The appellant mother appealed a child protection order granting summary judgment to the child protection society and making the child a Crown ward for adoption.
The appeal alleged that the lower court shifted the burden of proof, improperly relied on hearsay evidence contained in the society’s affidavits, and that fresh evidence regarding counselling participation should be considered.
The appellate court held that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, including the allocation of the legal burden on the moving party and the evidentiary burden on the responding party.
After reviewing the transcripts, the court found no indication that the motion judge relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence.
The court therefore dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the Crown wardship order.
