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.
