2 total
The father's motion to reinstate unsupervised access was dismissed due to ongoing child protection and supervision concerns.
A motion brought by the respondent father to reinstate unsupervised access to two younger subject children following the suspension of such access by the child protection agency.
The court determined that while the agency had authority under the discretionary terms of the prior order to suspend access without a further court order, it would have been preferable for the agency to bring a motion.
The court found serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the father's supervision of the children, including evidence that the oldest child was caring for younger siblings while the father remained in his locked room, insufficient food in the home, and the apprehension of another child in the father's care.
The father failed to comply with multiple terms of the court order and provided no evidence of a plan to address the supervision concerns.
The motion for unsupervised access was dismissed.
Summary judgment for extended care was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and procedural failures.
Motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The applicant Society sought preliminary findings regarding the child's First Nations status, protection findings under section 74(2)(b)(i), and an order for extended care with no access.
The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies.
The court emphasized the Society's failure to make timely inquiries regarding the child's First Nations status and native community identification, contrary to section 90(2) of the CYFSA.
The court also found the Society's evidence regarding the parents' ability to care for the medically fragile child to be inadequate, lacking sufficient detail and failing to demonstrate that the Society had provided individually appropriate services to address protection concerns.
