2 total
Child protection trial adjourned; court analyzes agency's right to access youth's pending criminal records.
The child welfare agency sought to proceed with a child protection trial but was unable to complete its trial directions due to the youth's new criminal charges and the agency's inability to obtain the youth's records from the Youth Court under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The Superior Court of Justice adjourned the trial and provided a detailed analysis of the intersection between child welfare proceedings and youth criminal justice privacy provisions.
The court concluded that the agency has a right of access to the records under section 119 of the YCJA, although the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to make the access order.
The court permitted the custodial mother to relocate to Australia with her special needs child for three years.
The Applicant father opposed the Respondent mother's request to relocate with their son, Ilya, to Australia for three years.
The mother, who was the sole custodial parent, sought permission for the move, citing her husband's employment contract and the family's financial and emotional well-being.
The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, weighed the disruption to the child's relationship with the father against the benefits of remaining with the primary caregiver and her family unit, as well as the financial stability and reduced stress for the mother's husband.
The court also considered the father's conduct in lodging a false complaint against the mother's husband.
The court granted the mother permission to relocate with the child to Australia for three years, subject to specific access and communication terms, and a requirement for a mirroring order in Australia.
