Jeffrey W. Boich

The appellant mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal for delay.

Her original appeal was from a summary judgment finding her child in need of protection.

The mother failed to perfect her appeal within the 14-day period mandated by Rule 38(22), mistakenly believing she needed a transcript of submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle by the status hearing judge, as the paramount consideration was the best interests of the child and the need for expeditious resolution of placement and access issues.

The appellant appealed a decision placing her children under Crown wardship without access, arguing that the hearing judge intervened improperly by extensively questioning witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that in child protection proceedings, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.

The hearing judge was justified in seeking further information to clarify unusual testimony, and the questioning did not reach the level of showing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant mother appealed the lower court decisions finding her children in need of protection and placing them under the supervision of the Children's Aid Society with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the decisions below.

The Court noted that the protection and placement issues, as well as the mother's access, would be fully considered at an upcoming mandatory status review hearing.