Dr. David McLean

The respondent children's aid society brought a motion to dismiss the parents' appeal of a Crown wardship order for delay.

The parents had failed to order transcripts or perfect their appeal within the required timelines under the Family Law Rules, instead engaging in numerous other unsuccessful legal proceedings.

The Divisional Court applied the factors for dismissing a child protection appeal for delay, finding that the parents had no prospect of ordering the transcripts, the delay prejudiced the children's need for permanency, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to allow a witness to testify via videoconference at an upcoming trial.

The witness suffered from severe back pain and had limited ability to travel or remain seated for long periods.

The court granted the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured videoconference testimony and that any concerns regarding cross-examination or assessing credibility could be addressed by the court's directions.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship without access for three children.

The children had been apprehended due to physical abuse and had significant special needs.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he could parent the children and challenging the society's evidence regarding his behaviour during access visits.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the father could not meet the children's complex needs and that Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption was in their best interests.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards for the purposes of adoption.

The mother sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother lacked the capacity to parent the children due to her anger management issues, inability to manage finances, and refusal to cooperate with professionals or accept medical treatment for the children's special needs.

The children were thriving in foster care.

The court ordered the children made Crown wards for the purposes of adoption, with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.