3 total
Proposed caregiver added as party in child protection case; other relatives denied party status.
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.
Summary judgment denied where society’s evidence raised triable issues in child protection case.
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.
Late and weak party-addition motion in child protection case dismissed.
In a child protection proceeding, the maternal grandmother moved late in the process to be added as a party and advance a custody proposal for the children.
Applying the established discretionary factors for adding parties in child protection matters, the court held the motion materials were late, weak, and insufficiently responsive to the Society’s serious concerns about the proposed placement.
The court found adding the proposed party would not be shown to be in the children’s best interests, would inevitably prolong the proceeding, and was unnecessary because her proposed involvement could be advanced through the mother and by witness evidence.
The motion to add the maternal grandmother as a party was dismissed, the Society’s summary judgment motion was scheduled, and the existing order continued.
