AK v JJ, 2024 ABCA 324.

After NK was removed from her mother’s care in 2018 and was placed with her maternal aunt and uncle (the Respondents) under a Customary Care Agreement (CCA), which her father, AK, later revoked. Despite AK seeking reunification and opposing the guardianship application, the trial judge granted permanent guardianship to the Respondents, concluding that it was in NK’s best interests to… Read Full Text ▼

After NK was removed from her mother’s care in 2018 and was placed with her maternal aunt and uncle (the Respondents) under a Customary Care Agreement (CCA), which her father, AK, later revoked. Despite AK seeking reunification and opposing the guardianship application, the trial judge granted permanent guardianship to the Respondents, concluding that it was in NK’s best interests to remain with them, and the Court of King’s Bench upheld that decision. AK argued that the lower courts failed to properly apply the Federal Act by giving insufficient weight to family reunification, Indigenous cultural continuity, placement priorities under s. 16, and the distinct best-interests analysis for Indigenous children. The Respondents maintained that the Act either did not apply because NK was no longer receiving family services or, alternatively, that it had been correctly applied. The Court held that the appeal presents significant questions of law with precedential value, particularly whether the Federal Act applies after a CCA is terminated and whether it modifies the best-interests analysis for Indigenous children. The Court concluded that AK’s appeal is arguable, has a reasonable chance of success, and is not frivolous.

Does this appeal raise important questions of law or precedent?

Does this appeal have a reasonable chance of success?

[22] The leave to appeal test was articulated by this Court in Mezo v Watts, 2021 ABCA 76 at para 11: To be successful on this application, the applicant must demonstrate: (1) there is an important question of law or precedent, (2) there is a reasonable chance of success on appeal, and (3) the delay will not unduly hinder the progress of the action or cause undue prejudice.

AK v JJ, 2025 ABCA 345.

JJ v AK, 2025 ABCA 113.

AK v JJ, 2024 ABKB 582.

AK v JJ and JJ, 2024 ABKB 467.

JJ v AK, 2023 ABCJ 166.

Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.
Rule 14.5(1)(i)

Szakaly v Smith, 2024 ABCA 171.

Mezo v Watts, 2021 ABCA 76.

Mckerness v Whitson, 2017 ABCA 207.

Belway v Lalande-Weber, 2017 ABCA 108.