J. Rachelle Philippe

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 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 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.