Patricia Anne File

The applicant children’s aid society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review proceeding relating to a prior Crown wardship with access order.

The society argued that the Crown wardship component of the consent order was final and that only the access terms could be reviewed, seeking amendment of the access provisions to facilitate adoption placement.

The respondent parents contended that they consented to the order on the understanding that the children could be returned to them after demonstrating stable housing and parenting capacity.

The court held that several genuine issues for trial existed, including the interpretation of the consent Crown wardship order, the circumstances of the parents’ consent, and the children’s best interests regarding possible return to parental care or adoption.

Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

On an amended temporary care motion in a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought to vary an existing temporary order and place two children in its care pending trial.

The matter involved concerns about unexplained injuries to a child, repeated medical issues affecting the children, domestic violence between caregivers, and unsafe living conditions including drug paraphernalia and unsanitary housing.

The court considered the statutory framework under s. 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act and rejected the necessity of a strict two‑stage “material change in circumstances” analysis, emphasizing the court’s ongoing obligation to assess risk of harm to the children.

The court found that the cumulative events and health concerns established that the children faced risks that could not be adequately addressed by supervision alone.

The temporary order was varied to place the twins in the society’s care, while another child remained in kinship placement with supervised parental access.