In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access.
The child had been apprehended at birth and had significant developmental and medical needs, while evidence established that the mother had severe cognitive limitations and limited support resources.
Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the society had established a prima facie case that the child was in need of protection.
The court further found that less intrusive alternatives were inadequate and that permanence was urgently required given the child’s needs.
The statutory presumption against access to Crown wards was not rebutted because there was insufficient evidence that access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.
