3 total
Child protection agencies must provide unredacted file disclosure to First Nations for meaningful care planning.
This decision addresses a motion by the Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) seeking full, unredacted disclosure of child protection files held by Linck Child, Youth, and Family Supports concerning Indigenous children under their care.
The court reviews the applicable legislative framework, including the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, and the Family Law Rules.
The judge emphasizes the paramount importance of Indigenous children's best interests, cultural continuity, and the duty of consultation with Indigenous communities.
The court rejects the child protection agency's redactions and limitations on disclosure, finding that full disclosure to the First Nation is necessary to enable meaningful participation in care planning and to uphold Indigenous rights and reconciliation principles.
The motion is granted with orders for unredacted disclosure and restrictions on use to protect privacy.
A First Nation is a mandatory party in child protection proceedings involving an Indigenous child.
The Sarnia-Lambton Children's Aid Society brought a motion to add Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN) as a party to a child protection Status Review Application concerning a child whose father is a status member of AFN.
AFN opposed being added, arguing that its participation is an entitlement, not an imposition, and that it has limited resources and the child is not eligible for band membership.
The court granted the motion, finding that under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and federal legislation, the representative of a child's band is a mandatory party, and this status serves the child's best interests by preserving the option for future participation and ensuring all entitlements under child protection legislation.
The court emphasized that while party status is mandatory, active participation is not compelled.
The court granted summary judgment for Crown wardship of two Indigenous children, finding their best interests were served by remaining in their current foster placement, while directing a trial on the grandfather's access.
A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Indigenous children seeking Crown wardship without access.
The maternal grandfather and Walpole Island First Nation opposed the motion, arguing a trial was necessary.
The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their current foster placement with an Indigenous family rather than transitioning to the grandfather's care on the First Nation territory.
The court considered the children's special needs, cultural identity, continuity of care, and the grandfather's inconsistent access pattern over two years.
