Is there jurisdiction at the initial stage to make an order for consecutive trials?

[34] Consequently, I am bound by Fortowsky v. Roman Catholic Children’s Aid Society for Essex County, supra, and its progeny to find that there is no jurisdiction at the initial stage to make an order for consecutive trials or to hear an application under a provincial or federal custody statute notwithstanding that the child may not be in the care and custody of the society.

[35] At status review, a person granted care and control subject to supervision in the initial order or a foster parent appointed by the society has a bit of weight to throw around. If given standing under subsection 39(3), this person can propose a competing plan to that of a parent or society. However, it must be recalled that the court cannot consider these plans until the society has proved a continued need of protection, need for further intervention by court order, and, that the obligations in clause 15(3)(c) still cannot work to protect the child in the home. If the evidence to this point does not support the child’s being returned home, the court will consider the competing plans (if any) between the other person and the society in the interests of the child. If the evidence supports the child’s being returned home subject to supervision, then the court will consider the competing plans of the parents, the society (if any) and the persons set out on subsection 57(4) in the interests of the child. See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. Cidalia M., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165, 165 N.R. 161, 71 O.A.C. 81, 113 D.L.R. (4th) 321, 2 R.F.L. (4th) 313, 1994 CanLII 83, [1994] S.C.J. No. 37, 1994 Cars­well­Ont 376.