Dr. Denise Vallance

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society seeking to make two children crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought an expedited trial, arguing she had made sufficient changes to warrant the children's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the society had met its onus of demonstrating no genuine issue requiring trial.

Despite the mother's engagement in some services and completion of an anger management program, her recent conduct demonstrated a persistent inability to control her impulses, manage her relationships with abusive partners, and prioritize the children's emotional needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children crown wards with access at the society's discretion.

A child protection agency sought to reopen a trial after evidence had concluded and submissions had been made, but before judgment was rendered.

The agency wished to introduce a psychological assessment of the child conducted by an expert who had not testified during the trial.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence could have been adduced during the agency's case-in-chief, that reopening would cause significant delay in a matter where timely permanency planning was critical, and that the timing of the motion suggested the agency only sought to introduce the evidence after confirming it would support their case.

The court found that allowing the motion would be unfair to the respondent and contrary to the child's best interests.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children, J.B. (born 2004) and T.B. (born 2008), were in need of protection and an order making them Crown wards for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, S.S.B., opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under Society supervision.

The court found both children in need of protection based on physical harm inflicted by the mother, risk of future physical harm, and risk of emotional harm.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards and rejected the mother's plan for return to her care, finding that the mother's long-standing parenting deficiencies could not be adequately addressed and that Crown wardship with a view to adoption best served the children's interests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and a disposition of Crown Wardship with no access order.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that material issues of fact required a trial.

The court found that the undisputed evidence established that the child was in need of protection due to the mother's significant mental illness and its impact on her parenting ability.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial on either the finding or disposition, and ordered Crown Wardship with no access.