Linda Feldman

Appeals were brought from a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access.

The mother appealed the denial of access to three of her children, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer appealed on behalf of the children seeking access between the children and their mother and between siblings.

The court found the trial judge misstated the legal test by referring to access rather than the relationship being “beneficial and meaningful,” but held the error did not affect the outcome because the evidentiary record did not establish a beneficial and meaningful relationship as required by s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court further held that access would impair adoption opportunities.

The appeals were dismissed and Crown wardship with no access was confirmed.

The appellant grandmother appealed a summary judgment order finding her grandson to be a child in need of protection and making him a Crown ward with no access.

The grandmother argued the motions judge erred in applying the summary judgment test and assessing credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test and did not improperly weigh evidence or assess credibility, as the material issue was the undisputed lack of a relationship between the grandmother and the child.

The appellant mother appealed an order for Crown wardship without access regarding her child.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that the mother failed to provide evidence showing a realistic possibility that contact would be meaningful, beneficial, and in the child's best interests.

Fresh evidence regarding another child was deemed of limited assistance due to differences in age and the mother's involvement.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming Crown wardship without access.