Lorne Glass

The mother appealed a Crown wardship order, arguing that institutional delays in the appeal process, specifically regarding transcript preparation, breached her s. 7 Charter rights by allowing the child to bond with a prospective adoptive family over four years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter application, finding that the delay did not cause the substantive prejudice alleged, as the passage of time also allowed the mother to improve her situation, but it remained in the child's best interests to stay with the adoptive family.

The mother was awarded costs for the Charter application payable by the Attorney General.

The appellant mother appealed an order making her child a Crown ward with no access.

The Court of Appeal previously ordered a new assessment because the proposed adoptive parents had separated.

The court-appointed assessor reported that the child was thriving with the adoptive family and would suffer emotional distress if moved.

The Court of Appeal accepted the assessor's recommendation, found it was in the child's best interests to remain with the adoptive family, and dismissed the appeal regarding Crown wardship and access.

A constitutional question regarding delay was deferred.

The mother appealed a decision dismissing her status review application regarding her child, who had been made a Crown ward with no access.

On appeal, both the mother and the Children's Aid Society sought to introduce fresh evidence, including evidence that the child's prospective adoptive parents had separated.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could impact the outcome, and ordered an assessment report to evaluate the impact of the separation on the child.

The court also requested submissions from the Attorney General of Ontario regarding the mother's claim that institutional delays violated her section 7 Charter rights.

The appeal was reserved pending receipt of the further material.