Jeffrey L. Rouse

An Indigenous child came into the care of a child protection agency shortly after birth due to maternal drug addiction and prenatal substance exposure.

The agency sought an extension of statutory timelines under section 122(5) of the provincial Child, Youth and Family Services Act to maintain the child in interim care for an additional three months beyond the one-year limit applicable to children under six.

The extension was sought to allow the child to remain in a placement within the child's First Nation community on Christian Island, thereby facilitating the development of relationships with family and community members and increasing the likelihood of a permanent kinship or community-based placement.

The court granted the extension, applying the enhanced best interests test under the federal An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families.

The Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services (Agency) brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final orders to place four children in the care of their adult sibling under Agency supervision and to regulate parental access.

The parents, G.K. and M.S., opposed the motion, while B[...] First Nation supported the Agency.

The court found that the children remained in need of protection due to the parents' unaddressed issues (substance use, domestic violence, mental health) and lack of a realistic plan.

The court granted the Agency's motion, finding it in the children's best interests to be placed with their adult sibling, Sk.K., in Calgary, Alberta, under a six-month supervision order, with Agency-discretionary parental access.

This is a costs decision following a trial concerning child and spousal support and business equalization.

The applicant sought substantial costs on a full recovery basis, while the respondent sought no costs or costs from the applicant.

The court found mixed success at trial and that neither party's offer to settle met the criteria for enhanced costs.

While no finding of bad faith was made, the respondent's conduct during trial, including making collateral attacks on the applicant's character and altering email evidence, was deemed unreasonable.

Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $17,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable immediately, reflecting the applicant's greater success on major issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.