The appellant mother brought a motion to stay a Crown wardship order without access pending appeal.
The underlying order granted summary judgment to the child protection society and placed the child in Crown wardship for purposes of adoption.
The court applied a two‑part test requiring an arguable issue on appeal and a determination of the child’s best interests under s. 69(4) of the Child and Family Services Act.
The judge found no arguable merit in the proposed appeal grounds and concluded that reinstating access would not be in the child’s best interests given the child’s stability with foster parents and evidence of anxiety related to access.
The motion for a stay and interim access pending appeal was dismissed.
