Thomas Milne

The respondent father brought a motion for the court to reconsider its previous decision appointing a psychological assessor in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the court made legal errors and that the assessor had a conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 25(19)(b) and the court's inherent jurisdiction to reconsider are limited to clerical errors or inadvertent omissions, not substantive legal errors which are the domain of appeals.

Furthermore, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act explicitly prohibits appealing an assessment order.

The court also finalized the terms of the assessment, adopting the agency's open-ended instructions while ensuring the father's indigenous heritage is considered.

The maternal grandmother sought costs against the child protection agency after successfully moving to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The agency had refused to name her as a party despite her having legal custody of the children under a Voluntary Service Agreement at the time of apprehension.

The court found the agency's conduct to be patently unfair and unreasonable, warranting a costs award against a government agency.

The court awarded the grandmother $3,000 in costs, reducing her claim of $7,474.95 due to excessive time spent and her own poor behaviour prior to the apprehension.