CAS duty to disclose - broad disclosure obligation on Society - is not given to the Society to determine what is relevant for disclosure purposes - relevance is a determination for Defense Counsel to make - Litigation Privilege considered - Society hires Private Investigator but claims litigation privilege over both hiring and fruits of investigation - Litigation Privilege applies but disclosure obligation requires that Society disclose the informational component of the investigation
Costs - test imposed on Society is not whether Judge agrees with Apprehension, but whether a reasonable person would consider the Society's steps reasonable at the time of the Apprehension.
Extended Care; Adoption Application; Openness compared to Access; Openness not access; Openness and Access substantively different legally and conceptually.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2017 ONCJ 661
Admissibility of urine analysis evidence that the applicant (the society) seeks to introduce about the respondent R.M. (the father) in response to his motion to place his three children in his temporary care and custody in this child protection case.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2017 ONCJ 762 (Part II) - Sherr, J.
Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. J.M., 2018 NSSC 31
Issue: Is the Director of the Capital Health Authority’s toxicology lab qualified to provide expert opinion evidence about the results of urine testing from samples taken from a father during a child protection proceeding?
Summary: The Director’s opinion was found not to be reliable where the lab is not designated as a forensic lab, where the lab is not subject to external proficiency testing or oversight, and where the lab’s adherence to international standards is uncertain. The Director was not qualified as an expert in forensic and analytical toxicology; his opinion about the test results was excluded.
Child Protection Cases draw into question both section 7 and 15 of the Charter; Participants have a right to counsel; Where other funding mechanisms are insufficient, is appropriate to appoint counsel for parents
Process followed when determining FNIM status under the CYFSA; FNIM elicits different considerations under CYFSA than did "native status" under CFSA; two paths to determination of FNIM Status - one pursuant to Regulation 16/18, one pursuant to bands with which a child or parent of the child identifies.
Child Protection proceedings draw into question s. 7 and 15 rights. Child's s. 7 and 15 rights implicated when association with family and kin who do not have status of parents is brought into question. This can cause a court to order appointment of counsel for grandparents and other meaningful family relations whose plans have a possibility of success.