Dr. Wayne Richardson

The applicant children's aid society brought a status review application seeking Crown wardship with no access for a seven-year-old child who had been in care for over half his life.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care.

The court considered a parenting capacity assessment that raised concerns about the mother's history of serial relationships and domestic violence, but noted recent stability in her life.

Weighing the risk of emotional harm from permanent separation against the risks of returning the child, the court found it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the mother's care subject to society supervision for 12 months with strict conditions.

A status review application brought by Bruce Grey Child and Family Services seeking an order of Crown wardship with no access for a child (D.J.M.R.) born in 2005.

The child had been found in need of protection in 2009 and had spent over half his life in the care of the Society.

The mother (K.A.A.) sought to have the child returned to her care.

The court found that while the mother had made positive changes including establishing a stable relationship free from domestic violence and demonstrating improved mental health management, significant concerns remained regarding her historical pattern of prioritizing romantic relationships over her children's needs and her limited parenting capacity as documented in a psychological assessment.

The court also found serious failures by the Society in implementing court-ordered sibling access.

Despite reservations, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the mother's care subject to 12 months of Society supervision with extensive conditions, rather than proceed with Crown wardship and adoption, given the child's strong emotional ties to his mother and the lack of a concrete adoption plan.

The appellant father appealed a Crown wardship order regarding his biological child.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal that he had separated from the child's mother, who had been found incapable of parenting.

The appeal judge refused to admit the fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence met the test for admission as it was highly relevant and potentially decisive.

However, applying the fresh evidence, the Court concluded that the child's best interests still required Crown wardship, given the child's strong bond with his foster family over the past 17 months.

The appeal was dismissed, but the costs order against the father was set aside.