In a child protection proceeding seeking Crown wardship, both parents brought motions to adjourn the scheduled trial until after the completion of related criminal proceedings against them.
The court held that the parents could testify in the child protection proceeding without prejudicing their criminal trial rights and that the statutory timelines under the Child and Family Services Act and Family Law Rules required timely resolution.
The court found no sufficient evidentiary basis to delay the matter beyond the statutory limits and dismissed the parents’ adjournment motions.
However, the court granted an adjournment to allow the father to retain new counsel after his lawyer withdrew for health reasons, and removed counsel of record.
The trial dates were vacated and rescheduled to a fixed date.
