Heather Morrison

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by the Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville regarding the status of a child, S.T., under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society sought an order finding that S.T. was not in need of protection in relation to his father, M.T., and requested that M.T. be granted custody and sole decision-making responsibility, with the mother, B.W., to have limited parenting time.

The court reviewed the history of the Society’s involvement, the child’s circumstances, and the legal principles governing summary judgment and status review applications.

The court found that S.T. was not in need of protection regarding M.T., but continued to be in need of protection regarding B.W., and granted the relief sought by the Society.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for an order placing the child in its temporary care and custody.

The respondent father and stepmother sought the child's return to their care, while the respondent mother sought unsupervised access.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence that the child was exposed to a high conflict environment and inappropriate discipline in the father and stepmother's care, creating a risk of emotional and physical harm.

The court concluded that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the society with specified access for the respondents.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order placing the child in the custody of his paternal grandparents.

The mother had a history of unstable relationships involving domestic violence and substance abuse, and failed to prioritize the child's needs over her relationships with adult males.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the risk of emotional harm.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted custody to the paternal grandparents, with limited monthly access for the mother to provide the child with stability and routine.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them with their father for nine months.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the return of the children.

The court granted summary judgment on the issue of protection, finding no genuine issue for trial given the overwhelming evidence of harsh parenting and emotional harm in the mother's care.

However, the court dismissed summary judgment on the issue of disposition, finding that the children's consistently expressed wishes to return to their mother's care created a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine their best interests.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order for Crown wardship of a newborn child.

The parents had a history of child protection involvement, with two previous children made Crown wards due to the father's untreated sexual offender history and both parents' substance abuse and neglect issues.

The court applied the summary judgment rules and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and that Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption was in the child's best interests.