Métis Child, Family and Community Services v. T.S.N. et al., 2015 MBQB 127

• Judge: Doyle, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: July 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 127;(2015), 320 Man.R.(2d) 49 (QBFD)

CFS v. T.S.N. (2015), 320 Man.R.(2d) 49 (QBFD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.030

Métis Child, Family and Community Services (petitioner) v. T.S.N. and R.E.E. (respondents)

(CP 13-01-14268; 2015 MBQB 127)

Indexed As: Métis Child, Family and Community Services v. T.S.N. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Family Division

Winnipeg Centre

Doyle, J.

July 17, 2015.

Summary:

A child was apprehended and placed in foster care when he was five months old. About 10 months later, the child was returned to the care of his parents under the supervision of Métis Child, Family and Community Services (the Agency). The Agency applied for an order that the child remain under its supervision while in the care of his parents for a period of one year.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the application.

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 814

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child or adult in need of protection - Friendly or departmental supervision - A five month old child was apprehended and placed in foster care after being admitted to hospital twice for failure to thrive while in his parents' care - He was returned to his parents under the supervision of Métis Child, Family and Community Services (the Agency) about 10 months later - The Agency applied for an order continuing its supervision for a period of one year - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the application - The child was and continued to be in need of protection - His failure to thrive was caused by the mother's failure to properly feed him - The mother failed to consistently communicate accurate information to the child's doctors or follow the doctors' directions - The parents did not accept responsibility for the child's failure to thrive or his apprehension - The mother's ability to meet the child's needs was directly related to the status of her obsessive compulsive personality traits and her symptoms of anxiety and depression - Accordingly, the supervision order would remain in effect until the mother had completed 12 monthly treatment sessions with a psychologist - The Agency was entitled to communicate its concerns respecting the mother's mental health and her care of the child to the psychologist and obtain any feedback that the psychologist wished to provide - The child's best interests took precedence over the psychologist's duty of confidentiality to the mother - See paragraphs 63 to 101.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 815

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child or adult in need of protection - Considerations (incl. best interests of child) - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 814 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 815.6

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Medical or health reasons - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 814 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 871

Public trustee or guardian - Powers - General - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 814 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 968

Public trustee or guardian - Practice - Summary judgment - Métis Child, Family and Community Services (the Agency) applied for an order that a child remain under its supervision while in the care of his parents for a period of one year - The main impediment to an agreement between the Agency and the parents related to the Agency's desire to have access to the mother's psychologist - Five pre-trial conferences and a 13 day trial involving 10 witnesses ensued - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, allowed the Agency's application and then considered whether the process provided a proportional, timely and cost-effective means for resolving the issues in dispute - The issue of whether the child was in need of protection was not a genuine issue requiring a trial - A motion for summary judgment with the court having expanded powers and the discretion to hear oral evidence (as had been granted to courts in Ontario) would have provided a procedure that would have been proportionate to the level of intervention in the family's life - It was not in the interests of justice that the powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and make inferences be exercised exclusively in the context of a trial - See paragraphs 102 to 141.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 968 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, consd. [para. 1].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg Central v. K.L.W. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; 260 N.R. 203; 150 Man.R.(2d) 161; 230 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 63].

Winnipeg Child & Family Services (East Area) v. P.D., 1995 CarswellMan 591 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75].

West Region Child and Family Services v. S.C. et al., [2012] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 18; 2012 MBQB 84, refd to. [para. 76].

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. 114].

Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. A.M. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 6828; 2012 ONSC 6828, refd to. [para. 118].

Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.R., 2014 ONSC 5982, refd to. [para. 120].

Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex v. H.B.L., 2014 ONSC 6291, refd to. [para. 121].

Child and Family Services of Winnipeg East v. K.A.D. et al. (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 262; 93 W.A.C. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133].

Counsel:

Dean R. Kropp, for the petitioner;

Jurgen W. Feldschmid, for the respondents.

This matter was heard before Doyle, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on July 17, 2015.