5 total
Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend pre-hearings and emailed to cancel.
The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints against the respondent children's aid society.
After failing to attend two scheduled pre-hearing videoconferences and subsequently emailing the Board to state she was cancelling the application, the Board dismissed the application as abandoned.
The court applied federal Indigenous child welfare legislation to prioritize placing an Indigenous child with his father over his maternal aunt.
This case concerns a temporary care and custody motion for an Indigenous child, L.L.C., who had been residing with a maternal aunt under a Customary Care Agreement (CCA).
Following the CCA's termination, the child was placed with the father.
Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services initiated a protection application seeking a protection finding and a supervision order with the father.
The court determined that the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (Federal Act) applies and has paramountcy over provincial legislation (CYFSA), altering the method of analysis for Indigenous children's placements.
Applying the Federal Act's national standards, the court found it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the father, without the need for society supervision, as there were no protection concerns.
The court also ordered continued contact with the maternal aunt and suggested the matter be transitioned to a Children's Law Reform Act application.
A lawyer was removed from a child protection case due to a conflict of interest arising from prior representation of the agency.
A motion to remove counsel for a foster parent in a child protection application.
The respondent child and family services agency sought to disqualify the applicant's lawyer, who had previously represented the agency in related proceedings involving the same child.
The court applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin to determine whether a conflict of interest existed.
The court found that the lawyer had access to confidential information as counsel of record for the agency in prior proceedings, including the Customary Care Agreement and the termination of the Crown Wardship Order.
The court held that the public, represented by the reasonably informed person, would not be satisfied that no misuse of confidential information would occur.
The lawyer was removed from the record.
The court dismissed a former caregiver's status review application for lack of jurisdiction because no active child protection order existed.
The applicant, a long-term foster parent who had cared for a child with severe physical and cognitive disabilities for nearly 15 years under a Customary Care Agreement, sought a status review application after the child was removed from his care by a child protection agency.
The respondent agency argued the court lacked jurisdiction because there was no existing protection order affecting the child's status.
The court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the status review application, as the child was not in extended society care under a valid protection order.
The application was dismissed without prejudice, with the court noting concerns about the characterization of the removal as a "change in placement" rather than an apprehension, but finding the applicant could pursue alternative remedies under custody and access provisions.
Child returned to mother on temporary basis with supervision order as Society failed to meet risk threshold.
The applicant Society sought a temporary care and custody order to keep the 10-year-old child in care, while the respondent mother and First Nation requested the child be returned to the mother under supervision.
The child had significant behavioural challenges and trauma from past abuse, and had been placed in specialized foster homes far from her community, which prevented her from accessing necessary trauma therapy.
The court found that the mother had taken significant steps to secure housing and services, and that keeping the child in care without proper therapy was causing harm.
The court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the child was likely to suffer harm if returned to the mother, and ordered the child returned subject to a supervision order with conditions.
