B. Maracle

This motion for summary judgment concerned the placement of A.M., an Indigenous child, in extended society care.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended care, while the biological mother opposed it, advocating for A.M.'s return to her care.

The court emphasized the "last resort" nature of extended care, particularly for Indigenous children, and the statutory priority for family and community placements under federal legislation.

The Society failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue for trial, specifically lacking evidence of exhaustive efforts to find permanent family or community placements.

The motion was dismissed, preserving the possibility of A.M.'s return to her mother's care after a full trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two Indigenous children were in need of protection and an order for their placement in the care and custody of their father, with discretionary access for the mother.

The mother conceded the protection finding but opposed the summary judgment, arguing for joint custody and a shared parenting regime.

The court granted the Society's motion in part, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the children's primary placement with the father, due to the mother's lack of insight into past protection concerns and ongoing conflict.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the mother's access, determining it should not be left to the father's discretion and required judicial determination.

In a child protection status review, the biological father (E.J.) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking primary care and custody of two children, S.J.M. and L.J. The Children's Aid Society and Six Nations Child and Family Services supported the father's request, while the biological mother (S.M.) opposed it, seeking the children's return to her care.

The court granted the father's motion for custody, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding placement, as the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or responsibility for past protection concerns.

However, the court determined that the issue of the mother's access with the children presented a genuine issue for trial and ordered it to be set for a trial management conference.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment decision rendered on September 29, 2014, in a child protection matter.

The mother sought to reopen the hearing based on newly received hair follicle drug test results from May 2014 and alleged factual errors in the judgment.

The court addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether it was functus officio and determined it retained discretion to reconsider the judgment prior to the order being entered.

The court found that while the mother had not exercised due diligence in obtaining the test results, the evidence would not have changed the outcome given the totality of grave concerns including the mother's historical drug use, failure to cooperate with testing, violent conduct, poor judgment in child supervision, and refusal to accept responsibility for harm to the children.

The motion was dismissed.