3 total
The court ordered crown wardship without access for a child apprehended at birth.
A child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth.
The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order without access for adoption purposes.
The respondent parents opposed the application and sought either dismissal or, alternatively, a society wardship order followed by a supervision order.
The court found the child was in need of protection based on the parents' extensive prior child protection history, the mother's criminal convictions including fraud offences, the father's inconsistent commitment to parenting, and the lack of a viable plan for the child's care.
The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that permanency planning through adoption was in the child's best interests.
Conviction appeal dismissed; trial judge's error in relying on co-accused's statement cured by proviso.
The young person appealed his convictions for robbery and weapons dangerous, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on a co-accused's statement, the verdicts were unreasonable, and the reasons were inadequate.
The Crown conceded the trial judge erred in referring to the co-accused's statement but argued the proviso should apply.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence from the other occupants of the van was compelling and the trial judge's reasons adequately explained the basis for conviction despite the error.
Appeal of arbitration decision terminating weekly income benefits dismissed; arbitrator's findings of fact and application of law upheld.
The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the respondent terminated them.
An arbitrator found that while the appellant suffered from accident-related pain, he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a machinist.
The appellant appealed, arguing the arbitrator misapprehended the medical and surveillance evidence, misapplied the test under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the hearing was unfair because he was unrepresented.
The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, the correct legal test was applied, and the arbitration process was fair.
