In a child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act, the Society moved for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access.
The child had been in care since birth and the parent had a longstanding history of child protection involvement, unstable housing, inconsistent access attendance, and exposure to domestic violence and substance-related concerns.
The responding parent filed no materials and made no substantive submissions to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.
The court held that the evidentiary record established a prima facie case that the child remained in need of protection and that no less intrusive alternatives were available.
Summary judgment was granted making the child a Crown ward without access in order to permit permanency planning through adoption.
