George Johnson

The children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application, seeking an order making the child a Crown ward without access for the purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the matter remitted to trial.

The court held that the two-part test for Status Review applications established by the Supreme Court of Canada continues to apply despite legislative amendments.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection, the appropriate disposition of Crown wardship, or the termination of access, given the mother's longstanding inability to meet the child's physical and emotional needs and manage his behaviour.

The motion was granted and the child was made a Crown ward without access.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking reimbursement for medical and dental expenses pursuant to a prior consent order requiring the respondent to submit receipts to his insurance plan and remit reimbursement.

The respondent challenged the claimed amount and argued that the order did not apply to receipts submitted prior to the date of the consent order.

The court held that there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding receipts submitted before the order due to insufficient evidence of the parties’ intentions.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment for receipts submitted after the date of the order, finding no genuine issue requiring trial for those claims.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a finding that a 9-year-old child was in need of protection and sought an order for Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the application, seeking return of the child, access if wardship was ordered, or a kinship placement with a relative.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's history of substance abuse, violent behavior, and failure to provide adequate care, including exposing the child to squalid living conditions and domestic violence.

The court rejected the proposed kinship placement, finding the relative not credible.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that access would not be beneficial and would impair the child's opportunities for adoption.