before') boost to your case, the CAS in their filed appeal reply will use Case Law to dismiss a poorly supported appeal by a parent to avoid responsibility for their actions.  On novel or unique issues in your appeal, if any, you may need more then one case to support a specific aspect of your appeal, that is, with multiple cases addressing that specific issue, you establish 'a line of decisions' that makes it hard for a court to ignore your appeal. You also need to provide copies of specific portions of the CFSA, FLR or other legislation or Act that you will reply on in your appeal in the Book of Authorities. An appeal without filed Case Law is doomed to fail.

A sampling of cases is posted here that are very useful in CAS Appeals and can trump many CAS claims if actually applicable to your case.  Remember, Case Law is most affective when you use it to demonstrate certain legal principles that other courts 
have already decided these issues.  
(also use some of the other cases above)

> Conduct of the Court, Bias, etc, must be raised at the time before grounds for appeal:       
(posted July 2015)

Leader Media Productions Ltd. v. Sentinel Hill Alliance
Atlantis Equicap Limited Partnership et al.                                         download .pdf
2008 ONCA 463 (CanLII)
see Pg 14 para 40, Pg 15-19 para 46 – 57

> Court has ‘Parens Patriae Jurisdiction’ over Child:

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto  v. L., A.S.
2008 CanLII 8607 (ON SC)
see para 9                                                                                                      download .pdf     

> Wider Fresh Evidence in the Child’s Interest:
Children’s Aid Society of Peel  v.  M. J. W. AND W. W.
1995 CanLII 593 (ON CA)                                                                               download  .pdf       

T.M.  v.  Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
2004 CanLII 26453 (ON S.C.)
see para 22 to 25                                                                                           download  .pdf   

> Law requires Analysis from Child’s Perspective:
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.A.D.,
2011 ONCA 684
see para 12                                                                                                    download .pdf 

> Court Review after Crown Wardship:

C.R., M. R., S.G. and T. G.,  v.  Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton and The Quamish Nation of British Columbia
2004 CanLII 58384 (ON S.C.)                                                                        download .pdf  

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (Re),
2010 ONSC 1348
see para 11                                                                                                   download .pdf   

> New arguments on Appeal on new evidence:
R. v. Seo
1986 CanLII 109 (ON CA)                                                                                  download .pdf   

> Irregular Appeals permitted in some cases:

Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services)  v.  P., 
2002 NSCA 107 (CanLII)                                                                                   download .pdf   

> Abuse of Judicial Privilege:
(lawyers that mislead the courts)
Hill  v.  Church of Scientology of Toronto,
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130                                                                                    download .pdf 

> Appeal dismissed - No Transcript of Trial, no way to decide appeal without it:
S.S  v. Children’s Aid Society of the regional Municipality of Waterloo & L.G.     download .pdf  
2004 Canlii 5860 (ONSC)
> see paras 7, 9, 20

- - - - - - - - -

>> > >    OTHER CASE  LAW  - BAD 'ADVOCATES':  (3 New cases added Oct 28 2014)

Note:  Bad advocates  often incite disrespect  for the courts calling  the courts 'corrupt' or Judges 'clowns in gowns', this mindset  only adds to the burden of parents  under duress from false CAS claims and hinders their ability to defend themselves. Steer clear and take the high road for a better outcome.

5 Decisions found for 3 people:  Vernon Beck,  Dorian Baxter,  Anne Marsden

2 Decisions on Non-Lawyers seeking to Represent in Family Court matters

Read these decisions and learn from the serious mistakes of these people who have no training and are unwilling to learn the law, Case Law, court procedures and obtain results correctly.

> Bad 'Advocate' Vernon Beck attempts to scandalize the court:

(Vernon Beck in Oakville/canadacourtwatch.COM)                           download .pdf 
(not related to Canadacourtwatch.ORG)
C.S. v  M.S.
2007 Canlii 6240 (ON SC) 

> see para 6, 7, 19, 37, 92, 96, 97, 99 to 109 to 119, 122, + Pg 40 to 47 attached Publication Ban due to interference 

> Bad 'Advocate' Vernon Beck tries to be an 'expert witness'
   at the expense of the proceeding:

L.A.G  v  M.E.F.G.                                                                                         download .pdf                          
2004 CanLII 49975 (ON SC)
> see para 1 - 7

> Bad 'Advocate' Vernon Beck involvement further sets back 
   a parent's legal position in a CAS matter:

Frontenac Children’s Aid Society v. C. N. (mother)                                            download .pdf
2007 CanLII 9886 (ON SC)
> See para  11-12

If you do a thorough internet search you'll see Vernon Beck does everything possible to be a 'public person/spectacle' even getting on Cable TV shows when a previous court decision shows that he is only a semi-retired (in 2007) heating/AC contractor. (see case above: C.S. v. M.S.  2007Canlii6240 (ON SC) in para 109)  He has no legal training to meddle in other people's business where a lawyer is needed. In over 10 years he's made no effort to learn Case Law or court procedures misleading those seeking help.  Right or wrong, a court will hold the direct involvement of layperson 'advocates' against you if you allow them into the courtroom or they attempt to speak during a CAS proceeding, etc.  Just so you know!

> Bad 'Advocate' Dorian Baxter attempts to be involved in a CAS case 
   slammed by court - substantial reasons:

Halton Children’s Aid Society  v. J.T.                                                               download .pdf  

2014 ONCJ 314
> See paras 1-6, 10,11, 14-18, 21-55

Dorian Baxter is a pal of Vernon Beck, both claim to be founders of Canadacourtwatch.COM (not us, .ORG) in different postings! Dorian wants to be an 'intervenor' or 'friend of the court' ('amicus curiae') on the CAS case above. For numerous reasons the court slams his involvement and points out why. Read this carefully and learn or your name will be forever recorded on and the mistakes you made if you try the same thing! Worst of all, in para 52 the court is well aware of Vernon Beck and his interference in C.S. v M.S. (first case listed in this section) that went very badly for Vernon, so much so, it gave a black eye to everyone in the CAS Accountability cause!  The CAS loved the outcome. Sad eh? Worse still, Dorian Baxter has the persona of an Elvis Impersonator, because he is! all day, every day, ie, 24/7 and an church minister by his claim at the same time. 100 years of CAS abuse in Ontario is a serious matter that deserves better then an Elvis Impersonator. Check Google Images of 'Dorian Baxter' and see! He has run as a fringe political candidate in federal and provincial elections and lost. In the Oct 27 2014 municipal elections for mayor of
Newmarket, Ontario, Dorian lost coming in dead last with only 1,407 votes or just 7% of votes cast.

> Bad 'Advocate' Anne Marsden filed materials & 'audits' of CAS
   criticized by court, ordered to pay Costs:

K.P. v. Children’s Aid Society  of Brant
                                                          download .pdf   
2007 CanLii 51703 (ON S.C.)
> See para 1 to 12

> Non-Lawyer seeks to represent - special conditions not met:
Pires v. Dedvukay                                                                                        download .pdf                                                
2010 ONCJ 8

Stone v. Stone                                                                                             download .pdf                           
2000 CanLii 20767 (ON S.C.)

- - - - - - - - - - -


Together with the Rules of Professional Conduct, Law Society Act and the How-To Guide 'When CAS Lawyers Lie in Court - What To Do" all on the 'Publications' Page, you can apply the following Case Law for CAS Lawyers who mislead the court to obtain Crown Ward Orders by Fraud contrary to FLR Rule 25(19)!!  Be sure to read the Guide and review your file carefully before proceeding either by Complaint to the Law Society or by Motion within your CAS proceeding where the evidence is significant enough.

> Lawyer: Rules of Professional Conduct, failing to disclose facts to the court:
Law Society of Upper Canada  v.  Paul Ross                                       download .pdf
2010 ONLSHP007

> Lawyer:  Professional Misconduct, license revoked:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Mary Martha Coady,               download .pdf
2010 ONLSHP 0004
see para 25 , notable quote

> Lawyer:  Professional Misconduct, license revoked:
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Marshall Stephen Kazman,       download .pdf
2008 ONLSAP 0007
see para 73 - 75

> Lawyer:  Professional Misconduct, license revoked, only acceptable outcome:
The Law Society of Upper Canada v. Doron [Jorden] Kolman,     download .pdf
2004 ONLSAP 0002
see para 19

> Lawyer:  Professional Misconduct, readmission barred:
Peter David Clark v. The Law Society of Upper Canada,            download .pdf
2010 ONLSHP 0011

> LSUC - Stand Book of Authories:
(Ontario Law Society's list of Case Law applied to discipline      download .pdf
cases before the society tribunal)


Various SSC decisions are posted elsewhere throughout this site, but there are few decisions that need a place of their own under this heading, more will be added as they are found. A summary is added below for each as needed so you'll know why they are special and how they can help you!

> Negative Complaint tribunal decision cannot bar legal action:
Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board),                                       download .pdf  
2013 SCC 19
Comments for this case:
It is not unusual for Medical Colleges, Law Societies, etc, to place the private interests of their members above the public interest despite their boastful claims. Medical Colleges and Law Societies among others, are willfully blind past the point of being corrupt!! Thus a complaint will often result in a negative decision.  In the Case above the SCC decided that a negative outcome from a Complaint Board cannot limit your access to justice by legal action!  Sweet!  However, you still have to do all the legwork correctly, but you can be liable for Costs if you lose. So it is possible that a court may decide differently based on the same facts!!  In short, "a negative Complaint Board decision is not 'Res Judicata' in a court of law".  The best possible application of this is seeking a court order against a Lawyer that knowingly misleads a court, where a Law Society refused to discipline the lawyer.  Be sure that you supply conclusive evidence, transcripts and references under Rules of Professional Conduct and the Law Society Act, etc, how the actions of counsel deserve attention from a court!!  Be sure that you do not ask for a remedy that is actually beyond a court's jurisdiction or beyond the Limitations Act, etc !! 

> Court decision delayed 11 months, appeal granted, new trial:
R. v. Teskey                                                                        download .pdf   
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 267, 2007 SCC 25
Comments for this case:
The guiding principle is that a decision must be written while the evidence, the proceedings and case law is still fresh in the mind of the Judge that writes the decision.  If a decision is delayed, it is a grounds for appeal along with any other grounds you intended to pursue. However, an appeal on this ground alone does not grant an alternate order in your favour only that a new trial or hearing would be ordered to make a finding and reasons in a timely manner.

> Lawyer misleading a court is an abuse of 'litigation privilege' / and libelous statements:
Hill v. Church of Scientology and Morris Manning                                          download .pdf 
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
Comments for this case:
A Toronto Police raid and search for records at the Church of Scientology in ~1979 spiraled into a media circus where the Church hired Morris Manning who went after the Assistant Crown Attorney S. Casey Hill in the courts and in public with behavior that included libelous statements prompting Hill to file a lawsuit over the conduct of the Church and Mr Manning. After court actions including in the Ontario Court of Appeal, the matter was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada with the largest libel award in Canada of ~$1.5 Million total split between the Church and Mr Manning.

The take away from this decision is that a lawyer's comments by absolute privilege in a courtroom that are knowingly misleading can be limited by a court and disciplined accordingly. There's no need to go to the Supreme Court to address abuses; on day to day court appearances, the Rules of Professional Conduct (Ontario) also limit misleading submissions in court under Rule 4.01 (2) (e), (f) and (g). The only problem for ordinary folks, is knowing the rules, collecting the evidence, getting transcripts, the Case Law and proving that the lawyer knew they were misleading the court, but it can be done. Absolute privilege provides that a lawyer in their submissions in court can be 'wrong', 'mistaken', incorrect' or 'accorded less weight' then an opposing argument - but it cannot be knowingly false to mislead a court. However, in CAS cases this the most common abuse by CAS lawyers in order to obtain Crown Ward orders by Fraud even to the extent of denying the treatment needs of children, violating a Statutory Care requirement and ultimately the Statutory Interests of the child in the CFSA - all for the last 100 years in Ontario!     


These cases provide guidance on how you can communicate with the public on matters of public interest concerning CAS abuses.  The CAS always tries to stifle free speech since they are beyond the point of no return with decisions obtained by fraud (contrary to  FLR 25(19) ) to obtain and abuse public funding by Fraud!!  Far worse then ORNGE!!

See the following Supreme Court of Canada decisions below:           (courtesy of )

> No Libel for responsible communication in the public interest:
Grant  v  Torstar Corp                                                                                    download .pdf  
2009 SCC 61 

> No Libel for responsible communication in the public interest:
Quan  v  Cusson                                                                                           download  .pdf     
2009 SCC 62

> + the publication of Internet Hyperlinks:
Crookes  v  Newton                                                                                       download .pdf    
2011 SCC 47

> + use of confidential sources
R  v  National Post                                                                                        download .pdf      
2010 SCC 16


Case Law for Lawsuits is huge, extensive, expensive if you lose, expensive if you win and full of potholes!  A key role of a court is to give detailed reasons, not on why a party wins, but why a party lost.  This means you can read the Analysis / Reasons part of a decision and get a real taste of what a parent did wrong in the lawsuit - and not make the same mistake!!  If you feel wronged or ripped off by a CAS, you must express the wrong committed as a 'tort' term and provide evidence of it that exceeds the 'balance of probabilities' or has greater 'weight' then any evidence provided by a CAS in it's own defense.  A common pitfall is to claim a wrongdoing that overreaches the evidence you have or to make a claim with no evidence at all, just your own say-so.  If you lose, you pay most or all of a CAS' legal cost from $5,000 to $100,000 or more.  It turns any CAS abuse so far into a brutal nightmare where the CAS rapes and robs you of your family and then you have to pay them on top of that!!!!  Ugh!

You really need competent legal representation to avoid being burned at the stake here!  There's very little room for DIY!

If there are errors in your Statement of Claim or other materials, the courts allow almost no latitude to amend and re-file your materials otherwise all parties would be changing their filings to one-up each other and gain a litigation advantage.

The decisions here are about CAS cases, but other lawsuit cases in unrelated conflicts are used to demonstrate legal principles to influence the outcome.  What is morally 'right' is not how a court rules, what is 'legal' and allowed by various laws and previous decisions!  Sorry, that's not what you expected, I know. It's a fact there are far more possible mistakes that can be made that would undo all the right things you do in a case, which makes reading cases and taking notes of the mistakes made by others all the more important.  When a party loses but fails to pay, the winning party can then obtain an enforcement order from the court which means you lose your home and all other assets to make up the Costs order.  Make sure your grounds to sue is supported by evidence that would be accepted by the court.

Read these cases and take-to-heart the mistakes of others so you don't repeat them:                         
(Some long case names are paraphrased on this list.  .pdf files have full case names)


> CAS loses appeal, has to pay  $110,000 Damages:                                                
D.B. et al,  v  CAS of Durham Region and Marion Van Den Bloomen            download .pdf 

1996 CanLII 1067 (ON C.A.)
(This case started in ~1986 with a false CAS child protection case. The decision above
is the  CAS trying to appeal the lawsuit  won by D.B.  This  is claimed to be  the first  case
where  a CAS  was  successfully  sued!   It is  the  Grandaddy of  all  CAS  tort  lawsuit
cases!  All it takes is 10 years of your life to complete!)

> A CAS sued and won by plaintiff:                                                           
Leontine Yelle  v  CAS of Ottawa-Carlton et al,                                            download .pdf                                                          
2002 CanLII 2868 (ON SC)

> Suing after foster care, won:                                                                

A.C. and C.C. v    Y. J. C.                                                                             download .pdf                          
2003 CanLII 2464 (ON SC)

> Suing the CAS and the provincial government, lost:                       

R.H. v CAS of Niagara et al,                                                                         download .pdf                                     
2002 CanLII 2835 (ON SC)

> Suing the CAS, losing and paying costs:                                           

D.W.  v  CAS of Durham Region et al,                                                        download .pdf 
2004 CanLII 22543 (ON CA)

> Suing the Jewish CAS, lost:                                                                     

P.B. v. Jewish Family & Child Services                                                      download .pdf 
2005 CanLII 63822 (ON SC)

> Suing the CAS, lost, case went to Supreme Court, still lost:               

B.D., K.D., E.S.  v  SYL APPS Secure Treatment Centre et al,                download .pdf 
2006 CanLII 1175 (ON CA)

> Suing a CAS lawyer, lost:                                                                          
A.A.   v.  Macri,                                                                                             download .pdf  
2010 ONCA 99

> Suing the CAS, lost:                                                                             

Dr. A.D.  v   York CAS et al,                                                                        download .pdf                                          
2010 ONSC 3764 (CanLII)

> Suing the CAS, lost:                                                                             

D.M. v. York Region Children’s Aid Society et al,                                      download .pdf             
2011 ONSC 5635

> Suing the CAS, lost:                                                                                 
Ryabikhina v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto et al,                                download .pdf   

2011 ONSC 4261


Non CAS Cases are still useful since they demonstrate various legal principles and possible pitfalls you want to avoid!

> Suing - malice in action - plaintiff pays huge costs:

Roger St Jacques v  Toronto Ambulance Service                                    download .pdf                
2008 CanLII 9381 (ON SCDC)

> Suing a Hospital, lost:                                                                             

A.A.  v   Hospital for Sick Children et al,                                                    download .pdf 
2009 CanLII 40557 (ON SC)

> Various Libel Defenses you can use, Qualified Privilege, etc:
Foulidis v. Baker,                                                                                       download .pdf  
2012 ONSC 7295  (CanLii)
see para 21 to 76

> Tort Lawsuit Summaries                                                                     

April 2010                                                                                                   download .pdf 

> Tort Lawsuit Summaries                                                                          
July  2010                                                                                                   download .pdf 

$31 parking ticket Class Action suit loses, costs $70,000! Ouch!                   
Arenson v. Toronto                                                                                    download .pdf 
2012 ONSC 4488


Arenson v. City of Toronto,                                                                        download .pdf 
2011 ONSC 3294


Ontario Courts has a Case Law List of commonly cited decisions you can access that covers Family Law up and including some Decisions on CAS matters - follow the new link:  

N O T E :

>> Since 2010 founders searched 8,000 decisions, indexed, annotated 3,700+ cases in 600+ categories!  There are of course 100s of thousands of cases across Canada, emphasis is on Ontario and Ontario's CFSA.  Not surprisingly, your lawyer will charge case law research fees even if it's a case he/she already has on hand!   All these cases are on, see the link on the Resources Page.  Carswell/Thompson/Westlaw lists some cases exclusively, but is an expensive service. Download all you want Free!  Unlike other websites, there are no 'membership fees' or 'donations' needed!

>> Ever notice how the vast majority family lawyers**, OCL lawyers or OPGT lawyers virtually never use Case Law to defend their clients? That's because they know ordinary citizens and vulnerable children don't know the difference! These lawyers won't find, read, cataloge Case Law or have it on hand to use in court on your behalf. Parents and children are not 'sophisticated clients' and have no resources or clout to address 'Inadequate Representation'. In a legal system build on adversarial contests, Inadequate Representation and indolent counsel help CASs predetermine CAS protection cases resulting in Crown Ward orders by Fraud, victimizing parents and children alike. Only the tiniest fraction of 1% of family lawyers will ever, on the same scale we have, search, personally read, annotate, catalog and use Case Law for their clients. In order to explore the full spectrum of CAS abuses, it was necessary for us to conduct an ongoing search since 2010.  

>> Effective use of any Case Law relies on the suitability in your matter, context of your matter, filings from all parties, etc.  See the Legal Page.  Affective and appropriate presentation of case law in court abides by court rules and procedures.

>> relies on volunteers for Case Law searches and does not expect or accept any payment. All Case Law and materials are posted in the public interest for timely use by any parent targeted by the CAS who, within a proceeding timeline would never be able to do so on their own.

>> See our internal library of Case Law Directory names and topics of cases cataloged here. Sensitive topics, Carswell decisions, names and other materials, (about 40%) was redacted from these views before screen grabs were taken:  

Screen Grabs:     'A'       'B'       'C'       'D'        'E'        'F'        'G'        'H'        'I'        'J'        'K'        'L'        'M'        'N'        'O'

>> You may also use the directory heading names and topics as a starting point for your own searches. The more parents get to search and use Case Law correctly in their CAS case, the better the possible outcome.

*  Downloaded decisions have original content, file names with subject and paragraph numbers added as a file name suffix.
** 'Sole practitioner' family lawyers, large Family Law Firms are only slightly better.

Litigation threats to silence this site and the case law discovered will get you negative publicity above and the end of the Billion Dollar gravy train of public money and child abuse inflicted by CAS workers, supervisors, managers, lawyers and doctors!! 

Website Builder