Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. G.C.

Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. G.C.

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge, applying Kawartha‑Haliburton and the Family Law Rules, properly screened and admitted evidence and permissibly weighed credibility and drew inferences such that the admissible record (including three first‑hand affidavits, a willsay statement and a psychosexual assessment) established there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under s.74(2)(d) CYFSA; the appellant failed to pursue cross‑examination or present specific facts to create a genuine issue and appellate deference to the motion judge’s assessments was warranted.

Citation
2021 ONCA 400
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma; Respondent/appellant: G.C.; Respondent: C.P.; Respondent: S.B.; Respondent: Conseil des Abenakis D’Odanak; Respondent: Office of the Children’s Lawyer
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Child Protection Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order on Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Risk of Sexual Harm, Evidence Admissibility, Proportionality, Psychosexual Assessment, Cross Examination, Credibility Findings
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Protection Civil Procedure Appeals Summary Judgment Risk of Sexual Harm Evidence Admissibility Proportionality +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma

Applicant/respondent

G.C.

Respondent/appellant

C.P.

Respondent

S.B.

Respondent

Conseil des Abenakis D’Odanak

Respondent

Office of the Children’s Lawyer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Child Protection Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Order on Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle to determine need for protection under s.74(2)(d) CYFSA
  2. 2 Whether the principle of proportionality required a trial or oral evidence/mini-trial
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge properly admitted, weighed and assessed credibility of the evidence including psychosexual assessment and historical affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge, applying Kawartha‑Haliburton and the Family Law Rules, properly screened and admitted evidence and permissibly weighed credibility and drew inferences such that the admissible record (including three first‑hand affidavits, a willsay statement and a psychosexual assessment) established there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under s.74(2)(d) CYFSA; the appellant failed to pursue cross‑examination or present specific facts to create a genuine issue and appellate deference to the motion judge’s assessments was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No costs order made