S. Edwards

In a child protection proceeding, the court held a focused hearing to determine whether three children were First Nations, Inuk or Métis children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the two older children were First Nations children based on their own self-identification and ancestral connection through their father.

The youngest child, who had a different father and no paternal Indigenous ancestry, was also found to be a First Nations child based on her sibling relationship with the older children, despite the court's concerns regarding the mother's standalone claim of Indigenous identity.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

In a child protection proceeding, the mother's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The court granted the motion but noted that the Family Law Rules require the filing of confidential, potentially prejudicial evidence that is not shared with other parties and is subsequently removed from the court file.

The court held that a judge who receives such secret information during a solicitor-removal motion should be presumed precluded from presiding over the eventual trial to avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias or procedural unfairness.

Consequently, the judge recused himself from the upcoming trial.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship of a child with severe autism and developmental delay under the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to the order while the father opposed the motion and sought a trial and return of the child to his care.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the child required highly structured, specialized care and that the father’s mental health history, alcohol misuse, lack of cooperation with the agency, absence of meaningful contact with the child, unstable housing, and failure to present a viable care plan created a real risk of harm if the child were returned to his custody.

Applying the summary judgment test under the Family Law Rules, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was declared in need of protection and made a Crown Ward with parental access at the agency’s discretion.