Miriam Bergart

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application seeking to place two children in the permanent custody of their respective grandparents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to their care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the parents' long-standing and unresolved issues with substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity, and lack of cooperation.

The court granted the motion, placing the children in the custody of the grandparents with specified access for the parents and sibling access.

In a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether five children continued to require protection and what permanent placement would serve their best interests.

The evidence established a lengthy history of child protection involvement involving severe neglect, unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, inadequate supervision, educational neglect, exposure to sexualized behaviour, and parental instability.

Both parents demonstrated significant limitations in parenting capacity, insight, and ability to meet the children’s complex developmental and emotional needs despite extensive services.

The court concluded that the children remained in need of protection and that returning them to either parent would expose them to serious risks of harm.

Crown wardship was ordered with structured supervised access to both parents and supervised sibling access.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that two children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The responding mother filed no materials and failed to attend court, while the father had been noted in default.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence including a parenting capacity assessment identifying significant parenting deficits, mental health concerns, instability, and the children’s ongoing special needs.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the best interests criteria under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that no less intrusive disposition could adequately protect the children.

The motion was granted, the children were made Crown wards without parental access, and sibling contact was ordered to continue pending adoption.