Dr. Smiley

Child protection appeal concerning the standard of appellate review for disposition decisions under child protection legislation.

A child was apprehended by the Director of Child Protection; both the maternal grandmother and the biological father sought permanent custody at the disposition hearing.

The hearing judge awarded custody to the grandmother, finding it was in the child's best interests, but the Court of Appeal reversed and awarded custody to the father.

The Supreme Court restored the hearing judge's order, holding that appellate intervention is only warranted where there is a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error in law.

The Court held that a biological tie carries minimal weight in a best interests analysis and does not serve as a tie-breaker; a court may also consider the conduct of a child protection agency in determining how the status quo arose and assessing the weight of evidence presented by or through the agency.

The appellant property owner erected a large commercial sign on his land adjacent to Highway 401 without a permit.

The Minister of Transportation obtained a warrant to remove the sign pursuant to s. 38(2)(e) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing the provision infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the provision limited freedom of expression, the limit was prescribed by law and demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter to prevent visual pollution and enhance traffic safety.