Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., 2000 SCC 48

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: February 25, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2000 SCC 48;(2000), 260 N.R. 203 (SCC)

CFS v. K.L.W. (2000), 260 N.R. 203 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. OC.029

K.L.W. (appellant) v. Winnipeg Child and Family Services (respondent) and The Attorney General of Quebec, the Attorney General of Manitoba and the Attorney General of British Columbia (interveners)

(26779; 2000 SCC 48)

Indexed As: Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.

October 13, 2000.

Summary:

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ordered that Winnipeg Child and Family Services be appointed permanent guardian of three of K.L.W.'s children. The court had rejected K.L.W.'s challenge to the constitu­tional validity of s. 21(1) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, finding that s. 21(1) did not violate s. 7 of the Charter. K.L.W. appealed the decisions.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a deci­sion reported at 126 Man.R.(2d) 315; 167 W.A.C. 315, dismissed the appeal. K.L.W. was granted leave to appeal the decision on the constitutional validity of s. 21(1) of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Arbour, J., and McLachlin, C.J.C., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The court held that s. 21(1) of the Act did not violate s. 7 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1394

Security of the person - Health care - Child or adult protection - Winnipeg Child and Family Services apprehended K.L.W.'s newborn son pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act - A post-apprehension child protection hear­ing was held six months later - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no breach of K.L.W.'s s. 7 Charter rights arising from the delay of the post-apprehension child protection hearing - The court considered that much of the delay was attributable to the failure of K.L.W.'s counsel to appear at a case con­ference - In any event, K.L.W. suffered no prejudice due to the delay in the protection proceedings where she had challenged the agency's apprehension by prerogative writ and that challenge was heard within 10 days of the apprehension - See paragraphs 134 to 139.

Civil Rights - Topic 1394

Security of the person - Health care - Child or adult protection - A parent argued that the state's power pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act to apprehend a child based on "reason­able and probable grounds ... that a child is in need of protection", without prior judi­cial authorizations in non-emerg­ency situ­ations, violated s. 7 of the Charter - The parent sought to introduce into the s. 7 analysis a s. 8 Charter argument on reason­able expectation of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the interests at stake in the child protection context dictate a somewhat different bal­ancing analysis from that undertaken with respect to the accused's s. 7 and s. 8 rights in the crim­inal context. Moreover, the state's protec­tive purpose in apprehending a child is clearly distinguishable from the state's punitive purpose in the criminal context, namely that of seeing that justice is done with respect to a criminal act. These dis­tinctions should make courts reluctant to import procedural protections developed in the criminal context into the child protec­tion context" - See paragraphs 95 to 98.

Civil Rights - Topic 1394

Security of the person - Health care - Child or adult protection - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3105

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - What constitutes mini­mum procedural protection - A parent argued that the state's power pursuant to s. 21(1) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act to apprehend a child based on "reasonable and probable grounds ... that a child is in need of protection", without prior judicial authorizations in non-emer­gency situations, violated s. 7 of the Char­ter - The Supreme Court of Canada held that apprehension of a child impaired a parent's right to security of the person - However, the court concluded that s. 21(1) of the Act did not violate s. 7 of the Char­ter - The fact that s. 21(1) did not estab­lish an "emergency" threshold for appre­hension without prior judicial authorization did not offend the principles of fundamen­tal justice - A fair and prompt post-ap­prehension hear­ing was the minimum procedural pro­tec­tion mandated by the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 85 to 132.

Civil Rights - Topic 3191

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Delay - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1394 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1394 and Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 817.1

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Apprehen­sion order - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 875

Public trustee or guardian - Powers - Exer­cise of - Respecting apprehension of child - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 902

Public trustee or guardian - The hearing - Time for - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1394 and Civil Rights - Topic 3105 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. [paras. 5, 72].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 5, 63].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al. (2000), 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 5, 86].

Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judi­cial Committee, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869; 130 N.R. 121; 75 Man.R.(2d) 81; 6 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 10, 71].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 10, 70].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 10, 130].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 10, 71].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 17].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [paras. 19, 95].

B.S. v. Director of Child, Family and Community Service (B.C.) (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 87; 174 W.A.C. 87; 38 R.F.L.(4th) 138 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 40, 106].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 43, 134].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 43].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Northwest v. D.F.G., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925; 219 N.R. 241; 121 Man.R.(2d) 241; 158 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 71].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 71].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 71].

King v. Mr. and Mrs B., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 87; 57 N.R. 17; 58 A.R. 275, refd to. [para. 75].

King v. Low - see King v. Mr. and Mrs. B.

Hepton v. Maat, [1957] S.C.R. 606, refd to. [para. 75].

T. v. Director of Child Welfare (Alta.) (2000), 261 A.R. 315; 225 W.A.C. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

J.M.N.C. et al. v. Child and Family Ser­vices of Winnipeg Central (1997), 122 Man.R.(2d) 81; 33 R.F.L.(4th) 175 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 83].

Reference Re Sections 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 85].

Wallis v. Spencer (2000), 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 89].

Dietz v. Damas (1996), 932 F. Supp. 431 (E.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 96].

Gareau v. Superintendent of Family and Child Services (B.C.) (1986), 5 B.C.L.R.(2d) 352 (S.C.), affd. (1989), 38 B.C.L.R.(2d) 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

H. et al., Re, [1996] A.C. 563; 192 N.R. 52 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 100].

H. (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) - see H. et al., Re.

Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3; 160 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 161; 56 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 102].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Miller v. Philadelphia (City) (1999), 174 F.3d 368 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 115].

Québec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Montréal (Ville) et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665; 253 N.R. 107, refd to. [para. 117].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 117].

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. 124].

Agar, Re; McNeilly v. Agar, [1958] S.C.R. 52, refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 130].

Family and Children's Services of Kings County v. E.D. (1988), 86 N.S.R.(2d) 205; 218 A.P.R. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 132].

Statutes Noticed:

Child and Family Services Act, S.M., 1985-86, c. 8; C.C.S.M., c. C-80, sect. 21(1) [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, N., An Introduction to Child Protec­tion Problems, in Bala, N., Hornick, J.P., and Vogl, R., Canadian Child Welfare Law: Children, Families and the State, p. 1 [para. 76].

Bala, N., Hornick, J.P., and Vogl, R., Canadian Child Welfare Law: Children, Families and the State (1991), pp. 1 [para. 76]; 25 [para. 79]; 33 ff. [para. 77].

Bala, Nicholas, Reforming Ontario's Child and Family Services Act: Is the Pendu­lum Swinging Back Too Far? (1999-2000), 17 C.F.L.Q. 121, pp. 140, 141 [paras. 41, 105]; 169, 170, 171 [para. 14].

Barnhorst, D., and Walter, B., Child Pro­tection Legislation in Canada, in Bala, N., Hornick, J.P., and Vogl, R., Cana­dian Child Welfare Law: Children, Fam­ilies and the State, p. 25 [para. 79].

Bernstein, M.M., Kirwin, L.M., and Bernstein, H., Child Protection Law in Canada (Looseleaf), generally [para. 75].

Canada, Law Commission, Restoring Dig­nity: Responding to Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions (2000), pp. 44, 45, 46 [para. 74].

Canada, Statistics Canada, Family Viol­ence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000, pp. 31 ff. [para. 74].

Fodden, S.R., Family Law (1999), pp. 120, 121 [para. 76].

Fortin, J., Children's Rights and the De­vel­oping Law (1998), pp. 366, 367 [para. 76].

Gove, T.J., Report of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection in British Columbia (1995), generally [para. 74].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (Looseleaf Ed.), vol. 2, p. 44-60 [para. 18].

La protection de l'enfant: évolution (1999), generally [para. 76].

MacMillan, H.L. et al., Prevalence of Child Physical and Sexual Abuse in the Community (1997), 278 JAMA 131, generally [para. 74].

Manitoba, Family Services, Third Annual Report of the Children's Advocate (1995/96), p. 13 [para. 72].

Manitoba, Report of the Child and Family Services Act Review Committee on the Community Consultation Process (1997), p. 15 [para. 110].

Ontario, Association of Children's Societies, Ontario Child Mortality Task Force - Final Report (1997), generally [para. 74].

Ontario, Panel of Experts on Child Protec­tion, Protecting Vulnerable Children (Ontario Panel Report) (1998), generally [para. 74]; pp. 40 [para. 105]; 41 [paras. 105, 128].

Ontario Panel Report - see Ontario, Panel of Experts on Child Protection, Protect­ing Vulnerable Children (Ontario Panel Report).

Rycus, J.S., Hughes, R.C., and Garrison, J.K., Child Protective Services: A Train­ing Curriculum (1989), generally [para. 83].

Steinhauer, P.D., The Least Detrimental Alternative (1991), pp. 13 ff. [para. 124].

Vogl, R., Initial Involvement, in Bala, N., Hornick, J.P., and Vogl, R., Canadian Child Welfare Law: Children, Families and the State, p. 33ff [para. 77].

Wissow, L.S., Child Abuse and Neglect (1995), 332 New Eng. J. Med. 1425, generally [para. 74].

Counsel:

R. Ian Histed, for the appellant;

Norm Cuddy, Michael Thomson and My­fanwy Bowman, for the respondent;

Dominique Jobin and Gilles Laporte, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Shawn Greenberg, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba;

George H. Copley, Q.C., for the inter­vener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

Downtown Legal Action, Winnipeg, Man­i­toba, for the appellant;

Scurfield Tapper Cuddy, Winnipeg, Mani­toba, for the respondent;

The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Department of Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the intervener, the Attor­ney General of Manitoba;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia.

This appeal was heard on February 25, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on October 13, 2000, including the following opinions:

Arbour, J., dissenting (McLachlin, C.J.C., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 45;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 46 to 141.