Sarah Edwards

The children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking extended society care and significantly reduced access for three children.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding disposition, as the mother remained homeless and unable to provide stable care, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, noting the children's strong bond with their mother.

Using its expanded fact-finding powers, the court made a final order granting more frequent access than the society proposed, tailored to each child's specific needs and views.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that the child be placed in extended society care with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for over 24 months due to concerns regarding domestic violence, substance abuse, and the parents' mental health issues.

The father failed to file responding materials and his counsel was removed from the record at the start of the hearing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the parents' lack of insight, non-compliance with court orders, and the child's need for permanency.

The motion was granted, and the child was placed in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The applicant Society brought a motion under section 74 of the Child and Family Services Act for the production of the respondent mother's mental health records from various non-parties.

The mother consented to the records being produced to the Society but requested that they be vetted for relevance before being disclosed to the respondent grandmother and counsel for the children.

The court declined to vet the records, finding them clearly relevant to the child protection concerns, and ordered the Society to disclose the records to all parties, subject to conditions protecting the mother's privacy interests.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of the child to the mother, termination of the supervision order, no access to the father, and a restraining order.

The father opposed and sought a trial and placement of the child with him.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding ongoing protection concerns regarding the father including domestic violence history, inability to cooperate with the agency, inconsistent access, problematic interactions with the child, and lack of a viable parenting plan.

The court determined that continued access would undermine the child's stability with the mother and was not in the child’s best interests.

Custody was granted to the mother with no access to the father and a restraining order issued.