Ken H. Nathens

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision awarding custody of the child to the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's carefully considered reasons, which focused on the child's best interests.

The trial judge had also ordered the father to pay for the mother's airfare to facilitate access due to her limited means.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.

The appellant mother appealed a Crown wardship order, arguing that the Children's Aid Society's prior contravention of s. 140(2) of the Child and Family Services Act rendered the order a nullity.

She also argued the trial judge relied on stereotypes about alcoholism and improperly compared her to the prospective adoptive parents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Society's procedural breach did not affect jurisdiction, the trial judge's assessment of alcoholism was based on evidence rather than stereotypes, and the wardship decision correctly focused on the mother's inability to provide care and the child's best interests.