Dr. Vallance

A 12-day trial in a child protection application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (B.F.D.) nearly three years old.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father consented to both the protection finding and crown wardship.

The mother opposed the application and sought the child's return to her care, subject to a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and (g) of the CFSA based on risk of physical and emotional harm.

The court made an order for crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the mother's persistent non-compliance, uncooperative behavior, substance abuse, anger management issues, and lack of insight into the protection concerns.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding him 25% liable for negligence in failing to timely diagnose a newborn with phenylketonuria (PKU).

The infant had two borderline elevated screening tests, and the appellant ordered a third screening test rather than a diagnostic quantitative test.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the 'respectable minority principle' from ter Neuzen, asserting his decision was supported by expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly weighed the conflicting expert evidence, found the defence expert's opinion unreliable, and correctly concluded the standard of care required a diagnostic test.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, as the trial judge held that his hypomania caused a delusion protecting him from punishment, rendering him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that a failure to appreciate penal consequences does not satisfy the first arm of the insanity defence.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred in accepting as factual the hearsay evidence related by the defence psychiatrist without independent proof.