Michael George Weissenborn

Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.

The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.

Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.

The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.

An appeal from an Ontario Court of Justice decision granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding and making two children Crown wards.

The appellants argued that the motions judge erred in law by failing to follow the statutory pathway under the Child and Family Services Act and by not properly considering a parental plan involving support from a grandparent.

The appeal judge reviewed the record and admitted fresh evidence concerning the parent’s continued substance abuse and instability.

The court found that the motions judge applied the correct legal test, considered less disruptive alternatives, and properly evaluated the proposed family support plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship disposition upheld.