COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Thorburn, Madsen and Rahman JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Applicant (Respondent)
and
A.W.
Respondent (Appellant)
and
S.W.
Respondent (Respondent)
A.W., acting in person
S.W., acting in person
Kevin Williams, for the respondent, Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Molly C. Leonard, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer on behalf of the Child
Heard: June 12, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Heather A. McGee of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 22, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The mother, A.W. (“the mother”) appeals a Superior Court of Justice order (the “SCJ order”) dismissing her motion to extend time to appeal a child protection order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on March 7, 2026 (the “OCJ child protection order”). She seeks an order setting aside the SCJ order and granting an extension of time to appeal the OCJ child protection order.
2The OCJ child protection order was the result of a multi-week trial and determined that the child was in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, placing him in the care and custody of his father, S.W. (“the father”). The OCJ child protection order was effective March 7, 2025, but the order was not issued and entered until June 9, 2025. A related order incorporating the parenting terms set out in the OCJ child protection order was made pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, which was issued and entered on June 24, 2025.
3The mother sought to appeal the OCJ child protection order but did not serve the required notice of appeal within 30 days of the effective date of the OCJ child protection order. On September 25, 2025, she brought a motion before the Superior Court of Justice seeking an extension of time to file her notice of appeal. The motion was heard on October 30, 2025. The motion judge dismissed the mother’s motion in detailed reasons dated December 22, 2025.
4The mother makes numerous arguments on appeal, many of which do not address the substance of the SCJ order. The arguments cannot succeed.
5The motion judge’s reasons demonstrate that she fully considered the mother’s arguments in support of an extension of time. She correctly set out and applied the applicable legal test. She made detailed findings of fact while comprehensively addressing each element of the test for an extension of time in a child protection matter. The motion judge accepted that the mother had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, a factor that favoured an extension of time. However, she found, in light of the extended litigation below, that the child would be significantly prejudiced by an extension of time. Having assessed the mother’s proposed appeal, she found it to be without merit, focused on the mother’s personal beliefs and asserted rights rather than on the best interests of the child. Based on these findings, she concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension of time.
6We recognize the importance of this issue to the mother and her view that the child’s best interests would be served by being in her care.
7However, for this court to interfere, there must be a reviewable error of law or fact on the part of the motion judge. The motion judge’s reasons do not disclose any such error.
8For the reasons above, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs of the appeal.
“Thorburn J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”
“M. Rahman J.A.”
Footnotes
- This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.