J.W. Boich

The appellant, K.F., appealed a Crown wardship order concerning her child, Z.A.F. The appeal raised issues of systemic delay in child welfare proceedings, alleged misfeasance by the Children's Aid Society, the standard of appellate review, the weight given to expert evidence (Dr. Amin's parenting capacity assessment), and access to the Crown ward.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.

It emphasized that criminal law delay principles do not apply to child welfare cases and that continued access by the parent would impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

The applicant Children's Aid Society appealed a trial judge's order granting access to three children who had been made Crown wards.

The Society argued the trial judge erred in finding that access would not impair the children's future opportunities for adoption and by creating an access structure that contravened the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal court agreed, finding that the access order had deterred the only potential adoptive family, thereby impairing adoption opportunities.

The court also held that the trial judge exceeded her authority by creating a unique access reduction process that conflicted with the legislated scheme.

The appeal was granted and the access order was rescinded.

A mother appealed a summary judgment decision in child protection proceedings that found her child in need of protection and granted sole custody to the maternal grandparents.

The appellate court held that the motion judge relied heavily on inadmissible hearsay evidence, made unsupported credibility findings, and misapprehended key facts regarding the circumstances of the child's apprehension.

The court found the child had been voluntarily placed with grandparents prior to the Society’s involvement and was not in the mother’s care at the time of apprehension, undermining the protection finding.

The protection application was therefore ill-founded.

The order granting custody to the grandparents was set aside and the Society’s protection application dismissed.