James L. Murray

Parents appealed orders arising from a child protection proceeding in which the children were made Crown wards on a motion for summary judgment.

The mother appealed the denial of a trial regarding her claim for access, arguing procedural unfairness and inconsistent endorsements in the record.

The father appealed the Crown wardship order, alleging procedural unfairness, denial of cross‑examination, and improper reliance on delay and outstanding criminal charges.

The court held that natural justice required that the mother be granted a hearing on the issue of access, particularly given conflicting decisions in the record and questions surrounding the circumstances of her lack of contact with the children.

However, the father failed to demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the wardship decision, and his appeal was dismissed.

A status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving six children of Ms. K. with two different biological fathers.

The Children's Aid Society sought to determine whether the children remained in need of protection.

Ms. K. sought custody of the S children and opposed the Society's involvement.

Mr. S. sought custody of the four S children and child support.

The court found that neither group of children remained in need of protection.

Custody of the S children was awarded to Mr. S., with no access granted to Ms. K. at that time.

The G children were returned to Ms. K.'s custody.

Child support was ordered.

The court declined to make a vexatious litigant order despite evidence of prolonged litigation.