Kim Hertwig

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society moved for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access and correction of the child’s legal name.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence showing ongoing protection concerns including parental substance abuse, mental health issues, aggressive conduct toward service providers, failure to attend access visits or cooperate with the society, and lack of progress in addressing these concerns.

The parents filed no affidavit evidence and had not exercised access for over ten months.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the child continued to require protection.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward without access and amending the child’s legal name to match the birth registration.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought Crown wardship without access in relation to a young child who had been apprehended due to malnourishment and remained in foster care with significant special needs.

The parents had been given time under a prior temporary wardship order to become capable of caring for the child but had not demonstrated progress.

The mother failed to file an answer or plan of care, and the father’s proposed plan relied on returning the child to the care of both parents without addressing the mother’s deficits or the child’s significant needs.

Pending the status review, the court considered the child’s best interests and the need for stability and permanency.

The court ordered that parental access be suspended temporarily to minimize disruption to the child and encourage timely participation in the proceeding.

Following the withdrawal of a child protection application, the parents sought costs against the child protection agency for alleged financial losses, legal expenses, and other damages arising from the proceeding.

The court held that the applicants failed to provide any supporting documentation for their claimed expenses and that the court lacked jurisdiction on a costs motion to award damages for alleged harms.

The court further found that the agency had acted appropriately in investigating serious medical concerns raised by healthcare providers and school officials regarding the child’s health.

Once credible medical information alleviated those concerns, the agency withdrew the application.

In these circumstances, a costs award against the agency was not justified.