A child protection proceeding involving three children, commenced in 2013, in which the Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection based on risk of sexual harm.
The Society brought a motion to re-open a summary judgment motion that had been argued and was on reserve, to file additional evidence regarding a psychosexual assessment of the father.
The motion to re-open was opposed by the father.
The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding that the Society had failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the additional evidence, that the evidence was not decisive, and that the Society had alternative remedies available if the summary judgment motion was unsuccessful.
