her mother, that she is confused, and does not know what she should and can feel about her mother. She is at risk of depression. (…) J. needs to come to some resolution in relation to her mother. (…) It could be helpful for J. to have contact with her mother so that such a resolution can be achieved. (…) The recommendation is therefore that supervised visits with [the author] are reinstated. That J. is given a chance to know her mother. (…) Should it be considered that the visits are detrimental to J., they should be stopped and the reasons for the termination explained to her.” 10. [The author] shall not question J. regarding where she lives, her telephone number or where she attends school. 13. In the event [the author] fails to abide by any of these terms and conditions the access visits shall be terminated immediately and the CCAS shall have the right to determine if future visits shall take place.” 2.15 Access was removed again by the CCAS in August 1999 although the visits had gone well and the author fully complied with all access conditions at each visit. On the author’s motion to reinstate access, the access order was varied on 21 December 1999, in the best interests of the child. In December 1999, the child started living with new foster parents, who expressed the wish to adopt her. 2.13 In order to regain the care and control of her child or visiting rights, the author turned to various lawyers and eventually proceeded in person to pursue numerous motions and appeals to the courts during the years 1997 to 2000. In the result on 11 January 1999, on the CCAS’ request, the Ontario Court of Justice, relying on Dr. K.’s report, found the author to be under a “mental disability” and ordered that she not be allowed to pursue any further court proceedings in person. In the circumstances the Public Guardian and Trustee Office (PGT) was assigned as the author’s litigation guardian. 8 She claims that the PGT did not act on her behalf and tried to mislead her. The Court also ordered that the trial scheduled for February 1999 be postponed, as the PGT was not ready to proceed to trial. 2.16 On 8 December 1999, the author filed an application for judicial review of the entire child protection process in the Superior Court of Justice. The CCAS initiated a counter-application under Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, banning the author from continuing any proceedings she had commenced in any court, and preventing her from initiating any subsequent proceedings. On 8 March 2000, the Superior Court of Justice prohibited her from instituting further proceedings in any court, and ordered that all proceedings previously instituted in any court be discontinued. The Court’s reasoning was that the author had initiated numerous motions, appeals and applications, sabotaging the timetable of the trial regarding the protection of the child, and thereby seriously compromising the child’s welfare. 2.14 In June 1999, as a result of an order issued on 17 May 1999, access to her child was reinstated by consent on certain terms and conditions, among which: 2.17 On 26 June 2000, in the main trial on the child protection case, the Ontario Court of Justice made an order for crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption. The Court considered that “the evidence in this matter is overwhelming to permit the Court to find that the child is in need of protection and that there is overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that this child’s best interests can only be served by an order for crown wardship without access.” The Court further “firmly believed” that the author was a “seriously ill person”, and that if the child were to be left in her care, she would suffer not only physical harm but irreparable emotional damage. The Court based this finding on Dr. K.’s 1998 medical report, Dr. G.’s indication that “it is likely that this patient suffers from a paranoid personality disorder” and another doctor’s statement of 12 May 1998 that “While I have no direct confirmatory evidence of her suffering from a delusional disorder, I would feel that the material presented by Dr. K. and presumably to the Courts, would likely have stood up and would continue to do so”. None of these specialists came to Court to testify. “1. [The author] shall have supervised access to the child in the sole and absolute discretion of the CCAS. 2. Access shall be once every three weeks for a period of not more than 90 minutes. 4. [The author] shall remain in the visitation room at the CCAS office with the child at all times during the visits, fully supervised by CCAS employees. There will be a CCAS employee in the room at all times as well as a CCAS employee behind an observation mirror. 8 In an affidavit of 17 May 2000, a lawyer from the PGT indicated that the author had “demonstrated that she was capable of instructing and keeping legal counsel” in support of a motion for the PGT to be removed as legal representative for the author. 78