Ciara McCaffrey

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region moved for summary judgment to place a child in extended care without access under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent mother had a history of inadequate care for older children, drug use during pregnancy, avoidance of prenatal care, and unsuitable living conditions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother could not provide adequate care and that extended care without access was in the child's best interests, given the child's need for a permanent home and good adoption prospects.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to vary a temporary order that had placed two young children in its care, seeking to place them with the father of the younger child under supervision.

The mother opposed the placement.

The court dismissed the motion to change the primary placement, finding insufficient evidence of the proposed father's suitability and concluding that the least intrusive order consistent with the children's best interests was to maintain the current society care order.

The court did vary the order to restrict the older child's father's access to only his biological child.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application for B.W.-B., seeking interim society care.

The Society later moved to vary the temporary order to place the child with kin (paternal uncle and partner), which the parents opposed, preferring foster care or return to their care.

The mother cross-moved for the child's return to parental care.

The court found the child would be at risk of harm if returned to the parents and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

While acknowledging the general preference for kin placement, the court dismissed the Society's motion for kin placement due to parental opposition, concerns about the kin's past issues, and particularly, the kin's hostile and vulgar communications regarding the mother, which would undermine reunification efforts.

The mother's cross-motion for parental return was also dismissed.

The temporary order for B.W.-B. to remain in Society care was continued.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the Children’s Aid Society sought summary judgment making three children Crown wards without parental access.

The court considered Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules governing summary judgment and the statutory requirements for access to Crown wards under s. 59(2.1) of the Act.

Evidence demonstrated a long history of child protection involvement, sexual abuse by the father resulting in incarceration, and expert assessments indicating the mother lacked capacity to meet the children’s needs.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that parental access would impair the children’s prospects for adoption.

Summary judgment was granted making the children Crown wards with sibling access but without parental access.