S. M. Woodside

This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case involving three children and allegations of risk of sexual harm by their father.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children are in need of protection under section 74(2)(d) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act based on risk of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.

The case involved complex evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of hearsay evidence, police interview recordings, and expert assessments.

The court conducted a careful screening of evidence and made specific rulings on admissibility, ultimately finding that sufficient admissible evidence existed to conclude there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the risk of sexual harm ground.

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.