The mother appealed an order granting summary judgment in a child protection proceeding that made the child a Crown ward without access.
The motion judge had concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, given the child’s prolonged time in care, consistent refusal to return to the mother, and the statutory limits on continued Society wardship under the Child and Family Services Act.
On appeal, the mother argued the wrong legal test was applied and that the judge relied excessively on hearsay statements attributed to the child.
The court held that the correct summary judgment test was applied and that even if the expanded fact‑finding powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure had been considered, the outcome would have been the same.
The evidence established no triable issue, and the motion judge properly relied on professional reports reflecting the child’s consistent views and therapeutic assessments.
