Belinda Jesudasan

The mother appealed a summary judgment order denying her access to her four eldest children after they were made Crown wards.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in law by applying the pre-Hryniak test for summary judgment and failing to provide adequate reasons.

However, exercising its appellate powers, the Court reviewed the record and concluded that summary judgment was appropriate.

The Court held that the mother failed to establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship with the children that would justify an access order under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order making her three children Crown wards, with no access for the purpose of adoption.

She argued the Children's Aid Society failed to provide a proper written Plan of Care, the trial judge failed to consider returning the children under supervision, and the trial judge erred in denying access.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law.

The trial judge properly considered the Plans of Care, correctly concluded that a supervision order would not work, and reasonably found that access would not be beneficial and would impair adoption opportunities.

The Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society appealed a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The Society sought an order finding the two infant children in need of protection and making them Crown Wards for the purpose of adoption.

The parents, who both have significant developmental and cognitive issues, opposed the motion.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in concluding there were genuine issues for trial, as the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the parents' inability to care for the children and the lack of a realistic plan of care.

The appeal was allowed, and summary judgment was granted making the children Crown Wards with no access.

The appellant parents appealed a summary judgment order making their child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents argued that the motion judge erred by failing to recognize a gap in the children's aid society's case regarding available support programs, failing to provide adequate reasons, and improperly admitting a parenting capacity assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the parents failed to present a comprehensive plan of care to address their need for 24-hour supervision.

The court held that the motion judge's reasons adequately explained why the child would not be safe in the parents' care and why access should be terminated, and that the assessment was properly admitted.