Lisa Christine Hayes

The applicant society brought a motion in a child protection proceeding seeking a declaration that the respondent mother is a special party and requesting the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her legal representative.

The mother, who has indigenous heritage, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not taking her medication, and had missed recent court appearances.

The court found compelling evidence that the mother was mentally incapable of understanding or appreciating the risks and consequences of her decisions regarding the litigation.

As no family member was willing to act as her representative, the court granted the motion and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee.

This is a Status Review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three young children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The children had been apprehended in December 2015 and placed in continuous foster care.

The mother opposed the application and sought the immediate return of all three children to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order.

The court found that the mother suffers from untreated schizophrenia with poor insight and judgment, the maternal grandmother suffers from schizoaffective disorder and poses a risk of harm to the children, and the mother has demonstrated an inability to provide safe and effective parenting despite over 90 supervised access visits spanning approximately 18 months.

The court concluded that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children and made an order for Crown wardship with no access, finding this to be in the best interests of the children.

A motion to re-open an appeal in a child protection matter involving a nine-year-old boy who had been in care for over six years.

The biological parents sought to re-open the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their appeal from a Crown wardship order made by the trial judge.

The parents had previously appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed their appeal, and then to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed their appeal on its merits.

The motion was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parents were prohibited from bringing further motions without leave.

The appellants, the biological parents of a child, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making the child a Crown ward with no access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, bias, or palpable and overriding error in the lower courts' decisions.

The Court emphasized the child's need for permanency and stability after being in the care of the respondent for over five years, concluding that the child should be placed for adoption without further delay.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society apprehended a two-year-old child from non-biological caregivers who had cared for the child since birth.

The biological mother, who has profound hearing loss and other impairments, had placed the child with them.

The biological father, who is also hearing impaired, was largely kept out of the child's life by the caregivers.

The Society, the father, the maternal grandmother, and the caregivers all proposed plans for temporary care and custody.

The court found that the caregivers did not have legal 'charge' of the child prior to apprehension, as they had established their status quo by extra-legal means and by taking advantage of vulnerable parents.

The court ordered that the child be placed in the temporary care and custody of the biological father, finding it in the child's best interests.

The appellant mother requested an adjournment of her appeal regarding the Crown wardship of her son due to illness, missing transcripts, and a desire to obtain legal representation.

The respondent Society did not object.

The Court of Appeal granted a short adjournment on peremptory terms, directing the Society to expedite the transcripts and provide an update on the child's well-being.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and 37(2)(g) of the Act, and sought a crown wardship order for adoption purposes.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care with or without supervision, or alternatively, access if the child was made a crown ward.

The father did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, and her pattern of neglect resulting in physical and emotional harm, including developmental delays.

The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that the mother lacked the parenting capacity to meet the child's needs despite extensive supportive services, and that the relationship between mother and child was not significantly beneficial to the child.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment ordering that his child be made a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father raised numerous grounds of appeal, primarily challenging the trial judge's findings of fact regarding his parenting capacity, criminal history, and mental health, as well as the refusal to extend Society wardship or grant access.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings or application of the law, and ordered the child to be placed in an adoptive home without further delay.