Tracy Lee Pybus

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara brought a motion under s. 121(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for a temporary order for care and custody of a child and a stay of a previous order by Bale J. The previous order had returned the child to the mother with conditions.

Justice Ramsay clarified the Divisional Court's jurisdiction for appeals under the CYFS Act, noting an appeal as of right.

The court found a palpable and overriding error in Bale J.'s decision to return the child to the mother given serious concerns about the mother's mental health and anger management, as reported by the maternal grandmother.

The motion was granted, varying Bale J.'s order to place the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, subject to the Society's supervision and specific conditions.

The motion for a stay was dismissed as unnecessary.

The appellant mother appealed an order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made her child a Crown ward without access following a summary judgment motion brought by the child protection agency.

The appeal challenged only the no-access component of the order.

The court held that the motion judge failed to analyze the statutory criteria governing post‑wardship access under the Child and Family Services Act, including whether the relationship was beneficial and meaningful and whether access would impair adoption prospects.

The judge also failed to address the child’s best interests and provided inadequate reasons, while later varying the access order without ensuring the mother or her counsel were present to make submissions.

The appeal was allowed, the no‑access order was set aside, and the access issue was remitted for trial.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the moving party sought interim supervised access to a child pending the hearing of an appeal from a Crown wardship order.

The motion also requested leave to file fresh affidavit evidence.

While the additional affidavits were not opposed, the court declined to vary the existing order denying access.

Applying s. 59(2.1) of the Act and relevant appellate authorities, the court emphasized that access to a Crown ward requires proof that the relationship is both beneficial and meaningful to the child and will not impair adoption prospects.

Given the impending appeal and the risk of disrupting the child’s welfare shortly before the appeal hearing, the court held it was preferable to leave the matter to the appeal judge.