The appellant mother appealed an order denying her access to her two children, who were made Crown wards without access.
The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the test for access under s. 59(2.1) of the repealed Child and Family Services Act.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly concluded that the appellant's relationship with the children was not 'significantly advantageous' to reach the threshold of 'beneficial and meaningful.' Although the motions judge erred in her analysis of whether access would impair future adoption, the court found that a court-mandated access order would indeed impair the children's opportunity for adoption.
