The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship of the appellant’s children in child protection proceedings.
The appellant alleged violations of Charter mobility rights arising from the disclosure of information by a child protection authority to authorities in the Netherlands after the family relocated there.
The court held that the disclosure was made to assist foreign authorities in determining the children’s best interests and did not breach the appellant’s Charter rights.
The court also addressed complaints about reliance on hearsay evidence and comments by the motion judge regarding the appellant’s request for a bilingual proceeding.
Although the appeal court found the motion judge erred in questioning the appellant’s French language ability, the appeal was dismissed as moot and without merit.
