David Toupin

The Family and Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for the child X.J.F.S. The mother, K.S., opposed this, seeking a supervision order to have the child returned to her care, a position supported by the father, J.B. The court found the child to be in continuing need of protection.

After considering the child's best interests, including the mother's inability to protect the child from unhealthy relationships and the paramount need for permanence and stability, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also granted the mother access, finding that her relationship with the child was meaningful and beneficial, and that access would not impair future adoption opportunities, but specified that access would be at the Society's discretion with a minimum frequency of once per month.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment on its status review application, seeking Crown wardship without access for two young children.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she needed more time to stabilize her mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's recent relapses demonstrated an inability to provide a permanent and stable home.

The court granted the motion, making the children Crown wards with no access, prioritizing their need for a permanent and stable placement.

A child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a declaration that a child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The court reviewed evidence of prenatal drug exposure, the mother’s history of opioid addiction, relapse following treatment, inconsistent engagement with counselling services, unstable housing conditions, and the resumption of a relationship with a partner associated with substance abuse and domestic violence concerns.

The court also considered the mother’s past parenting history, including a prior child protection proceeding resulting in Crown wardship of another child.

Finding that the responding parent filed no updated affidavit evidence and that the agency’s evidence was largely uncontradicted, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was declared in need of protection and made a Crown ward for the purposes of adoption with no access.