Toni Hammond-Grant

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for a young child.

The evidentiary record included extensive affidavits detailing longstanding concerns involving domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues, unstable housing, and repeated non‑compliance with supervision orders.

The responding parents opposed the motion and sought either a trial, a return of the child to parental care under supervision, or placement with an alternative kin caregiver.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding the parents’ materials largely consisted of general denials and failed to address overwhelming evidence of risk and longstanding patterns of harmful conduct.

Summary judgment was granted, the child was made a Crown ward, and access was denied because the parents failed to establish that post‑wardship access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child or would not impair adoption prospects.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for one child, S.M., and a custody order in favour of the mother for the other child, G.M. The father, who was self-represented, opposed the motion and sought custody or access.

The court found that the father had a history of domestic violence, failed to complete a partner assault response program, and presented numerous unrealistic plans of care.

Finding no genuine issue for trial regarding S.M., the court ordered Crown wardship without access.

For G.M., the court ordered a 12-month supervision order with the child remaining in the mother's care and the father having access at the Society's discretion.

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship with no access for three children who had been apprehended due to severe neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and failure to thrive.

The mother, who struggled with mental health and addiction issues, did not participate in the trial.

The father sought return of the children, proposing to parent them with his new partner, a recovering alcoholic with a history of child welfare involvement.

The court found the children in need of protection, noting the father's passivity, poor judgment, and inability to recognize or address the children's basic needs.

Concluding that the father could not provide adequate care and that access would impair the children's opportunities for adoption, the court ordered Crown wardship with no access for all three children.

The children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application, seeking an order making the child a Crown ward without access for the purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking to have the matter remitted to trial.

The court held that the two-part test for Status Review applications established by the Supreme Court of Canada continues to apply despite legislative amendments.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection, the appropriate disposition of Crown wardship, or the termination of access, given the mother's longstanding inability to meet the child's physical and emotional needs and manage his behaviour.

The motion was granted and the child was made a Crown ward without access.