The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a summary judgment decision rendered on September 29, 2014, in a child protection matter.
The mother sought to reopen the hearing based on newly received hair follicle drug test results from May 2014 and alleged factual errors in the judgment.
The court addressed the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether it was functus officio and determined it retained discretion to reconsider the judgment prior to the order being entered.
The court found that while the mother had not exercised due diligence in obtaining the test results, the evidence would not have changed the outcome given the totality of grave concerns including the mother's historical drug use, failure to cooperate with testing, violent conduct, poor judgment in child supervision, and refusal to accept responsibility for harm to the children.
The motion was dismissed.
