During a highly complex and lengthy child protection trial, the oldest child turned 18.
The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to vary the order appointing a lawyer for the child and to remove the OCL as his legal representative, arguing that the child was no longer a 'child' under the Child and Family Services Act.
The court found that while the child aged out of the statutory provisions, fairness and due process required his continued legal representation.
The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the child's lawyer continue to represent him and that the OCL continue to fund the representation until the completion of the trial.