David J. Elliott

The appellants (parents) appealed an interlocutory disclosure order from the Superior Court of Justice in a child protection matter.

The Court of Appeal found that the order was interlocutory and therefore the appeal should have been brought before the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

Following a trial held over three dates in 2016, the court found that the child was in need of protection due to the mother's mental health concerns, paranoid behaviour, inadequate supervision, and emotional harm to the child.

The child was ultimately returned to the mother's care on a voluntary basis.

The child protection agency sought costs against the mother, arguing that she had acted unreasonably by refusing to accept a statement of agreed facts and proceeding to trial despite two independent judicial findings of protection concerns.

The court awarded nominal counsel costs of $500 plus full disbursements of $2,569.40 against the mother.

This is a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving the placement and care of a child (RRH).

The applicant society sought temporary care and custody following fresh allegations of sexual abuse by one of the respondents (RM).

A prior custody order had been made in favour of the respondents based on a risk assessment indicating low risk.

However, new allegations emerged shortly before that order was released.

The court stayed the prior custody order and granted temporary care and custody to the applicant society while ordering supervised access to the respondents pending a full protection hearing.