for the respondent Office of the Children’s Lawyer

The appellant father appealed a protection order concerning his twin sons, which had been dismissed by the Divisional Court.

His appeal to the Court of Appeal repeated allegations against various judges, social workers, and lawyers, and included claims of obstruction of justice.

Following a notice under Rule 2.1.01, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's pattern of accusations, litigation of already decided issues, and failure to pay costs.

The Appellant Mother appealed a child protection order that placed her child in the Father's custody with supervised access for the Mother.

The Mother alleged denial of procedural fairness, errors in admitting child's hearsay statements, allowing an expert to testify beyond his expertise, and an erroneous discretionary access order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness, proper handling of child's statements, appropriate expert testimony, and valid discretionary access order under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two daughters, whose access had been supervised since June 2014.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) proposed a discretionary, staged progression, while the Father sought a more rapid, automatic transition to unsupervised visits.

The court noted the Father's recent move, the lack of oversight in his proposal, and past issues with negative communication about the Mother and uncooperative behaviour with CAS staff.

The court adopted a structured, 10-week access progression plan proposed by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), with specific conditions for missed visits and ongoing oversight.

The court also provided suggestions for subsequent access stages, contingent on CAS approval of the Father's new residence and cohabitant.