Stephen Lawrence Zap

Child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act where the applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with a view to adoption for a young child who had been in foster care with paternal relatives for more than two years.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to earlier neglect, poor parental decision‑making, and developmental concerns.

However, the evidence showed significant improvement by the mother, including stable housing, consistent participation in services, and successful unsupervised access visits.

Applying the CFSA principle that the least intrusive order consistent with the child’s best interests must be made, the court concluded Crown wardship was premature.

The child was returned to the mother’s care under a 12‑month supervision order with detailed conditions and continued oversight by the society.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning custody and access to a child, the court determined the successful party's entitlement to costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, settlement offers, and the factors under Rule 24(11), noting the absence of bad faith and the financial limitations of the parties.

While the applicant claimed approximately $18,529, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs.

A biological father sought custody of his three‑year‑old child, who had primarily been raised by the child’s great‑grandmother and later jointly cared for by extended relatives.

The mother supported the relatives’ custody claim and acknowledged she was presently unable to parent due to substance abuse and instability.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the child’s established bonds with caregivers, the father’s relationship with the child, and competing long‑term care plans.

Independent assessments from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and a home study in Iowa supported the father’s parenting capacity and proposed family environment.

Despite the stability of the relatives’ current arrangement, the court held that the child’s long‑term interests favored placement with the biological father and ordered that the child relocate to live with him in Iowa, with structured ongoing contact for the Canadian caregivers.