Cory B. Deyarmond

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order finding his two children in need of protection and placing them in the sole custody of the mother.

The father, who had not seen the children in over four years, alleged widespread misconduct by judges, lawyers, and social workers, but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's decision, and upheld the refusal to grant an adjournment.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision affirming a trial judge's order that denied him access to a child placed in extended society care.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the appellant had standing to appeal under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and concluded that determining the appeal on the merits was in the child's best interests.

The Court admitted fresh evidence regarding the child's wishes to be adopted without ongoing access by the appellant.

Finding no error in the courts below and prioritizing the child's best interests, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, the mother and a family friend, appealed a disposition order placing a 10-year-old child in the extended care of the Society for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in relying on a court-ordered parenting assessment, making different access orders for siblings, and failing to recognize their remedial efforts.

The appeal court admitted some fresh evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly prioritized the child's best interests.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the actions of the Hastings Children's Aid Society following the apprehension of their children.

The applicants alleged that the Society ignored their complaints, failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding access visits and the children's care, and did not give them an opportunity to be heard.

The Board found that while the Society had provided some explanations, it failed to adequately address all of the applicants' concerns or provide written reasons.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to address their concerns and to provide written reasons and responses to all complaints within thirty days.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision granting Crown wardship without access of her child to the Children's Aid Society.

The child was apprehended at birth due to concerns about the mother's cognitive delays and lack of parenting ability.

The mother argued she was not given adequate opportunity to learn to parent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the evidence, including psychological assessments, and correctly concluded that the mother lacked the ability to acquire and convert parenting information practically, even with assistance.