Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services v GK, 2024 ONSC 3018.

Has the Society established, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to whether the children continue to be in need of protection?

Has the Society established, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to the dispositions requested by the society? 

[60] Parents must put their best foot forward on a motion for summary judgment. A parent’s case must rest on more than mere denials or a heartfelt desire to resume care of a child. There must be clear evidence that a parent faces better prospects than what existed at the time of apprehension and that the parent has developed some new ability as a parent. A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent.[7]



[74](n) According to the OCL, the children have been clear, consistent and unanimous in their wishes to be placed together in one household. The children are exceptionally close. They thrive when they are together, building memories, and supporting one another. I note that through all of the chaos in their lives, the children have always had each other. They are a source of comfort and support to one another, and it is a priority that they be placed together for their mental and emotional health.



[74](u) Whether the children remain in Ontario or are placed in Calgary, Alberta, there will be a travel barrier for one of the parents as the mother is currently in Ontario and the father is currently in Calgary, Alberta. However, there is no available family placement in Ontario, whereas there is a family placement in Calgary, Alberta. Considering the inconsistency in the mother’s access since these proceedings commenced, the uncertainty as to whether she will be able to address or mitigate the protection concerns, the fact that she is already residing some distance from the children, and the benefits to the children of the day-to-day security, stability and support available to them from a placement with Sk.K., I find that it is in the children’s best interests to pursue the placement. I would add that even if both parents were residing in Ontario, I would find that the benefits to the children of the placement with Sk.K. outweigh the negative impact on the parental access for the same reasons as stated above.



[81] While I appreciate that the parents may view this decision as a defeat or as a criticism of themselves, that is not the intention. I recognize that the issues the parents are struggling with (including substance use, domestic violence and mental health) are long-standing and deep-seated and that they will take a great deal of time and effort to address or mitigate. The parents are strongly encouraged to renew their efforts to address these issues for the benefit of their children, and for the benefit of themselves.

None.

• Section 10

Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sched 1.
Sections 74(2) & (3); 101(1)(1) & (7); 104; 105

Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99. 
Rule 16

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v RH, 2000 CanLII 3158 (ONCJ).

Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v MW, 2019 ONCA 316.

PF v AW, 2016 ONCJ  714.