K. Hensel

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike a custody application brought by the foster parents of an Indigenous child.

The child had been placed with the foster parents under an alternative care agreement, while a customary care agreement was in place with the child's First Nation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that out-of-court customary care agreements fall outside the CYFSA.

The court held that the applicants were foster parents and thus prohibited from bringing a custody application under the CLRA, and that deference was owed to the placement decision of the agency acting under the authority of the First Nation.

The applicant sought an interim order for the recovery of personal property (tobacco kilns and bins) from the respondent, his former business partner's spouse, located on a Six Nations Reserve.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish "substantial grounds" for ownership or unlawful detention of the property, and that granting the order would effectively nullify the respondent's potential rights before trial, contrary to the mandatory security provisions of Rule 44.04(1).

In an application seeking an interlocutory and permanent injunction relating to alleged municipal by-law and building code violations, the respondents brought a motion to add the Province of Ontario as a party.

The respondents argued that issues concerning land ownership, asserted Indigenous treaty rights, duty to consult, and the applicability of municipal and provincial laws required Ontario’s participation.

The province opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary to resolve the injunction request.

The court held that the respondents had raised issues directly affecting the province and that Ontario, as the landowner, had a significant interest in the matter.

The motion to add Ontario as a party was granted.