WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 45(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
45.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.
The court may make an order:
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing,
where the court is of the opinion that publication of the report would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.
45(8) Prohibition: identifying child.
No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.
45(9) Idem: order re adult.
The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
85.— (3) Idem.
A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2017-05-23
File No.: Toronto CFO 16 1392 B1
Between:
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO, Applicant
— AND —
B.B., L.C., S.B., C.B., and K.C. Respondents
Before: Justice Ellen B. Murray
Heard on: May 5, 2017
Reasons for decision released on: May 23, 2017
Counsel
Kenneth Atkinson — counsel for the applicant society
Andreas Solomos — counsel for the respondent, L.C.
Lauren Speers — counsel for the respondent, S.B.
No appearance by or on behalf of K.C. or C.B., both previously noted in default
Fatima Khalid — counsel for the Office of the Children's Lawyer, legal representative for the Children Nas., A., and Nak.
Decision
[1] JUSTICE E.B. MURRAY: This is a case involving four children, two in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) and two living with B.B., their maternal grandmother, under temporary Society supervision. The case has been going on for 16 months. On May 5, 2017, CAST brought a motion at B.B.'s request pursuant to s. 48(3) of the Act asking that this case be transferred to Native Child and Family Services (NCFS). B.B., a party, says that she is native and wants the family dealt with by a native agency. The Society's motion was supported by B.B. and opposed by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, who represents the three older children, and by L.C. and S.B., the father and mother of one of the children. I dismissed the motion, giving brief oral reasons with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
The Facts
[2] The children involved in this case are Nas., 14 years, A., 9 years, Nak., 9 years, and S., 4 years.
Nas. is the child of L.C. and S.B., B.B.'s daughter. He has been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD).
A. is the child of S.B.; his father is unknown. He has a diagnosis of FASD, ADHD, and ODD.
Nak. is the child of C.B., B.B.'s daughter; her father is unknown. She has complex behavioural issues which make her attendance at and participation in school very difficult.
S. is the child of K.C., B.B.'s niece; his father is unknown. S. has delayed speech. B.B. suspects that he also suffers from FASD because of his behavioural problems.
[3] All four children have been in B.B.'s care since they were quite young.
[4] Although B.B. has a long history with CAST involving her own children, CAST has in the past either approved or not objected when B.B.'s grandchildren (or, in the case of S., a grandnephew) went into her care. However, CAST has received many community complaints about B.B.'s care of these grandchildren, and has maintained an open file for years concerning them. Prior to the commencement of this action, none of the grandchildren had come into care.
[5] In January 2016, Nas. reported to his father, L.C., and his school that he was being physically and emotionally abused by B.B. He did not want to return home, and was apprehended by Society. The Society brought a protection application with respect to all four children, alleging that B.B. was failing to meet their developmental needs and that she ignored Society recommendations on how to meet these needs.
[6] A temporary order was made placing Nas. in the Society's care and providing that the three remaining children stay in B.B.'s care pursuant to Society supervision and several conditions. The Society says that B.B. was not compliant with many of the conditions.
[7] A. was apprehended in May 2016 after making allegations similar to those of Nas.
[8] B.B. did not file an Answer, despite extensions of time for her to do so. She refused to agree that Society speak to Nak. privately. The Society requested and obtained an order allowing them to do so. She refused to sign releases for the Society to obtain information from service providers for Nak. and S. The Society requested and obtained an order for this disclosure.
[9] Both Nas. and A. indicated through the OCL that they did not wish to return to B.B.'s care. A. did not want to see or hear of B.B. or his mother, S.B.
[10] Pleadings were noted closed against B.B. and the other parents of the children, except L.C., on January 13, 2017. Based on the evidence filed, the court made statutory and protection findings with respect to all four children. One of those findings was that the children were "Not Indian-Not Native". At the time, the issue of the children's possible native status had not been raised.
[11] B.B. had not attended on many court dates, but did so on January 13, 2017. At her request, she was permitted to serve and file an Answer dealing with disposition. She did so on February 15, 2017, asking that all four children be placed in her care, without Society supervision. B.B. stated in her Answer that the children were "Not Indian-Not Native".
[12] On February 23, 2017, Society brought a motion asking that Nak. and S. come into care, alleging that B.B. was failing to access needed and available services for both children.
[13] The Society indicated an intention to amend its Application to seek an order for Nak. and S. of Society wardship for 6 months, and an order of Crown wardship for Nas. and A.
[14] On March 9, 2017, B.B. contacted CAST, advising that she was Metis and would no longer agree to work with CAST. She wanted the case transferred to NCFS. B.B. produced a status card from her band, the Eastern Woodland Metis of Nova Scotia.
[15] Although, as can be seen below, there is disagreement about when the Act's provisions as to the treatment of Indian and Native families and children apply, the Society proceeded after this advice from B.B. as if B.B. was Indian or Native. The Society contacted NCFS requesting the transfer. NCFS agreed to accept a transfer, if so ordered. The mandate of NCFS is to serve "Native families and children in the Toronto area, including First Nations, Metis, Inuit and all those with Aboriginal heritage who choose to be served by our Agency".
[16] The Society served B.B.'s band with the application and amended application and its motion to transfer the case to NCFS. No response was received from the Band.
[17] On April 12, 2017, the motion to bring Nak. and S. into care was withdrawn, upon B.B. consenting to further detailed supervisory conditions. A settlement conference was scheduled for May 5, 2017. However, that conference was adjourned because there was insufficient time for a productive conference after the motion to transfer the case was heard.
[18] On May 5, 2017, the Society brought the motion requesting a transfer to NCFS.
Aboriginal Heritage
[19] As noted by Justice Starr in Children's Aid Society of Halton Region v. M.M., 2016 ONCJ 323, the determination of whether a child has Indian or Native status is "an important one. Those children who fit within the definitional criteria gain automatic access to the benefits, special treatment, and special considerations the Act affords to Indian and native children. Those children who do not fit within the definitional criteria face significant and disadvantaging consequences. They are denied access to such benefits and special consideration. They are to be treated no differently than any other child with cultural, ethnic or racial ties to an identifiable ethnic community."
[20] Do Nas., A., Nak. and S. have Indian or native status because B.B. is Metis?
[21] The answer is "no", if determined pursuant to the current definitions in section 3(1) of the Act. S. 3(1) defines "Indian" as having the same meaning as under the Federal Indian Act, a person who is pursuant to the Act registered as an Indian or entitled to be registered as an Indian. "Native person" is defined as a person who is a member of a Native community but is not a member of a band. "Native child" is defined as having a corresponding meaning. A "Native community" is defined as meaning a community designated as such by the Minister of Children and Youth Services under section 209 of Part X of the Act. No communities have been so designated.
[22] In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. G.H., 2016 ONSC 6287, Justice Deborah L. Chappel noted that the definitions of "Indian" and "Native person" in the CFSA are "very restrictive and clearly do not include all individuals with Aboriginal heritage". The father in that case, T.V., was a member of the same Metis band as B.B., the Eastern Woodland Metis. Assessed according to the definitions in the Act, he was not "Indian" or a "Native person", and neither was his child.
[23] That did not end the inquiry for Justice Chappel. T.V. brought a challenge alleging unequal treatment under section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1982 because the definition of "Indian" and "Native person" did not include persons such as himself or his child, persons of Metis heritage. The headnote for the case summarizes Justice Chappel's findings:
"The enactment of the numerous provisions of the Act aimed at protecting the culture and heritage of Aboriginal children, and in particular the provisions relating to Indian and Native children, represented an acknowledgement of the long-term negative repercussions of removing Indian children from their families and culture, and a commitment to making aboriginality a significant factor in child protection and placement practices. The definitions of Indian, Native Person and Native Child created distinctions based on analogous grounds.
The Metis have now been legally recognized as Aboriginal peoples of Canada, with their own distinctive characteristics and cultural traditions. The various special provisions in the Act underpinning the legislative scheme relating to Indian and Native children clearly on their face created unfair and objectionable disadvantages for Metis children and their families by denying them access to numerous protections, advantages and benefits that were available to children who fell within the definitions of Indian, Native person and Native child under the Act."
[24] Justice Chappel found that the definitions of Indian, Native person and Native child in the Act breached s. 15(1) of the Charter. She determined that a suspended declaration of invalidity, coupled with an individual remedy directing that the child in that case be treated as Indian or native for the purposes of that proceeding, was the remedy most consistent with the child's best interests.
[25] No Charter application has been brought in the case before me. However, this court adopts Justice Chappel's reasoning as reflective of Charter values. For the purpose of this motion, I treat B.B. as if she was an Indian or Native person and Nas., A., Nak. and S. as if they were Indian or Native children.
[26] The issue of whether the prior finding that the children are "Not Indian; Not Native" should be set aside was not argued on this motion. That shall be addressed by counsel at the next appearance.
The Law
Jurisdiction
[27] Argument proceeded on the basis that the court had the authority to make the order sought pursuant to s. 48(3) of the Act, the authority relied upon by CAST, which is set out below:
(3) Where the court is satisfied at any stage of a proceeding under this Part that there is a preponderance of convenience in favour of conducting it in another territorial jurisdiction, the court may order that the proceeding be transferred to that other territorial jurisdiction and be continued as if it had been commenced there.
[28] On reflection, I questioned the court's authority pursuant to statute or the Family Law Rules to make the order sought:
S. 48(3) of the Act deals with the transfer of a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another.
Rule 5(8) of the FLR deals with transfer of cases, including child protection cases, to "another municipality".
[29] There is, however, no provision in the statute or the Rules authorizing the court to transfer a protection case from one agency to another based on the child's Indian or native heritage or culture.
[30] Does this mean that there is no authority to order such a transfer?
[31] The doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication has application here. The Supreme Court of Canada explained the doctrine as follows:
"The mandate of this Court is to determine and apply the intention of the legislature….without crossing the line between judicial interpretation and legislative drafting….That being said, this rule allows for the application of the 'doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication'; the powers conferred by an enabling statute are construed to include not only those expressly granted but also, by implication, all powers which are practically necessary for the accomplishment of the object intended to be secured by the statutory regime created by the legislature."
[32] Section 1 of the Act, in setting out the secondary purposes of the legislation, makes it clear that a child's Indian or native culture, heritage and traditions should inform services provided under the Act and decisions made by the court at every stage of a case. It establishes that Indian or native people should be entitled to "provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services".
[33] Given this important statutory purpose, it is inconceivable that the Legislature did not intend a court to have the ability to transfer a case from one society to a native society established under the Act for the purpose of providing services to a native family consistent with the Act. I find that the power to order such a transfer is implied.
[34] I note that it appears that courts have relied upon an implied power to order the transfer of a case in situations involving children's religious faith. Section 86(2) of the Act provides that "A Protestant child shall not be committed under this Part to the care of a Roman Catholic society or institution and a Roman Catholic child shall not be committed under this Part to a Protestant society or institution".
[35] Although there is no provision authorizing the transfer of a case from one agency to another based on the child's religious faith, courts have found that they do have this power in order to accomplish the objectives of s. 86, to provide services to a child in a manner consistent with his or her faith.
Should the Case Be Transferred?
[36] All counsel agreed that the court should be guided in its decision by a consideration of the children's best interests, and not by the convenience or preference of any party. This is consistent with caselaw related to the proposed transfer of a case from one territorial jurisdiction to another.
[37] Will a transfer of this case from CAST to NCFS be in the best interests of Nas., A., Nak. and S.? The onus is on the party seeking the transfer to establish that it is.
[38] CAST counsel submits that these children have the right to service from a native agency, service provided in a way that recognizes their culture and heritage. He says that the Band's failure to participate makes the transfer even more important. B.B.'s lawyer submits that the transfer will respect not only the children's native heritage but will honour their Scotian and Afro-Canadian roots.
[39] L.C.'s lawyer argues against the transfer, saying that there is no evidence that native heritage and culture has had any significance in the lives of B.B. or of these children. He suggests that B.B.'s request for the transfer is a strategic move made to delay the case. OCL counsel submits that the delay that will result from a transfer means that the transfer is not in the children's best interests.
[40] In considering the issue, I am mindful of the paramount purpose of the Act: "To promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children". Promoting children's best interests entails an obligation by the court and by the Society to insure each child has a permanent placement that meets his or her needs in a timely manner. This obligation is mirrored in section 70 of the Act, which governs the acceptable maximum duration for a child to be in the temporary care of a Society. It also applies to children out of the Society's care, but the subject of protection proceedings pursuant to a supervision order. They, too, require safe and supportive permanent homes. The theme of the importance of stability and permanence in family relationships for children runs throughout the Act, from the listing of additional purposes of the legislation to the definition of best interests.
[41] In this case, if the claim for a transfer to NCFS had been made much earlier, I would have made the order requested. Although there is no evidence that Indian or native culture or tradition has been a factor in the lives of B.B. or these children to date, that would not deter me from ordering a transfer.
[42] As Justice Chappel noted in Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. G.H., historically government's goal in dealing with the history of Aboriginal people in Canada, including Metis, was to promote "the habits and thoughts of white men" in many ways, including through residential schools. This involved "removing the children from their families and communities, forbidding them to speak their language or practice their cultural traditions, and actively attempting to eradicate their connections to their Aboriginal heritage and assimilate them into the dominant Euro-Canadian culture". The Truth and Reconciliation Commission noted that "Canada's child welfare system has simply continued the assimilation that the residential school system started".
[43] The special provisions of the CFSA dealing with Indian or native persons and children are meant to assist in redressing the effects of governmental action in the past designed to eliminate their connection to their culture and traditions. Those provisions are not meant only to assist individuals already well-rooted in that culture, but to encourage the exploration and development of ties to that culture for those who have been cut off because of historical wrongs perpetrated against parents or grandparents. I accept the submissions of B.B.'s lawyer that in this case, exposure to and education about this culture now would be a restorative process that could be beneficial to the children.
[44] However, a transfer to NCFS at this point would cause unacceptable delay and disruption.
The delay would be inevitable. A new worker would have to familiarize herself with the history of this file, which involves four children, all of whom have special needs and different service providers, and with B.B. and the children's parents.
The OCL describes all three of her clients as slow to trust. She says that the CAST workers have spent a long time developing trusting relationships with the children, particularly in dealing with Nas. A transfer would terminate those relationships. NCFS workers would have to start all over again.
Although B.B. has in the past shown reluctance to cooperate with the Society, the recent resolution of the motion asking that S. and Nak. be brought into care suggests the beginning of a better working relationship.
Transfer of the case to NCFS could mean the loss for Nas. and A. of their homes with their current foster parents. Both boys are doing well in those homes. NCFS counsel advised that although her agency would try to maintain the boys in those homes if they stayed in care, that she could not guarantee that result.
[45] The possible benefits of a transfer to NCFS at this stage of the case are outweighed by the negative effects of a transfer — the delay and disruption described above.
[46] Retention of the case by CAST does not, of course, mean that the children's Indian or native heritage will be ignored. The Society accepts that it should treat the children as if they are Indian or native, and acknowledges the obligations it has in this respect. For example, the Society plans to arrange for B.B. and the children to have the opportunity to receive counselling provided through NCFS.
[47] My decision does not mean that an application to transfer the case or part of the case may not be renewed at a later time—for example, if placement decisions are to be made for a child found to be a Crown ward.
Released: May 23, 2017
Signed: Justice E.B. Murray
APPENDIX
THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT (Ontario) and REGULATIONS
PROVISIONS RELATING TO INDIAN AND NATIVE CHILDREN
| Section | Summary |
|---|---|
| Section 1, Paragraph 5 | To recognize that: (a) Indian and Native people should be entitled to provide wherever possible their own C.F.S.A. services and that all services to Indian and Native children, (b) should be provided in a manner that recognizes culture, heritage and tradition and concept of extended family |
| Section 3(1) | Band is defined; Indian is defined; Native community; Native Person |
| Section 20(2) | If the child is or may be in need of protection and is an Indian or Native person, the society shall consult with the band to determine if they have an established ADR process |
| Section 20(4) | Notice to band or Native community if ADR is being proposed |
| Section 34(10) | Residential Placement Review — mandatory factors for review include where child is Indian, the importance, in recognition of uniqueness of Indian and Native culture, heritage and traditions of preserving the child's cultural identity |
| Section 35(1) | Placement Review committee shall advise a rep chosen by the band or community of the recommendations as soon as the review has been completed |
| Section 36(1) | Child's Band or Rep chosen is party to a hearing Review of Placement Review Committee |
| Section 37(4) | Where Best Interest Determination is being made for Indian or Native child, shall take into consideration the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and Native culture, heritage and traditions of preserving the child's cultural identity |
| Section 39(1) 4 | Representative of Band is party to protection proceedings |
| Section 47(2)(c) | Where protection proceedings are commenced, an obligation on the court to determine as soon as practicable and before a protection determination, among other things, whether the child is an Indian or a Native person and, if so, the child's band or Native community |
| Section 56(f) | The court shall, before making a disposition order, either under protection or status review proceedings consider the society plan, including a description of arrangements made or being made to recognize the importance of the child's culture and to preserve the child's heritage, traditions and cultural identity |
| Section 57(5) | Where a disposition order to remove an Indian or Native child is made, unless there is substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child a member of the extended family, band or Native community or another Indian or Native family |
| Section 61(2)(d) | Where a child is made either a society or Crown ward under protection or status review proceedings, the society shall chose a residential placement that … is with a member of the child's extended family, band or Native community or another Indian family, if possible … |
| Section 61(7) | Where society intends to move a Crown ward who has lived continuously 2 years with the same foster parent, they must give 10 days notice to the band of their proposed move and consult with the band or community relating to the plan for the care of the child |
| Section 61(8.1) | Board shall give a band rep notice of a foster parent application for review of the proposed move and the date of the hearing |
| Section 61(8.3) | A Band Rep is a party to the hearing |
| Section 63.1- paragraph 3 | Where a Indian or Native child is made a Crown Ward, the society shall, among other things, make all reasonable efforts to assist the child to develop a positive, secure and enduring relationship within a family through … 3. a plan for customary care as defined in Part X |
| Section 64(4) | A band rep may apply to review the supervision or society wardship order made pursuant to section 57(1) (protection order) of an Indian or Native child's status on notice to the society |
| Section 64(5) | Where a society makes or receives an application to review the supervision or society wardship order under section 57(1) they shall give notice to a band representative |
| Section 65.1(4) | Application for review of a child's status of a Crown or, an order under section 65.2(1)(a) for a society supervision or custody order on notice of the society to a band rep |
| Section 65.1(6) | Where a society makes or receives an application to review the supervision, custody or Crown wardship they shall give notice to a band representative |
| Section 69(1) | An appeal from a court's order under Part 3 may be made to the Superior Court where the child is an Indian or Native child by a band rep |
| Section 80(4) | An application to extend, vary or terminate a restraining order may be made by a band rep |
| Section 116(4) | A copy of an assessment report prepared for a child of an Indian or Native person by order of the court (for the purposes of secured treatment) shall be provide to the band rep |
| Section 136(1) | Definition of "openness order" (for purposes of adoption or openness) includes for the purpose of facilitating communication or maintaining a relationship between the child and, ... if the child is an Indian or nature person, a member of the child's band or Native community who may not have had a significant relationship or emotional tie with the child in the past but will help the child recognize the importance of his or her Indian or Native culture and preserve his or her heritage, traditions and cultural identity |
| Section 136(3) | Where determination of "best interest of child" (for purposes of adoption) the person shall take into consideration the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and Native culture, heritage and traditions, of preserving the child's cultural identity |
| Section 141.2(1) | If the society intends to begin planning for the adoption of a child who is an Indian or Native person, the society shall give written notice of its intention to a band rep |
| Section 141.2(2) | Within 60 days of receiving notice of intention of a society to adopt an Indian or Native child, the band rep can prepare its own plan for the care of the child and submit the plan to the society |
| Section 141.2(3) | A society shall not place a child with another person for adoption until the sixty day notice has elapsed and it has considered the plan of care prepared by the band |
| Section 144(2) | Where a society decides to refuse to place an Indian or Native child for adoption with a foster parent or other person, it must give 10 days notice to a band rep of its decision and after giving notice it must consult with the ban rep relating to the planning for the care of the child |
| Section 144(6) | Where an application for review by the Child and Family Services Review Board is received, the Board shall give a band rep notice of the application and the date of the hearing |
| Section 144(9) | A band rep is a party to the hearing of a Board review |
| Section 153.6(1) | Openness agreement may be made for the purpose of facilitating communication or maintaining a relationship between the child and, ... if the child is an Indian or nature person, a member of the child's band or Native community who may not have had a significant relationship or emotional tie with the child in the past but will help the child recognize the importance of his or her Indian or Native culture and preserve his or her heritage, traditions and cultural identity |
| Section 162(3) | A certified copy of an adoption order shall within 30 days of being issued be provided to the Registrar under the Indian Act |
| Part X | Indian and Native Child and Family Services: Section 208 Definition of Customary Care; Section 209 Ministerial designation of Native communities; Section 210 Agreements with Bands; Section 211 Designation of Child and Family Service Authorities; Section 212 Customary Care subsidy; Section 213 Society obligation to consult with bands or communities about the provision of, or the exercise of powers and about matters affecting the children, including apprehension, placement, homemakers, preparation of plans, status review, temporary care and special needs under Part II, adoption placements, establishment of emergency homes and any other matter that is prescribed; Section 213.1 Consultation in specified cases; Section 223 Authority for L.G. to make regulations for purposes of Part X; Section 226 Every review of the CFSA shall include a review of provisions imposing obligations on societies when providing services to a person who is an Indian or Native person or in respect of children who are Indian or Native persons with a view to ensuring compliance by societies with those provisions |
GENERAL REGULATION, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 70
| Section | Summary |
|---|---|
| Section 33.2(1) | Procedural requirements of employees of Indian or Native Child and Family Service Authority in conducting assessments of a person's home as a place of safety |
| Section 33.2(2) | Where an Indian or Native Child and Family Service Authority conducts an assessment and they are not a society, they shall advise the society who may place the child of any person 18 years or older living in the home in which the child will be placed |
| Section 33.2(3) | If advised of an assessment being conducted under s. 33.2(2), a society shall conduct a review and advise whether it has information and whether it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child may be at risk if placed in the home |
| Section 33.2(4) | Upon receipt of the notice in 33.2(2), and a consent to disclose information, the society shall respond to the authority indicating the nature of the information in the society's files or records |
| Section 33.2(5) | Not later than 30 days the Indian or Native Child and Family Service Authority must document the assessment of the person's home |
| Section 123 | The prescribed powers for purposes of section 213.1 (consultation with the band when providing a service to an Indian or Native person) include: 1. the investigation and determination that a case requires ongoing protection services; 2. The apprehension of child under section 40, 41 or 43 of the CFSA; 3. The placement by a society in a children's residence as defined under section 192 or in a foster home defined under subsection 3(1) of Child and Family Services Act |
| Section 124(1) | When exercising a power under section 123 the society shall: (a) provide notice no later than five days to a band rep to request a case consultation as soon as practicable if the band is within the territorial jurisdiction of the society; (b) provide written notice to a band rep within 5 days after exercising the prescribed power to request that a case consultation occur as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after receipt of the notice if the band is not in the territorial jurisdiction of the society |
| Section 124(2) through (6) | Description of how notice can be effected |
PROCEDURES, PRACTICES AND STANDARDS OF SERVICE FOR CHILD PROTECTION CASES, O. Reg. 206/00
| Section | Summary |
|---|---|
| Section 6 | Where a society determines that a child is in need of protection and proposes a plan to place the child in the care of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community, the society shall use best efforts to consult with the child's band or Native community respecting the placement before conducting an evaluation as set out in section 7 of this regulation |
| Section 7 | Section 7 sets out the procedural requirements of an evaluation to place with a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community |
COMPLAINTS TO A SOCIETY AND REVIEWS BY THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD, O. Reg. 494/06
| Section | Summary |
|---|---|
| Section 19(2) | The complainant, a rep of the complainant's band or Native community, where appropriate, and one other person of the complainant's choosing may attend the hearing |