This motion concerned an application by D.A. for custody of or access to a child, A.H., under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA).
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, a respondent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss or strike D.A.'s application.
Dilico argued that D.A. was a foster parent prohibited from bringing such an application under Family Law Rule 7(4), and that there was no genuine issue for trial under Rule 16 because a valid customary care agreement (CCA) was in place, to which the court should defer.
The court dismissed Dilico's motion, finding that D.A. was not a "foster parent" as defined by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that Rule 7(4) does not prohibit a foster parent from commencing an application.
Furthermore, the court found the customary care agreements invalid due to lack of proper signatures and First Nation involvement, and that Dilico had acted outside its mandate.
The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the child's best interests and ordered the CLRA proceeding to continue, staying the customary care agreement.
