Jane Stewart

The appellants appealed a 'safe schools transfer' decision by the respondent school board, arguing it amounted to a de facto expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that because the students were suspended and transferred rather than expelled, the Board lacked jurisdiction under the Education Act to hear the appeal.

The Board made no order on the merits.

The applicant sought access to police records concerning a youth (W.C.) under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) after being struck by a pellet from a BB gun.

The police had investigated but laid no charges, opting for extrajudicial measures.

The court found that the police records constituted records of extrajudicial measures under section 119(4) of the YCJA, which prohibits access to such records for individuals like the applicant.

Even if not considered extrajudicial measures, the records were inaccessible under the YCJA's statutory framework, as section 123, which allows access after certain periods, did not apply to records where no charges were laid and thus no access period was defined.

The court emphasized the YCJA's principles of youth privacy and diminished moral blameworthiness.

The application was dismissed.

This is a costs decision arising from a blended Hague Convention and child protection hearing.

The father successfully obtained an order for the return of the child to Minnesota, establishing that the child had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence.

The mother had secretly removed the child from the father's custody in Minnesota and brought her to Canada.

The court found the child was in need of protection but ordered her return to Minnesota with conditions, including supervised access and a transition plan.

The father sought costs of $194,055.33 against both the mother and Justice for Children and Youth, claiming full recovery based on bad faith.

The court awarded partial costs to the father against the mother only, finding no bad faith but unreasonable conduct in the unlawful removal of the child.

The applicant sought a review of the society's decision to refuse her application to adopt three First Nations children who had previously been placed in her care.

The society and the First Nation argued that it was in the children's best interests to remain in a customary care arrangement with a caregiver connected to their extended family and community.

The Board considered the expanded best interests test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including the children's views and wishes, the importance of preserving their cultural identity, and the need for continuity of care.

The Board confirmed the society's decision, finding that remaining in customary care with their current caregiver was in the children's best interests.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his sentence appeal by the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

He had been sentenced to 45 days of intermittent jail for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 192 mg/100 ml, marking his fourth drinking and driving conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no arguable error of law, noting that the lower courts properly applied sentencing principles and that a conditional sentence was manifestly inappropriate.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In a custody dispute between a children's maternal aunt and their father following the death of the children's mother, a First Nation band sought to be added as a party or alternatively granted intervener status.

The band argued its participation was necessary to assist the court in assessing the best interests of children of First Nations heritage.

The court held that under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules, a non-party should only be added where their presence is necessary to determine the issues in dispute.

Because the father was a member of the First Nation and could present cultural and community evidence, the band’s participation was not necessary.

The motion to be added as a party and the alternative request for intervener or amicus status were dismissed.