Ms. Estee Garfin

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and a dispositional order for crown wardship with a view to adoption.

The respondent father opposed both orders and sought return of the child under a supervision order.

The respondent mother consented to the crown wardship order.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on the finding of need of protection or on the crown wardship order, and granted both.

However, the court determined that the access issue raised complex triable issues requiring a viva voce hearing and ordered a trial of that issue, appointing the Children's Lawyer to represent the child.

This is a motion for access brought by the father to his two children within the context of a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection application.

The father faced criminal charges for sexual assault and sexual interference with his daughter.

The Children's Aid Society opposed access, arguing that contact with the alleged abuser would be harmful to the child during trauma assessment and treatment.

The court found credible and trustworthy evidence of sexual molestation but determined that supervised access could be safely structured.

The court rejected the Society's reliance on an unqualified expert opinion and found a presumption in favour of access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court granted temporary supervised access at the Society's office at least twice per week, subject to specific conditions.