James Wallace Oxley

Ms. Faddoul, counsel for the Respondent, was removed mid-trial due to a conflict of interest arising from her failure to properly appeal a prior final order.

After the trial was adjourned for the Respondent to obtain new counsel, Ms. Faddoul sought to be reinstated as counsel.

The court dismissed her motion, finding that the conflict of interest persisted and that allowing her to continue would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice and unfairly prejudice the Applicant by virtually guaranteeing an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court emphasized that the right to counsel of choice is not unlimited and must be balanced against the integrity of the justice system.

A motion by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection under subclause 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and for an order making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.

The respondent mother opposed the disposition sought.

On consent, statutory findings were made at the outset.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection, given the respondents' history of domestic violence, lack of parenting skills, anger management issues, and cognitive limitations.

The mother's plan for supervision was rejected as inadequate.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding that the child's best interests require certainty and permanency in a safe and stable environment that the mother cannot provide.