Dr. Amin

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her daughter a Crown ward without access.

She argued the motion judge erred in denying her an adjournment to retain new counsel and present additional evidence, and in granting the order on the record before him.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding a new parenting assessment but found it did not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded the motion judge made no errors in denying the adjournment or in finding that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a decision dismissing her appeal of a summary judgment order in a child protection status review.

In a previous appeal, the Court of Appeal had directed that the status review proceed by way of a 'new trial' so the mother could adduce fresh evidence challenging a psychologist's parenting capacity assessment.

The matter was subsequently decided by summary judgment rather than a viva voce trial.

The motion judge accepted the fresh evidence and found the psychologist's assessment baseless, but still granted summary judgment maintaining the children in the father's custody based on the mother's ongoing problematic behaviour and parental alienation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the summary judgment motion constituted a 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and that no miscarriage of justice occurred since the motion judge accepted the mother's fresh evidence and the outcome was in the best interests of the children.

The appellant mother sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for a stay of a trial judgment pending appeal.

The trial judge had found the children to be in need of protection due to parental alienation by the mother and ordered them placed in the father's care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that a stay was not warranted, and set an expedited date for the hearing of the main appeal.

The appellant, the paternal grandmother of two young children, appealed a family court decision granting a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the family court judge's assessment of the children's best interests, particularly regarding the appellant's inability to prevent domestic violence and criminal conduct in her home.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the decisions below and dismissed the appeal.