Sandra J. Harris

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to clarify the court's previous decision regarding a child with leukemia whose parents sought to pursue traditional Haudenosaunee medicine alongside or instead of chemotherapy.

The court had previously found that the mother's constitutionally protected right under section 35 of the Constitution to pursue traditional medicine meant the child was not in need of protection.

The Attorney General, rather than appealing, engaged in dialogue with all parties, resulting in a joint submission.

The court clarified its decision by adding paragraphs confirming that while the aboriginal right to traditional medicine must be respected, the best interests of the child remain paramount, and that the family could pursue both traditional and Western medicine collaboratively.

An 11-year-old First Nations child from Six Nations of the Grand River was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with a 90-95% cure rate with chemotherapy.

The child's mother withdrew consent for chemotherapy to pursue traditional medicine consistent with their longhouse beliefs.

The hospital applied under section 40(4) of the Child and Family Services Act seeking a protection order.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mother's decision to pursue traditional medicine constituted an exercise of an aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The court held that the child could not be found in need of protection when the substitute decision-maker exercised a constitutionally protected right.

Following a family law proceeding involving support claims, the court addressed costs.

The respondent in the underlying application was generally successful, though not to the full extent of the relief sought.

No settlement offers justified a substantial indemnity award.

Considering the reasonable hours and hourly rate of counsel, as well as the expectations of the parties and the absence of a costs order at the case conference, the court ordered the unsuccessful applicant to pay partial indemnity costs.

A motion to change child support under the Divorce Act sought retroactive adjustment of child support and contribution toward section 7 extraordinary expenses including orthodontic treatment, driver’s education, and post-secondary education.

The responding parent cross‑moved for a retroactive reduction in support based on alleged reduced income and business losses.

The court rejected the claimed self‑employment losses due to insufficient evidence and calculated income based on employment earnings.

The court ordered proportional contributions to section 7 expenses and recalculated guideline support, resulting in arrears payable and prospective support adjustments including university costs for a child attending post-secondary education.