The biological mother brought a motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent her two biological children in her underlying application to set aside an adoption order.
The underlying application was based on the reliance on flawed Motherisk drug testing reports in the original Crown wardship proceedings.
The Children's Aid Society and the adoptive parents opposed the motion as premature.
The court granted the motion, finding that the children's rights to participate and be heard were paramount, and appointed the Children's Lawyer pursuant to section 89(3.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.