J. Q.B. A.D. 1994 No. 120 J.C.M. IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF MELFORT IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, AND IN THE MATTER OF D.M., D.M, AND D.M. CHILDREN OF W.M. AND A.M., AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR SASKATCHEWAN FOR AN ORDER OF PERMANENT COMMITTAL TO THE MINISTER S. Eisner for the appellant, W. M. M. Annand for the Minister of Social Services JUDGMENT KLEBUC J. August 16, 1995 W. M. appealed the order of Diehl, P.C.J. pursuantto the provisions of s. 37(2) of The Child and Family ServicesAct, S.S. 1989, c. C-7.2, permanently committing his threechildren to the care of the Minister responsible for theadministration of the Act. The names and birth dates of the children are recorded as follows: D.W.M. born November 26, 1980; D.A.M. born November 26, 1980; D.M.A.M. born July 6, 1985. The children are presently in foster home. The learned trial judge provided written reasons wherein he carefully reviewed the applicable principles of law and applied them to the evidence. It is an establishedprinciple that an appeal court should not interfere with thefindings of fact by a trial judge unless the findings are notsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached by thetrial judge are clearly wrong so as to make the decisionunreasonable: Lensen v. Lensen, 1987 CanLII (SCC), [1987] S.C.R. 672 at 683; R. v. Andres, 1979 CanLII 2238 (SK CA), [1982] W.W.R. 249; 1979 CanLII 2238 (SK CA), Sask. R. 96 (Sask. C.A.). The transcript of the proceeding before the trial judge confirms that there was ample evidence of each child's need of protection as contemplated by s. 11 of the Act and that the best interests of each child would be served by permanent committal notwithstanding that none of them, based on the sparse evidence before the trial judge, is likely to be adopted. In my view, the trial judge did not misdirecthimself on the law or the evidence with respect to thegoverning principles as set out in Saskatchewan (Minister ofSocial Services) v. E.(S.), 1992 CanLII 8071 (SK QB), [1992] 5 W.W.R. 289; D.S. v.Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services), (1993) 108 Sask.R. 107; Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. R.G.,(1990) 1990 CanLII 7428 (SK QB), 88 Sask. R. 262, or on the application thereof to theevidence before him. The order of Diehl P.C.J. is confirmed and theappeal dismissed with costs.
A Father appealed an order permanently committing his 3 children to the care of the Minister of Social Services. HELD: Appeal dismissed. 1)It is an established principle that an appeal court should not interfere with the findings of fact by a trial judge unless the findings are not supported by the evidence or the conclusions reached by the trial judge are clearly wrong so as to make the decision unreasonable. 2)The trial judge did not misdirect himself on the law or the evidence with respect to the governing principles applicable to applications of this kind.