Y. Fiamengo

The appellant mother appealed a child protection order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access following a summary judgment proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial judge had denied the mother’s adjournment request and proceeded despite her lack of counsel and late filings.

The appeal court held that, given the mother’s circumstances and the seriousness of permanently severing the parent‑child relationship, procedural fairness required granting an adjournment and allowing time to file an answer and parenting plan.

The record contained conflicting evidence regarding parenting ability, mental health, and access, raising credibility issues unsuitable for summary judgment.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant mother appealed an order of the Ontario Court of Justice making her child a Crown ward without access following summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The trial judge had denied an adjournment request and proceeded after the mother failed to file an Answer within the prescribed timeline.

The Superior Court held that, although procedural fairness was considered, the circumstances—including the mother’s lack of counsel, her efforts to obtain legal aid, and conflicting evidence regarding parenting ability and access—raised triable credibility issues inappropriate for summary judgment.

The court emphasized that credibility disputes and serious dispositions such as Crown wardship require careful procedural safeguards and, generally, a full trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.