Cedric Nahum

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place two young children in extended society care.

The children had been out of their parents' care for significant periods due to concerns regarding intimate partner violence, untreated substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The parents did not file affidavit evidence in response to the motion.

The court found that despite periods of positive engagement, the parents had not demonstrated sustained progress or insight into their issues, and had not visited the children in several months.

The kin caregiver was unable to provide a permanent plan.

Applying the principles of summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The children were found to be in need of protection and placed in extended society care, with specified access for the parents and the kin caregiver.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care of a two-year-old child who had been in care for over 500 days.

The mother, who suffers from borderline personality disorder, had a history of chronic suicidal ideation and multiple hospitalizations under the Mental Health Act, leading to repeated breakdowns in caregiving.

The court found the child in need of protection under s. 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA due to the risk of emotional harm caused by the mother's mental health instability.

Concluding that the mother had not achieved sufficient stability to safely parent the child and that a supervision order would not adequately mitigate the risk, the court ordered the child placed in extended society care with specified access for the mother.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for three Indigenous children, citing concerns about neglect, developmental delays, and parental conflict.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the Society failed to establish reasonable grounds that the children were likely to suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The court noted that many of the protection concerns stemmed from poverty and factors outside the parents' control, and emphasized the importance of cultural continuity and family preservation for Indigenous children.

The children were ordered returned to the parents' care subject to Society supervision.