Sophie Côté-Langlois

The applicant mother sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making her child a Crown ward with no access for adoption purposes.

The applicant was 11 days late in filing her motion.

She explained the delay was due to attempts to secure financing, finding appeal counsel, and counsel's illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for extension of time, finding no potential merit to the proposed leave to appeal application.

The trial judge and Divisional Court had thoroughly considered all grounds of appeal and found ample evidence supporting Crown wardship as being in the child's best interests.

The children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a four-year-old child.

The society sought to have the child remain in the mother's care, subject to strict supervision by the maternal grandfather, due to allegations of physical abuse involving the mother's partner and another child.

The mother opposed the supervision order, while the father sought temporary custody.

The court found credible evidence that the child would be at risk of harm if left unsupervised with the mother or her partner.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering that the child remain with the mother under the grandfather's supervision, with the father having access every second weekend.

Les intimés ont présenté une motion pour jugement sommaire afin de rejeter une requête en protection de l'enfance, alléguant que l'enfant était âgée de 20 ans au moment du dépôt de la requête, dépassant ainsi les limites d'âge statutaires de la Loi sur les services à l’enfance et à la famille.

La requérante, Valoris, a contesté cette motion, affirmant que l'enfant avait 15 ou 16 ans, se basant sur des documents officiels.

Le tribunal a examiné des preuves documentaires et orales contradictoires concernant la date de naissance de l'enfant et le décès de sa mère.

La Cour a jugé que les documents officiels burundais et canadiens, ainsi que l'historique personnel et scolaire cohérent de l'enfant, soutenaient l'âge de 16 ans.

Les intimés n'ayant pas prouvé, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, que l'enfant avait plus de 16 ans, la motion pour jugement sommaire a été rejetée.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the application, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, placement of the eldest child with the paternal grandparents.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and lack of parenting capacity, which resulted in significant emotional and behavioral issues for the children.

The court admitted the children's out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

Concluding that the parents and grandparents could not meet the children's special needs, the court ordered Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption.