Ruling notes Adoption Act only required adult adoptees to be Canadian citizens or residents
The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court permitted the adoption of two adults residing in Nova Scotia, noting that s. 50(2) of NL’s Adoption Act required adult adoptees to be Canadian citizens or permanent residents, but not necessarily NL residents.
In M.S. and D.W., 2025 NLSC 157, the appellants resided in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL. Before the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, they tried to file two applications to adopt two adult children under the Adoption Act.
The two adult children – K.C., born on Jan. 23, 1987, and B.C., born on Jan. 28, 1984 – were Canadian citizens living in Nova Scotia. They expressed their consent to the appellants’ adoption.
The Provincial Court judge reviewed the matter in chambers and decided to refuse permission to file the applications. Upon an inquiry from the appellants’ solicitor, the court registry advised that:
- There was no endorsement
- The judge found that the adoption could not occur in NL because the adult children were Nova Scotia residents
- The judge could revisit the applications if the appellants had case law or evidence contradicting this finding
On appeal, the appellants alleged error in the applications judge’s determination that the Adoption Act required prospective adult adoptees to be NL residents.
Adoption to proceed
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador allowed the appeal upon determining that the applications judge committed an error in refusing the appellants permission to file their applications.
The Supreme Court granted the appellants’ requested orders without needing to remit the matter to the Provincial Court, given the applications filed, the affidavits submitted, and the adult children’s consent forms and continuing consent.
The Supreme Court ruled that the applications complied with the requirements of s. 50 of the Adoption Act.
First, the Supreme Court noted that s. 50(1) allowed one adult alone or two adults jointly to apply to adopt an adult. Based on the applications, the Supreme Court held that the appellants met this subsection’s requirements.
Second, the Supreme Court noted that s. 50(2) allowed the adoption in NL of an adult who was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. Based on the appellants’ affidavits, the Supreme Court found that the case met this subsection’s requirements, as K.C. and B.C. were Canadian citizens.
Third, the Supreme Court noted that s. 50(3) required the consent of only the adult up for adoption. The Supreme Court ruled that the case met this subsection’s requirements, as K.C. and B.C. provided consent forms stating that they:
- knew that the appellants sought to adopt them
- wanted the appellants to adopt them
- understood what adoption entailed
- consented to the adoption
The Supreme Court added that K.C. and B.C. knew that they could revoke their consent any time before the granting of adoption orders and had attorned to the court’s jurisdiction by consenting to the written orders and confirming their continuing consent during the appeal hearing.
The Supreme Court compared the circumstances in this case with rules for adopting non-adult children, noting that s. 27 of the Adoption Act allowed two adults to apply jointly to adopt a child, while s. 27(3) required the adopter to live in NL and reside with the child for at least six months.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the requirement in s. 27(3) did not apply to adult adoption.
Lastly, the Supreme Court determined that the adoption aimed to:
- fulfill the parties’ wish to form a family unit based on love and emotional attachments under s. 50(6) of the Adoption Act
- establish new and permanent family ties through adoption, the purpose stated in s. 4(1) of the provincial legislation
