George Socrates Florentis

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that dismissed its application for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The lower court judge found a genuine issue requiring a trial, considering the children's desire to return to their mother, the mother's improved lifestyle, and the maternal aunt's position.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, applied a palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the lower court's conclusion that a genuine issue for trial existed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) appealed a motion judge's decision denying summary judgment for Crown wardship of a child, A.G. The child was apprehended after parents C.G. and D.S. left her at the hospital with a friend, G., under a private custody agreement, having concealed the pregnancy from the CAS.

The appeal court found the motion judge erred in deeming G.'s party status and the custody agreement's validity as triable issues.

The court declared the private custody agreement a nullity, as it was designed to circumvent the CAS's statutory duty to protect children.

Consequently, the child was found to be in need of protection due to the parents' unavailability and failure to make adequate provision for her care.

The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for an expedited trial on disposition, but the request for immediate Crown wardship without access was denied.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order making the child a Crown ward without access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion with a brief affidavit containing blanket denials unsupported by specific facts.

The respondent father provided no response.

The court found the Society had discharged its burden at both the finding and disposition stages, establishing compelling evidence of the parents' inability to adequately care for the child, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and the father's complete lack of engagement.

The court made an order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access for purposes of adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a newborn child (A.G.) was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting an order for crown wardship with no access.

The respondent parents had executed a written custody agreement transferring sole custody of the child to a third party (A.G.1) on the day of the child's birth.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial on multiple grounds: (1) the identity of the person having charge of the child at the time of apprehension; (2) the validity and legal effect of the custody agreement; (3) whether A.G.1 qualifies as a statutory party to the proceeding; (4) whether the grounds for finding the child in need of protection (abandonment and risk of physical harm) were established; and (5) procedural and temporal issues arising from delays in the proceedings.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access to a child in need of protection.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial.

The court found that the parents had unresolved issues including substance abuse, domestic violence, and parenting inadequacy.

The child had been in care for over 400 days and was thriving with foster parents.

The court granted the motion for Crown wardship without access, finding that no genuine or material issues remained to be resolved at trial and that the child's best interests required immediate placement for adoption with the foster parents.