T. Hammond-Grant

A motion brought by Hamilton Child and Family Supports seeking an extension of time under section 122 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 for a Métis child to remain in society care beyond the statutory 12-month limit.

The child's mother, who was incarcerated for manslaughter, has been released and is making substantial progress toward reunification.

The court granted a six-month extension, interpreting section 122 in light of the remedial nature of the federal legislation governing Indigenous child welfare and the principles of cultural continuity and substantive equality.

The paternal aunt and uncle brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of their eight-year-old niece, who had been in their care continuously since December 2018 due to her parents' substance abuse and neglect.

The parents did not respond to the motion or attend the hearing.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the motion.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' lack of progress and the child's strong desire to remain with her aunt and uncle.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding sole custody to the aunt and uncle with strict conditions for any future parental access.

The Applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that three children (K.M., M.B., and J.B.) were in need of protection and should be placed in the Society's extended care.

The children's mother opposed, proposing a customary care agreement.

The court found ample evidence of the children being in need of protection due to physical and emotional abuse and sexual assault.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered the children into extended Society care, rejecting the customary care agreement as it could not be coercively imposed and was not agreed upon by all parties.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to reinstate alternate weekend access to his two children, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the pandemic, determined that the issues raised were potentially urgent, given the alleged interruption of a long-standing time-sharing pattern.

The court set a schedule for the respondent to file responding materials and for the applicant to file a reply, with the matter to be scheduled for a future hearing.

The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be made a Crown Ward without access to the biological parents.

The mother opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial, while the father was in default and did not participate.

Applying Family Law Rule 16 and the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Evidence from a parenting capacity assessment and consistent observations of social workers demonstrated that the mother had not developed the ability to safely parent despite extensive services and supports.

The court concluded that the child’s best interests required permanent Crown wardship without access to allow prompt adoption.