Mathew David Poole

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.

This ruling addresses a status review proceeding by summary judgment motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court assessed whether the child, "G", remained in need of protection due to emotional harm stemming from past domestic violence involving the parents and the father's ongoing actions.

While the mother had made significant progress in her ability to protect the child, "G" continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors and fear related to the father.

The court denied the Society's request for a deemed custody order, opting instead for a protection order.

This order placed the child in the mother's care subject to nine months of Society supervision, with no access for the incarcerated father until he brings a new application and demonstrates reduced risk.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application seeking to terminate its supervision order and impose a deemed custody and no access order for the child with the Mother and against the Father.

The Father opposed, arguing the motion was premature and impacted his access claim.

The court found deficiencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the Mother's therapeutic progress, the child's trauma counselling, and the Father's in-custody rehabilitation.

Consequently, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead directed a mini-trial to gather specific, clarified evidence on these issues to determine the child's need for future protection and best interests.