Samantha-Leigh Levenson

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Aid Society sought a protection finding on summary judgment based on drug abuse concerns at the time of apprehension two years prior, while seeking only an order for the child to remain with the respondent mother with no supervision order.

The respondent mother opposed the summary judgment motion and sought dismissal of the application.

The court addressed the critical issue of whether the timing for determining if a child is in need of protection is at the date of apprehension or at the date of the hearing.

The court rejected the restrictive approach limiting consideration to the hearing date and held that courts have discretion to consider circumstances at the apprehension date, the hearing date, or other dates depending on circumstances.

Both summary judgment motions were dismissed as there remained a genuine issue for trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking statutory findings, a protection finding, and an order making two young children (ages 2 and 1) wards of the Crown.

The respondent mother opposed the motion.

The respondent father did not participate.

The court found no triable issue on the statutory findings and protection finding, granting summary judgment on those issues.

On disposition, the court found the mother had a long history with the society, significant unaddressed mental health and medical issues, a pattern of missing access visits and Plan of Care meetings, and had not demonstrated any meaningful change.

The father was found to be disengaged and unreliable.

The court granted summary judgment on crown wardship as the least disruptive order in the children's best interests.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the access issue, finding insufficient evidence to fairly determine whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The matter was adjourned for a structured hearing on access.

A mother appealed a Crown wardship and no-access order made following a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal challenged the trial judge’s findings regarding kinship placement with the maternal grandmother and alleged errors in weighing evidence, assessing the grandmother’s plan, and considering expert psychological evidence.

The court held that the trial judge applied the correct statutory framework under the CFSA, properly considered kinship placement, and made factual findings supported by the evidence.

The appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error or an error of law.

Fresh evidence regarding the grandmother’s post‑trial efforts did not justify disturbing the disposition given the child’s need for stability and permanency.