J. Tigert

The appellant mother appealed a consent order making her daughter a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

She argued that she did not understand she was consenting to adoption and believed the children's aid society was withdrawing its application.

The Divisional Court reviewed the record, including the signed consent document and the appellant's subsequent communications, and found that she had independent legal advice, read the document, and understood its contents.

The court concluded the consent was valid and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant mother appealed a Crown wardship order.

At the hearing, a non-party requested to observe the proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the non-party to observe, finding the open court principle prevailed, subject to a strict publication ban under the Child and Family Services Act.

The court also granted the appellant's request for an adjournment to retain counsel or prepare, noting insufficient time remained to hear the appeal and fresh evidence motions that day.

The court seized itself of the matter and ordered the appellant to have no contact with the child pending the final determination.