Katherine Hensel

The parents and two First Nations appealed a trial decision making two First Nations children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact, erred in finding Crown wardship was the least restrictive alternative, and that the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included significant parenting deficits, developmental delays that improved in care, and the need for stability.

The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant a new trial or a change to the order, affirming that Crown wardship with no access remained in the children's best interests.

In this child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two Native children were in need of protection and made orders regarding their placement.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with placement in a non-Native foster family (the S.D. family), while the maternal grandmother and the Algonquin Nation sought placement with the grandmother with CAS supervision.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to the grandmother's inability to protect them from unsupervised contact with their mother, who had a significant criminal history, and the grandmother's ongoing struggles with alcohol and dishonesty with authorities.

Despite the importance of cultural connection for Native children, the court prioritized the children's established attachment to their foster family, their expressed wishes to remain in that home, and their emotional security and stability.

The court ordered Crown wardship with the children remaining in the S.D. family's care, with reasonable access for the grandmother twice per year while the foster family resided in the United Kingdom.

Appeal in child protection proceedings where a First Nation community and a family member challenged a Crown wardship disposition.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing a short adjournment when approximately 1500 pages of disclosure were provided on the first day of trial, preventing meaningful review and the ability to obtain counsel.

They also argued the trial judge failed to give adequate consideration to the children’s Indigenous identity, culture, and heritage in determining their best interests, particularly where the foster placement had relocated the children to the United Kingdom.

The court held that denying the adjournment constituted a denial of natural justice and that insufficient weight had been given to cultural identity considerations.

The original judgment was set aside and a new trial ordered before a different judge.