Justice Bruce E. Pugsley

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought motions for interim openness orders permitting sibling contact between two children who had been separated for nearly four years.

The respondent adoptive parent opposed the orders, fearing that contact would lead to reintroduction of the biological parent into the child's life.

The court granted the interim orders, finding that the sibling relationship had been previously determined to be valuable and that the failure to maintain contact resulted from administrative and discretionary failures by the child welfare agency and the adoptive parent's resistance, not from any change in the children's best interests.

The court implemented a gradual restoration of contact through letters, cards, and supervised face-to-face meetings.

The applicant child welfare agency sought direction from the court regarding an adoption order made in March 2013.

The agency had failed to comply with statutory notice requirements under the Child and Family Services Act before placing the child for adoption.

Specifically, the agency did not provide required notice to the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding existing access orders between the adopted child and her sibling.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to temporarily set aside the adoption order to allow the notice requirements to be fulfilled and to permit applications for openness orders to be made on the merits, balancing the policy of adoption finality against fundamental fairness to the affected children.

The appellant appealed his conviction for speeding 120 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.

The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal including alleged Charter violations regarding the use of the word "Offence" on the Notice of Trial, challenges to the radar device testing procedures, concerns about the certification of speed on the Certificate of Offence, jurisdictional issues, and objections to the amendment of the Certificate.

The appeal court dismissed all submissions, finding no Charter breach, no impropriety in the radar testing or certification, proper jurisdiction, and valid amendment procedures.

The conviction and sentence were upheld.