Christopher George Knowles

The appellant, a francophone litigant in a family law matter, appealed two interlocutory orders.

The motion judge had implicitly denied his request for a bilingual judge, instead ordering that an interpreter be provided for an English-speaking judge.

The case conference judge subsequently ordered all future hearings to be in writing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the right to a bilingual proceeding under section 126(4) of the Courts of Justice Act is a substantive right, not subject to judicial discretion.

The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed a new case conference before a bilingual judge.

The court also replaced the written hearing order, directing virtual proceedings with a telephone option to accommodate the appellant's illiteracy and hearing difficulties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal both orders.

No costs were awarded as the moving party did not seek them.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking a finding that the subject child (S) is a Metis child under section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and that the child has no connection to or engagement with any First Nations, Inuit or Metis community.

The child's father claimed Metis ancestry but did not self-identify as Metis nor identify the child as such.

The mother denied any Indigenous status.

The court found the evidence insufficient to support the Society's motion, noting critical gaps in the affidavit evidence regarding the basis of the father's Metis claim, the source of the relatives' self-identification, and the child's own preferences.

The court adjourned the motion pending better evidence and clarification of the Society's contradictory requests.

The court addresses a preliminary issue in an openness application concerning whether a parent, K.N., who has not consented to the openness order and is the custodial parent of one child (J.N.) and non-custodial parent of others (C.S.-N., A.S.), is entitled to receive notice of the application.

The proposed order affects J.N. by providing for access arrangements and prohibiting K.N. from attending visits.

The court raises questions of due process, confidentiality, and the exhaustive nature of notice provisions under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, adjourning the matter for further submissions and inviting the Attorney General to participate.

An application by a children's services society for an order under section 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act authorizing delivery of children to child protection authorities in Quebec.

The respondent parents had fled Quebec with their children to Ontario to evade child welfare proceedings.

The court determined that the children were habitually resident in Quebec at the time proceedings commenced there, and that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the Quebec court's provisional custody order.

The court rejected arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction, standing of the society, and alleged Charter violations.

The court ordered the society to deliver the children to the Quebec agency, with a stay pending appeal.