Jeffrey Boich

The Children's Aid Society and the father brought summary judgment motions seeking a custody order placing the child with the father.

The mother conceded custody but sought specified access, which the father opposed, preferring access to be at his discretion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and placement with the father.

The court granted the custody order and, finding that the father had not encouraged the child's relationship with the maternal family, ordered specified progressive access for the mother and maternal grandmother, including reintegration counselling.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for extended society care with no access for a two-year-old child.

The parents, who both have developmental delays, opposed the motion and sought the return of the child with a supervision order.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents lacked the capacity to parent independently and did not have adequate 24/7 supports in place.

The court granted summary judgment placing the child in extended society care, but ordered that the parents have access at the discretion of the society, finding that access was positive and in the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment to place three children with their father under a six-month supervision order, with the mother's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The father consented, and the mother did not actively oppose the motion.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, screened the evidence for admissibility (including business records and children's hearsay statements), and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded that the children continued to be in need of protection and that the proposed order was in their best interests.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward without access for the purposes of adoption.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by relying on a previous judgment regarding her older child as evidence of past parenting and by finding there was no genuine issue for trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge appropriately considered the past parenting evidence as a backdrop to measure change, correctly applied the summary judgment test, and properly determined that Crown wardship was in the child's best interests given the lack of cogent evidence demonstrating the mother's improved parenting capacity.