James Orme

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.

The applicant children’s aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access in relation to three children.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the society’s affidavit evidence contained hearsay, relied on unidentified sources, and improperly incorporated medical opinions based on second-hand information.

The court reviewed the affidavits and medical reports and concluded that significant issues remained regarding admissibility, credibility, and the reliability of conclusions drawn from third‑party information.

The court also noted concerns that the mother’s proposed care plan may have been rejected without sufficient consideration.

The court held that the society had not established that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.