Gary Livesey

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, several extended family members brought a motion seeking party status to advance a kinship placement plan.

The court applied the test for adding parties established in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. H.(S.), considering the child’s best interests, delay, necessity for determination of issues, and whether the proposed party could advance a viable care plan.

The court found that the proposed caregiver being assessed for placement had a legal interest and that her participation was necessary to determine the appropriate placement of the child.

However, other relatives who supported the plan but were only in a transitional caregiving role were not necessary parties.

The court therefore granted party status to the proposed caregiver only and dismissed the motion as it related to the other relatives.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for a young child.

The evidentiary record included extensive affidavits detailing longstanding concerns involving domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, unstable housing, and repeated non‑compliance with supervision orders.

The responding parents opposed the motion and sought either a trial, a return of the child to parental care under supervision, or placement with an alternative kin caregiver.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding the parents’ materials largely consisted of general denials and failed to address overwhelming evidence of risk and longstanding patterns of harmful conduct.

Summary judgment was granted, the child was made a Crown ward, and access was denied because the parents failed to establish that post‑wardship access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship for four children.

The mother and her current partner sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The father of one of the children sought custody of his daughter.

The court found all four children in need of protection due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, and unstable relationships.

The court concluded that the mother and her current partner lacked the insight and ability to safely parent the children.

The father of one child was found to be more suited as an access parent due to his unresolved anger management and substance abuse issues.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all four children, with access granted to the father of one child at the society's discretion, and denied access to the mother and her current partner for the three youngest children.