Deborah H. Souder

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that two children were in need of protection and for extended society care.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record, which largely consisted of inadmissible hearsay and conflicting accounts, did not permit a fair and just resolution of the issues without a full trial.

The decision emphasized the significant credibility issues and the Charter rights engaged in child protection proceedings, reinforcing that evidentiary standards are not relaxed for summary judgment motions in this context.

The applicant Society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship without access for a 20-month-old child.

The respondent parents opposed, seeking the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found the child in continuing need of protection due to the parents' ongoing domestic conflict and inability to remain separated despite extensive services.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding the parents' plan for joint custody unrealistic.

However, the court found the parents rebutted the presumption against access, ordering access at the Society's discretion (minimum once per month) as it was meaningful, beneficial, and would not impair future adoption.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the 15-month-old child be made a Crown ward without access.

The mother was noted in default, and the father opposed the motion, seeking the child's return under supervision.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' ongoing substance abuse issues, lack of stable housing, and failure to engage in services.

The court concluded that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests and granted the summary judgment.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a young child without access.

The mother, who has a significant global intellectual delay, opposed the motion and sought a trial to have the child returned to her care under supervision.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mother's intellectual limitations prevented her from safely parenting the child, who also has special needs.

The motion was granted, the child was made a Crown ward, and no access was ordered.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for the child A.N.L-R. The respondent mother opposed, while the respondent father did not participate.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's documented mental health issues, unstable relationships involving domestic violence, and inability to provide adequate care.

Despite the mother's arguments for more time to address concerns and claims of insufficient support, the court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Crown wardship was ordered, as less disruptive alternatives were deemed inadequate and the mother's plan lacked viability and sustained progress.

The court also found that the statutory presumption against access was not rebutted by either parent.