A.R. v. Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.), 2013 ABQB 715

• Judge: Wakeling, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 22, 2013
• Citations: 2013 ABQB 715;(2013), 578 A.R. 263 (QB)

A.R. v.  CFS (2013), 578 A.R. 263 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. DE.074

A.R. (appellant) v. Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (respondent)

(FL03 35906; 2013 ABQB 715)

Indexed As: A.R. v. Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Wakeling, J.

December 6, 2013.

Summary:

In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children. The mother was granted conditional access. In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated. The mother appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 823

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Appeals - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The mother appealed - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of review - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 823

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Appeals - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The mother appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the Director's application to terminate conditional access was a collateral attack on the conditional access order - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench entertained the argument even though it was raised for the first time on appeal - The argument had no factual component - The Director was not prejudiced by the fact that it was raised for the first time on appeal - See paragraph 30.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 825.3

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Access - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the mother's appeal - The court rejected the mother's argument that the Director's application to terminate conditional access was a collateral attack on the conditional access order - In ss. 34(13) and 34(14), the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act clearly contemplated that a person directly affected by an access order granted during the term of a permanent guardianship order could seek review of the access order - Under s. 114(1), a person aggrieved by an access order could appeal - See paragraphs 24 to 29.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 825.3

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Access - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The mother appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the Director could not apply for a review of the conditional access order unless, at the time of the application, there had been a change in circumstances - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed that the Director had to show a change of circumstances to activate s. 34(13) of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act - The court discussed the rationale for the requirement - See paragraphs 31 to 39.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 825.3

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Access - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The mother appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the Director could not apply for a review of the conditional access order unless, at the time of the application, there had been a change in circumstances - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - There had been a change in circumstances - The court discussed a number of post-May 2011 developments that activated the change in circumstances test, the most significant of which was that the children's grandparents, who had been caring for the children, wanted to adopt them but would not do so unless the mother's conditional access was terminated - See paragraphs 40 to 58.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 825.3

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Access - In May 2011, the Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement obtained a permanent guardianship order regarding two children - The mother was granted conditional access - In December 2012, on the Director's application, the conditional access was terminated - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the mother's appeal - Access was not to be granted unless it promoted the children's best interests - Here, there was no reason for the court to exercise its jurisdiction to revoke or vary the access termination order - See paragraphs 59 to 69.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 944

Public trustee or guardian - Appeals to courts - Nature and scope of - [See first Guardian and Ward - Topic 823 ].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - [See first Guardian and Ward - Topic 825.3 ].

Practice - Topic 9012

Appeals - Restrictions on argument on appeal - Issues or points not previously raised (incl. new theory of the case) - [See second Guardian and Ward - Topic 823 ].

Cases Noticed:

M.T. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) (2005), 363 A.R. 306; 343 W.A.C. 306; 42 Alta. L.R.(4th) 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

McKee v. McKee, [1951] A.C. 352 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

D.F.R. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 581; 2005 ABCA 344, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 3].

K.V.P. v. T.E., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1014; 275 N.R. 52; 156 B.C.A.C. 161; 255 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

Van de Perre v. Edwards - see K.V.P. v. T.E.

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 4].

Isaacs v. Robertson, [1985] 1 A.C. 97 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 4].

Howat v. Kansas (1922), 258 U.S. 181, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 4].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 5].

Canadian Transport (U.K.) Ltd. v. Alsbury et al., [1953] 1 D.L.R. 385 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 5].

Taylor and Western Guard Party v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892; 117 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 24].

United States of America v. United Mineworkers of America (1947), 330 U.S. 258, refd to. [para. 24].

Grabowski v. Bodnar et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 546; 2007 ABCA 305, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Vysek v. Nova Gas International Ltd. et al. (2002), 303 A.R. 209; 273 W.A.C. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Stevenson, Ex parte, [1892] 1 Q.B. 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 41; 348 N.R. 260; 211 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd., [2006] A.R. Uned. 24; 2006 ABCA 73, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Row v. Court of Wards (1886), 11 App. Cas. 660 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 6].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Martin v. Duffel, [1950] S.C.R. 737, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Kerr et al. (1913), 49 S.C.R. 33, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Lamb v. Kincaid (1907), 38 S.C.R. 516, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Alberta v. Nilsson (2002), 320 A.R. 88; 288 W.A.C. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Kirkfield Park & Arthur Oliver Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al. (1996), 107 Man.R.(2d) 259; 109 W.A.C. 259; 132 D.L.R.(4th) 448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Ship Tasmania v. Smith (1883), 15 App. Cas. 223 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 8].

Wal-Mart Canada Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America et al., [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 502 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30, footnote 9].

A.R. et al., Re, [2004] A.R. Uned. 245; 2004 ABPC 49, refd to. [para. 32].

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. C.M., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165; 165 N.R. 161; 71 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 11].

G.M. and R.M., Re (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 378 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

B.A., Re, [2011] A.R. Uned. 175; 2011 ABPC 67, refd to. [para. 37].

N.K., Re, [2010] A.R. Uned. 358; 2010 ABPC 74, refd to. [para. 37].

An., Re, [2008] A.R. Uned. 557; 2008 ABPC 226, refd to. [para. 37].

Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) v. C.H., [2003] A.R. Uned. 26; 2003 ABPC 3, refd to. [para. 37].

J.W. v. Victims of Crime Financial Benefits Program (2013), 560 A.R. 114; 2013 ABQB 212, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 13].

McCarthy v. Madigan (1992), 503 U.S. 140, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 13].

Henderson v. Preston (1888), 21 Q.B.D. 362, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 13].

McGrath, Re, [1893] 1 Ch. 143, refd to. [para. 59].

Nouveau-Brunswick (Ministre de la Santé et des Services communautaires) v. M.L. et R.L., [1998] 2 S.C.R. 534; 230 N.R. 201; 204 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 520 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 60].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 19].

Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 19].

J.J.B., Re (1986), 390 N.W.2d 274 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 61].

D.P.N. v. T.J.T. (2013), 567 A.R. 270; 2013 ABQB 445, refd to. [para. 63].

Novus Aviation Ltd. v. Onur Air Tasimacilik AS, [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 576 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 20].

A.K., Re, [2005] A.R. Uned. 783; 2005 ABPC 226, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-12, sect. 34(13), sect. 34(14), sect. 114(1) [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Christopherson, Minnesota Adopts a Best Interests Standard in Parental Rights Termination Proceedings: In re J.J.B. (1987), 71 Minn. L. Rev. 1263, pp. 1279 [para. 61]; 1280 [para. 32, footnote 10].

Coleman, A Proposal for Terminating Parental Rights: Spare the Parent, Spoil the Child (1993), 7 Am. J. Fam. L. 123, p. 123 [para. 53, footnote 16].

Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes (1947), 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, p. 528 [para. 32, footnote 10].

Garrison, M., Why Terminate Parental Rights? (1983), 35 Stan. L. Rev. 423, p. 425 [para. 59, footnote 18].

Hill, The State's Burden of Proof at the Best Interests Stage of a Termination of Parental Rights (2004), U. Chi. Leg. F. 557, p. 591 [para. 61].

Lange, D., The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (3rd Ed. 2010), pp. 4 to 5 [para. 36].

Scalia, A., and Garner, B., Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012), p. 56 [para. 32, footnote 10].

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2012), pp. 9 to 31 [para. 38, footnote 12].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 2 [para. 32, footnote 10].

Counsel:

A. Kellett, for A.R.;

D. Harwardt (Alberta Justice), for the Director;

H. Henderson (Henderson Law Office), for S.R. and G.R.

This appeal was heard on November 22, 2013, by Wakeling, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 6, 2013.