In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring a child in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.
The court applied the Rule 16 summary judgment test from the Family Law Rules and found no genuine issue requiring trial on the question of protection status, relying on extensive evidence including prior child protection history, parental risk factors, and a psychological parenting capacity assessment.
However, the court held that the question of the child’s best interests and whether Crown wardship without access was appropriate required a full trial, particularly in light of evidence suggesting the mother possessed some caregiving capacity and had offered explanations for past conduct.
The motion was therefore granted in part, with a protection finding entered but the issue of permanent wardship reserved for trial.
