| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
for the purpose of adoption |
|
|
Summary:
In order to give full and proper effect to the court Order granting the claimant his wife permanent custody of the children, it is necessary to include their situation as one of the situations envisaged, by Parliament, as falling within the purview ofsection 20 of the Act. The children were placed with the claimant and his wife " for the purpose of adoption," and their's is effectively, an adoption situation. To conclude otherwise would not only go against the specific wording of the provision and intent of the legislation, but also would diminish the scope and meaning of another court's legally binding order. **Board applied the test of whether or not the children actually had been adopted by the claimant. However, that is not the test according to the wording of the provision. The correct test is whether or not the children had been placed for the purpose of adoption, rather than whether they had been adopted or not. Board erred in law by applying the incorrect test.**Because there are no legally sanctionned open adoptions in Ontario, a custody order, rather than an adoption order, was deemed appropriate and consistent with the children's best interest, as required by the laws. It provided protection and stability fro the children and allowed contact with their family of origin.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
actually placed |
|
|
Summary:
"The placing" of a child, for the purposes of the Act, refers to actual, physical custody. Generally, physical custody of a child occurs prior to actual adoption, which, in accordance with provincial law, usually occurs at a later date by final court order. The date of the placement, not the date of the court order, governs payment of benefits.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| parental benefits |
charter |
|
|
Summary:
A liberal construction of section 20 of the Act is that it speaks not only to those claimants who have already commenced adoption proceedings and have physical custody of the child, but also those claimants who have legal and actual custody of the children and intend to adopt those children and can prove that intent whether or not the adoption actually takes place
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
errors in law |
misinterpretation of provision |
|
Summary:
Board applied the test of whether or not the children actually had been adopted by the claimant. However, that is not the test according to the wording of the provision. The correct test is whether or not the children had been placed for the purpose of adoption, rather than whether they had been adopted or not. Board erred in law by applying the incorrect test.
