Christopher Severn

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The court considered whether any genuine issue for trial existed under the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act.

The evidence showed longstanding instability, domestic violence, mental health issues, and parenting incapacity affecting the parents, as well as sporadic parental contact and delayed paternal involvement.

The court concluded that neither parent established a triable issue regarding placement or access and that the children’s best interests required permanent placement.

Crown wardship orders without access were granted.

Following a family law motion to change involving child support and section 7 expenses, both parties sought costs after a multi‑day hearing and related proceedings.

The court considered the principles in Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and the potential effect of offers to settle.

The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their respective offers.

It further concluded that the applicant pursued unreasonable positions regarding income and extensive section 7 expenses, while the respondent’s settlement offer lacked clarity and was not capable of acceptance.

Finding divided success and unreasonable litigation conduct on both sides, the court exercised its discretion to deny costs to either party.

The mother appealed an order making her two young children Crown wards with no access, and moved for a stay to reinstate access pending the appeal.

The Children's Aid Society brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the appeal under Rule 38(28) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the trial judge had given adequate consideration to the proposed kinship placement with the maternal grandparents and made no palpable and overriding errors.

Concluding that the appeal had no chance of success, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the appeal.

The mother's motion for a stay was also dismissed, as there was no serious issue to be tried and reinstating access was not in the children's best interests.