Paul Brunetta

The appellant, a biological mother, sought access to her child who was adopted by the appellant's mother and her husband in 2015.

The appellant had consented to the adoption and sought no openness agreement at that time.

The application judge dismissed the application on the basis that the appellant lacked standing under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish either of two recognized exceptions to the rule preventing biological parents from accessing adopted children: (1) establishing a relationship with the child after adoption, or (2) receiving assurances of continued contact from the adoptive parents.

The court also found no evidence that permitting the application to proceed would be in the best interests of the child.

The court determined costs following its decision that the applicant, A.R., lacked standing to seek access to her adopted child.

The respondents, M.B. and E.B., sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, counsel rates, time spent, and the applicant's limited financial means.

The court found the case not overly complex, noted some unreasonableness in the applicant's conduct, and deemed the respondents' claimed hours excessive.

It disallowed certain disbursements and ultimately awarded the respondents $20,000 for fees plus HST, and $611.22 for disbursements plus HST, significantly less than the amount sought.