Sherri Smolkin

Biological parents appealed a child protection order making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal alleged errors in findings of medical neglect, improper assessment of best interests under the Child and Family Services Act, and reasonable apprehension of judicial bias.

The court applied the appellate standards of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s factual findings or best‑interests analysis.

Most proposed fresh evidence was rejected except updated caseworker notes relating to the child’s circumstances.

The court held the trial judge properly considered the statutory factors and the ongoing protection concerns, including medical neglect, criminal conduct, and the parents’ abduction of the child.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order with no access was upheld.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order imposing conditions on access to audio tapes and a two-week notice period for further motions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that the condition regarding access to the tapes had already been complied with and the notice period was a procedural matter within the motions judge's discretion.

No costs were ordered.

The appellants, parents of a four-year-old child, appealed a decision making the child a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been apprehended at birth and previously found to be in need of protection.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding a lack of cooperation and failed to give sufficient weight to their positive visits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's key factual findings were supported by the evidence and the disposition was in the child's best interests.