L. David Toupin

The applicant Society brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 emergency period seeking an order regarding the safety of two children.

The mother's partner was being investigated for potential child abuse after concerning pictures were found on his computer.

The parents had agreed to a safety plan where the partner resided outside the home and had supervised access.

The triage judge dismissed the motion, finding no current urgency as the parents were complying with the safety plan and had not indicated any intention to revoke their consent.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child, who was born with drug withdrawal symptoms, continues to be in need of protection and should be placed in extended Society care.

The respondent parents, who struggled with ongoing substance abuse and failed to attend access visits, did not file responding materials or attend the motion.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and that it was in the child's best interests to be placed in extended care for the purpose of adoption.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship of two children for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children subject to society supervision, while the father was noted in default.

The court found that the mother's ongoing struggle with illicit substance abuse and her inability to maintain sustained abstinence posed a significant risk to the children, particularly given one child's developmental delays.

The court also noted concerns regarding ongoing contact with the abusive father.

The children were made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with the mother granted access at the society's discretion and the father denied access.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring a child in need of protection and requesting Crown wardship without access.

The court applied the Rule 16 summary judgment test from the Family Law Rules and found no genuine issue requiring trial on the question of protection status, relying on extensive evidence including prior child protection history, parental risk factors, and a psychological parenting capacity assessment.

However, the court held that the question of the child’s best interests and whether Crown wardship without access was appropriate required a full trial, particularly in light of evidence suggesting the mother possessed some caregiving capacity and had offered explanations for past conduct.

The motion was therefore granted in part, with a protection finding entered but the issue of permanent wardship reserved for trial.