H. James Wood

The children's aid society apprehended a child and applied for a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The society, the father, and the paternal grandmother all sought temporary care and custody of the child.

The court found that both the father and the grandmother had charge of the child immediately before the intervention.

Due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health crises, the court concluded there was a risk of harm if the child was returned to the parents.

The court ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother pursuant to section 51(2)(c) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward without access.

She sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing her former counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to request disclosure and an adjournment.

The Divisional Court admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding the new evidence would not have changed the outcome given the mother's history of substance abuse and non-compliance.

The court also rejected arguments that the motion judge erred in his treatment of sibling access and the denial of access to the mother, finding no errors in the consideration of the child's best interests and need for permanency.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her child a Crown ward without access.

She argued that her former counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to request disclosure and an adjournment, and that the motion judge erred in his treatment of access, including sibling access.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence would not have changed the outcome of the summary judgment motion and that the motion judge made no errors in his access determination.

The mother appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of her two children without access.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to find the apprehensions were unfounded, failing to adequately address a critique of the section 54 assessment, and failing to consider the maternal grandmother's potential support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and concluding that the trial judge's decision was child-focused and amply supported by the evidence.