Arnab Quadry

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order placing her two young children in the extended care of the respondent children's aid society.

She argued the motion judge erred by denying her request for an adjournment, relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence, and misapplying statutory time limits under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly prioritized the children's best interests and statutory timelines over the mother's late request for an adjournment, and made no reversible evidentiary errors.

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.