Samantha Levenson

Parents appealed a summary judgment order making their children Crown wards without access in a child protection proceeding.

The appeal challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether Crown wardship was the least disruptive alternative in the children’s best interests under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court held that the evidentiary record revealed no material factual disputes, but rather disagreements about the interpretation of undisputed facts concerning the parents’ commitment and capacity to parent.

Given the statutory time limits on society wardship and the children’s need for permanence and stability, summary judgment was appropriate.

The appeal from the denial of post‑Crown wardship access was also dismissed because the parents failed to adduce evidence satisfying the statutory test requiring proof that access would be beneficial and would not impair adoption prospects.

This is a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a four-year-old child with significant developmental delays and special needs is in need of protection and should be made a crown ward for adoption.

The mother opposed the application and proposed placement with the paternal aunt under a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to physical and emotional harm risks, including unsanitary home conditions, the mother's untreated mental health issues (including auditory hallucinations and depression), and the child's unaddressed special needs.

The court rejected both the mother's and paternal aunt's proposed plans as inadequate, finding neither capable of providing appropriate full-time care.

The court made a crown wardship order to enable adoption placement.