Court of Appeal

CASE NO.                                                  VOLUME                                                          PAGE

Cite as: L.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of Cape Breton, 1998 NSCA 120

L.M. and B.M.                                                                        THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

                                                                                                                         OF CAPE BRETON

                                                                        - and -

(Appellants)                                                                                                              (Respondent)

C.A.  No.  144059                                Halifax, N.S.                                   CROMWELL, J.A.

APPEAL HEARD:                                        April 17, 1998

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:             May 14, 1998

SUBJECT:           Guardian and Ward - permanent care order - agency plan;

          Courts - judges - disqualification

SUMMARY:        The Family Court made a permanent care order with no access with respect to a 3 ½ year old child.  The mother and step father appealed arguing that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction, that the judge had a conflict of interest and was biased, that the evidence did not support the making of a permanent care order, that there had been numerous procedural and evidentiary errors, that their lawyers did not represent them properly and that their Charter rights had been violated.

ISSUE:                 Did the Family Court Judge err in law or make a palpable and overriding error in her appreciation of the evidence?

RESULT: The appeal was dismissed.  The record did not disclose circumstances giving rise to any conflict of interest on the part of the judge or  that would lead a reasonable, fair minded and informed person to conclude that the judge would not approach the case with an open mind.  The judge did not commit any legal errors nor did she make any palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the evidence.  Her key findings on which the  permanent care order without access were based were amply supported by the evidence.  She made no error in fact or law in concluding that adoption would be in the child’s best interests.