F. Christopher Rous

The applicant child protection agency sought a temporary order placing two children in the care of their maternal grandparents, citing concerns about the parents' mental health and historical conflict.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to her care subject to agency supervision.

The court found that the agency failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to the mother under supervision, noting that the parents had separated and the agency relied heavily on the grandmother's uncorroborated statements.

The children were ordered returned to the mother with conditions.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship for adoption of the child A.P.E. The mother, as appellant, presented fresh evidence of improved parenting and a new support plan.

The court found that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to apply the full two-pronged test for summary judgment as outlined in Hryniak v. Mauldin, and by not considering less disruptive alternatives to Crown wardship.

The appeal was granted, the Crown wardship order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial.

The court also directed the Children's Aid Society to renew access and engage in concurrent planning.