The Society was seeking an Order of
Crown wardship with... Read more
Ontario Court Justice Penny Jones says meeting the deadline «is pretty impossible» if birth parents decide to fight
crown wardship.
At first instance, the Society successfully brought a motion for summary judgment seeking
Crown wardship no access for the two children.
The appellant mother appealed
a Crown wardship order in respect of three of her children, arguing that she had been inadequately represented by her trial counsel and that the children should have been placed with the maternal grandmother (who was herself, at the time of trial, involved in ongoing proceedings with child protection authorities vis - a-vis her own children).
L.G. and D.D. involved two unsuccessful appeals of
Crown wardship no access orders, whereas Bryce is an unsuccessful domestic appeal by a self - rep.
CAS v. A.F. was yet another unsuccessful parent appeal of
a Crown wardship order, summarily dismissed.
This was a self - rep appeal of
a Crown wardship no access order.
[It is somewhat unclear why the appellant made the s. 15 (3) argument before the ONCA, as a statutory breach would not, in itself, justify the setting aside of
the Crown wardship no access order.
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. L.T. concerned the dismissal of an appeal of
a Crown wardship order for delay.
At the hearing below, she had requested
a Crown wardship order that was silent as to access so that if at some point in the future her 10 - year old son wanted to see her, he could.
This was a mother's appeal of
a Crown wardship no access order.
Not exact matches
The appellant also argued that the trial judge should have extended CAS
wardship rather than make a
Crown ward no access order.