Margaret A. Vicente

This decision addresses a motion by the Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN) seeking full, unredacted disclosure of child protection files held by Linck Child, Youth, and Family Supports concerning Indigenous children under their care.

The court reviews the applicable legislative framework, including the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis Children, Youth and Families, and the Family Law Rules.

The judge emphasizes the paramount importance of Indigenous children's best interests, cultural continuity, and the duty of consultation with Indigenous communities.

The court rejects the child protection agency's redactions and limitations on disclosure, finding that full disclosure to the First Nation is necessary to enable meaningful participation in care planning and to uphold Indigenous rights and reconciliation principles.

The motion is granted with orders for unredacted disclosure and restrictions on use to protect privacy.

The Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports (Society) brought a motion to vary a temporary care order for the child K.M., seeking to place the child with the paternal grandparents.

The child's parents and maternal grandparents consented to this placement.

The foster parents, with whom K.M. had resided for 22 months, opposed the motion, seeking to retain care and pursue adoption.

The court granted the Society's motion, emphasizing the legislative priority of kin placement over foster care, even where a strong attachment to foster parents exists.

The court reiterated that foster parents do not have standing to advance a permanent care plan at this stage of proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice heard appeals from a judgment ordering Crown wardship for the youngest child, T.L., with no parental access.

The father's appeal was dismissed due to his abysmal parenting record and lack of merit in his claims of bias or incompetent counsel.

The mother's appeal was allowed.

The court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to conduct a thorough "best interests of the child" analysis under s. 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, focusing too narrowly on the risk of inappropriate partners without balancing other factors like the child's bond with family.

Fresh evidence, demonstrating the mother's compliance with supervision conditions and positive parenting, further supported returning the child.

The Crown wardship order for T.L. was set aside, and the child was placed with the mother under a six-month supervision order with specific conditions.