The mother appealed a summary judgment order that made her three-year-old child a Crown ward without access.
She brought a motion to stay the no-access order pending the hearing of her appeal.
The court found that the appeal raised serious issues, particularly regarding the motion judge's reliance on hearsay evidence and the mother's intention to introduce fresh evidence of her improved circumstances.
The court also determined that resuming supervised access was in the child's best interests, given the mother's positive interactions with the child and the risk of permanent psychological harm if access remained severed.
The motion was granted, and supervised access was ordered pending the appeal.
