The mother appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of her two children without access.
She argued the trial judge erred by failing to find the apprehensions were unfounded, failing to adequately address a critique of the section 54 assessment, and failing to consider the maternal grandmother's potential support.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error, and concluding that the trial judge's decision was child-focused and amply supported by the evidence.
