David Ziriada

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision placing her two children in the extended care of the Children's Aid Society without access.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in finding the children were not Métis children under the CYFSA, in finding they were in need of protection due to sexual abuse or exploitation, and in excluding certain documentary evidence.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to identify the children as Métis, but concluded this error did not render the proceeding a nullity or change the ultimate disposition, as extended Society care was the only viable option to protect the children from the risks of domestic violence and sexual exploitation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The mother appealed a trial judge's final order making her child a Crown ward with no access.

The mother argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the parenting capacity assessments, ignored positive evidence of her progress, and erred in denying access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the evidence.

The court upheld the finding that neither the mother nor the maternal grandparents had the capacity to parent the child, and that the mother failed to prove access would be beneficial and meaningful without impairing future adoption opportunities.