5 total
Indigenous land protector granted absolute discharge based on Haudenosaunee legal traditions and public interest.
The accused, an Indigenous land protector, pled guilty to mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking.
The central issue on sentencing was whether to grant an absolute discharge or a suspended sentence under section 730 of the Criminal Code.
Relying on expert evidence regarding Haudenosaunee legal traditions and the Two Row Wampum, the court interpreted the 'public interest' requirement in section 730 to mean the Haudenosaunee public interest.
Finding that the accused's actions as a land protector were not contrary to the Haudenosaunee public interest, the court granted an absolute discharge.
The court denied a motion to withdraw a child protection application in favour of a customary care agreement due to insufficient evidence of the child's best interests.
The applicant Ogwadeni:deo sought to withdraw an amended child protection application and replace it with a formal customary care agreement, despite the biological parents not having signed the agreement.
The Six Nations Band argued that its governing resolution, enabled by the new federal legislation (Bill C-92), authorized the Band to sign the customary care agreement on behalf of the parents.
The court denied the motion to withdraw the protection application, finding insufficient evidence regarding the child's welfare and best interests, and noting the lack of court oversight since the initial temporary order in 2018.
The court amended its previous decision to clarify that the aboriginal right to traditional medicine must be considered alongside the paramount best interests of the child.
The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to clarify the court's previous decision regarding a child with leukemia whose parents sought to pursue traditional Haudenosaunee medicine alongside or instead of chemotherapy.
The court had previously found that the mother's constitutionally protected right under section 35 of the Constitution to pursue traditional medicine meant the child was not in need of protection.
The Attorney General, rather than appealing, engaged in dialogue with all parties, resulting in a joint submission.
The court clarified its decision by adding paragraphs confirming that while the aboriginal right to traditional medicine must be respected, the best interests of the child remain paramount, and that the family could pursue both traditional and Western medicine collaboratively.
A child protection application was dismissed because pursuing traditional medicine is a protected Aboriginal right.
An 11-year-old First Nations child from Six Nations of the Grand River was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a 90-95% cure rate with chemotherapy.
The child's mother withdrew consent for chemotherapy to pursue traditional medicine consistent with their longhouse beliefs.
The hospital applied under section 40(4) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking a protection order.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the mother's decision to pursue traditional medicine constituted an exercise of an aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The court held that the child could not be found in need of protection when the substitute decision-maker exercised a constitutionally protected right.
The court dismissed a summary judgment motion for Crown wardship, finding the young First Nations mother's background and community resources were triable issues.
The Children's Aid Society of Brant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a Crown wardship order without access for a child born to a 15-year-old First Nations mother.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that insufficient evidence regarding the mother's background and available resources had been presented.
The court identified triable issues concerning the mother's upbringing, available community resources, and realistic rehabilitation timeframe, and adjourned the matter to a trial management conference.