Sheena B., Re, (1995) 176 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 176 N.R. 161 (SCC);[1995] CarswellOnt 105;52 ACWS (3d) 1226;21 OR (3d) 479;176 NR 161;1995 CanLII 115 (SCC);[1995] 1 SCR 315;JE 95-243;[1994] SCJ No 24 (QL);9 RFL (4th) 157;122 DLR (4th) 1;26 CRR (2d) 202

Sheena B., Re (1995), 176 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Richard B. and Beena B. (appellants) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, The Official Guardian for Sheena B., an infant, and the Attorney General for Ontario (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Quebec (interveners)

(No. 23298)

Indexed As: Sheena B., Re

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci

and Major, JJ.

January 27, 1995.

Summary:

An infant was apprehended by the Chil­dren's Aid Society on the ground that her parents (Jehovah's Witnesses) refused to permit a blood transfusion. The Society obtained two court orders declaring the infant to be in need of protection under the Child Welfare Act. The transfusion was administered and thereafter the court termi­nated the wardship and returned the child to her parents. The parents then appealed against the orders. The Society applied to dismiss the appeal.

The Ontario District Court allowed the application and dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no lis between the parties and the whole issue was moot, because the Child Welfare Act had been repealed, the transfusion already adminis­tered and the wardship order terminated. The parents appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 25 O.A.C. 294, Griffiths, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered that the parents' appeal be heard on the merits.

The Ontario District Court dismissed the appeal on the merits and ordered the Attor­ney General of Ontario to pay the parents' costs. The parents appealed and the Attorney General cross-appealed the costs order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Houlden, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision report­ed 58 O.A.C. 93, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. The parents appealed on the merits and the Attorney General cross-appealed respecting costs. Four constitutional questions were set respecting whether the scheme under the Child Welfare Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 66, denied the rights of parents to choose medical treatment for their children contrary to s. 7 of the Charter or whether the scheme violated the parents' freedom of religion contrary to s. 2(a) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal. L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissented respecting the cross-appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 206

Life - Rights of children - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 8467 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - Scope of right - The Children's Aid Society obtained wardship orders under the Child Welfare Act respecting an infant to facilitate a blood transfusion when the child's Jehovah's Witness parents refused - The parents alleged a violation of their free­dom of religion (Charter, s. 2(a)) - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Gonthier, McLachlin, Sopinka and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), held that although the purpose of the Act (i.e., protection of children) did not infringe on the parents' freedom of reli­gion, the effects of the Act seriously infringed their rights - However, the re­strictions the Act imposed on parental rights were justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 62 to 80, 153, 154 - Iacobucci, Major, Cory, JJ., and Lamer, C.J.C., opined that there was no violation of the parents' freedom of reli­gion - See paragraphs 99 to 108, 112, 151.

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada per La Forest, J. (Gonthier, Mc­Lachlin, Sopinka and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), discussed whether the right of freedom of religion (Charter, s. 2(a)) was intrinsically limited and held that rather than impose internal restrictions, limita­tions of this right are best considered under s. 1 - See paragraphs 67 to 70, 153, 154 - Iacobucci, Major, Cory, JJ., and Lamer, C.J.C., opined that the freedom of religion is not absolute, rather there are limits to the scope of s. 2(a) - See para­graphs 100 to 106, 112.

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - Scope of right - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Gonthier, Mc­Lachlin, Sopinka and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), noted that the court had earlier held that freedom of religion encompassed the right of parents to edu­cate their children according to their reli­gious beliefs and that custody rights included the right to decide the child's religious education - The court stated that "... the right of par­ents to rear their children according to their religious beliefs, including that of choosing medical and other treatments, is an equally funda­mental aspect of freedom of religion" - See paragraphs 64, 153, 154.

Civil Rights - Topic 382

Freedom of conscience and religion - Infringement of - What constitutes - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 303 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 441

Freedom of conscience and religion - Health care - General - [See first and third Civil Rights - Topic 303 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 446

Freedom of conscience and religion - Health care - Blood transfusions - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 303 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 650

Liberty - Limitations on - Child protec­tion - The Children's Aid Society obtained wardship orders under the Child Welfare Act respecting an infant to facilitate a blood transfusion, refused by the child's Jehovah's Witness parents - The Supreme Court of Canada per La Forest, J. (Gonthier, McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., concurring), held that the appli­cation of the Act infringed on parental "liberty" (Charter, s. 7), but was done in accordance with the principles of funda­mental justice - See paragraphs 29 to 61, 154 - Iacobucci, Major and Cory, JJ., opined that the parents' right to refuse necessary medical treatment for their children was not protected by the "liberty" interest in s. 7 - See paragraphs 88 to 98 - Sopinka, J., did not rule on whether a liberty interest was engaged - See para­graph 153 - Lamer, C.J.C., opined that s. 7 was not infringed - See paragraphs 112 to 151.

Civil Rights - Topic 725

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Liberty defined - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of the protec­tion afforded by s. 7 of the Charter relating to the right of parents to choose medical treatment for their infant ("parental liber­ty") and how the "liberty" interest should be interpreted - See paragraphs 29 to 46, 73 to 80, 88 to 98, 112 to 150, 154.

Civil Rights - Topic 725

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Liberty defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 650 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 725.1

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Parental liberty - [See Civil Rights - Topic 650 and first Civil Rights - Topic 725 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 303 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8461.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Headings - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C., commented on the relationship between the headings in the Charter and the substance of the provisions following the headings - See paragraph 136.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Iacobucci and Major, JJ. (Cory, J., concurring), discussed the inter­relationship between parental liberty and a child's right to life (Charter, s. 7) - The court stated, inter alia, that "there is simply no room within s. 7 for parents to override the child's right to life and security of the person" - See paragraphs 87 to 90.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Lamer, C.J.C., discussed the interrelationship between s. 2 and s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 134 to 150.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada, per La Forest, J. (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring), stated that while ss. 8 to 14 of the Charter are of value in interpreting s. 7 of the Charter, those are not the only sections to be looked at for guidance - "The interpreta­tion of s. 7 is also informed by the other provisions of the Charter" - See paragraph 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 8467

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Interrelationship among Charter rights - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Iacobucci and Major, JJ. (Cory, J., concurring), discussed the bal­ancing of conflicts between individual rights - See paragraphs 109, 110.

Practice - Topic 7040

Costs - Party and party - Entitlement - Unsuccessful party - The Children's Aid Society obtained wardship orders respect­ing a child when the parents (Jehovah's Witnesses) refused a blood transfusion for the child - After the transfusion was given the wardship orders were terminated - The parents appealed the orders - The Ontario District Court dismissed the appeals, but ordered that the intervener, the Attorney General, pay the costs of the parents, notwithstanding their lack of success - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the order - The Supreme Court of Canada, L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting, also affirmed the order, noting that it appeared highly unusual, but that this case raised special and peculiar problems - See para­graphs 81, 111, 152, 153 - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., in her dissenting judgment, dis­cussed the costs issue in detail - See paragraphs 154 to 235.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [paras. 18, 88, 115].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 30, 109].

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. [para. 30].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [paras. 32, 113].

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 32, 116].

Reference Re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man.R.(2d) 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 77 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 34, 124].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 37, 117].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 38, 102, 120].

Reference Re s. 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 39, 113].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 39, 88].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 39, 119].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 40, 109].

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), 262 U.S. 390, refd to. [para. 40].

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), 268 U.S. 510, refd to. [para. 40].

Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), 321 U.S. 158, refd to. [para. 41].

Stanley v. Illinois (1972), 405 U.S. 645 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), 406 U.S. 205 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Planned Parenthood of South-Eastern Pennsylvania v. Casy (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2791, refd to. [para. 41].

Hepton v. Maat, [1957] S.C.R. 606, refd to. [para. 42].

C.P.L., Re (1988), 70 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 287; 215 A.P.R. 287 (Nfld. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81; 1 C.R.(4th) 129; 77 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 1; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [paras. 45, 102].

Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 13 C.P.C.(3d) 6, refd to. [para. 47].

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 51].

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. 53].

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 64, 94].

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), 310 U.S. 296, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 75].

Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211; 126 N.R. 161; 48 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [paras. 78, 110, 205].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 78].

R.K., Re (1987), 79 A.R. 140 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

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. 94].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Tutton and Tutton (1985), 6 O.A.C. 367; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 328, affd. [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392; 98 N.R. 19; 35 O.A.C. 1; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 13 M.V.R.(2d) 161; 69 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 103].

D., Re (1982), 30 R.F.L.(2d) 277 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 106].

S.E.M., Re (1986), 74 A.R. 23; 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 380 (Q.B.), appeal quashed (1988), 88 A.R. 346 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

R.E.D.M. v. Director of Child Welfare - see S.E.M., Re.

M.(R.E.D.) v. Director of Child Welfare - see S.E.M., Re.

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 126].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 8 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [paras. 135, 193].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (At­torney General) (1986), 56 O.R.(2d) 240 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 164].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 76 N.R. 81; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R. 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Pringle, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1645; 97 N.R. 1; 34 O.A.C. 281, refd to. [para. 172].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Bruns­wick Inc. and Association de conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271; 27 D.L.R.(4th) 406, refd to. [para. 173].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 174].

Hadmor Productions Ltd. v. Hamilton, [1982] 1 All E.R. 1042 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 174].

Elsom v. Elsom, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1367; 96 N.R. 165, refd to. [para. 175].

Immeubles Port Louis Ltée v. Lafontaine (Village), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 326; 121 N.R. 323; 38 Q.A.C. 253, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 701; 165 N.R. 1; 70 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 177].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 178].

N.V. Bocimar S.A. v. Century Insurance Co. of Canada, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1247; 76 N.R. 212, refd to. [para. 178].

Lewis v. Todd et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 14 C.C.L.T. 294, refd to. [para. 178].

Taylor v. Ankenman and Jaegli Enterprises Ltd., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 4, refd to. [para. 178].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 178].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 179].

Osenton (Charles) & Co. v. Johnston, [1942] A.C. 130, refd to. [para. 180].

539618 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Stathopoulos et al. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 308; 11 O.R.(3d) 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Prodon v. Vickrey et al. (1988), 93 A.R. 244; 31 C.P.C.(2d) 264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 181].

Nolet v. Nolet (1985), 68 N.S.R.(2d) 370; 159 A.P.R. 370 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Smov Industrie Ceramiche S.P.A. v. Sole Ceramic Importing Ltd. (1983), 141 D.L.R.(3d) 672 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 181].

Andrews v. Andrews (1980), 120 D.L.R.(3d) 252 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Kalesky v. Kalesky (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 30 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

Campbell (Donald) & Co. v. Pollack, [1927] A.C. 732 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 181].

Downey v. Roaf (1873), 6 P.R. 89 (Chy. Cham.), refd to. [para. 185].

Pattullo v. Orangeville (Town) (1899), 31 O.R. 192 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 185].

London & British North America Co. v. Haigh, [1922] 1 W.W.R. 172 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 185].

Hudson's Bay Co. v. Sjostrom, [1924] 3 W.W.R. 271 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 185].

Villeneuve v. Kelvington (Rural Munici­pality), [1929] 2 D.L.R. 919 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 185].

Wawrzyniak v. Jagiellicz (1988), 9 A.C.W.S.(3d) 175 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 190].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Labrecque et al., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1057; 38 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 192].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 193].

Borowski v. Minister of Justice and Minister of Finance of Canada, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, refd to. [para. 193].

Coronation Insurance Co. et al. v. Taku Air Transport Ltd. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 622; 131 N.R. 241; 6 B.C.A.C. 161; 13 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 194].

Dorion v. Roberge et al., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374; 124 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 194].

Roberge v. Bolduc - see Dorion v. Roberge et al.

Hartford v. Langdon's Coach Lines Co. (1975), 10 O.R.(2d) 617 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 197].

Wismer v. Javelin International Ltd. (1982), 38 O.R.(2d) 26 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 197].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Cronier (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 437 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Pawlowski (M.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 276; 20 C.R.(4th) 233 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 197].

British Columbia v. Worthington (Can.) Inc. (1988), 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 198].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Mani­toba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.) (1990), 70 Man.R.(2d) 59 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 205].

Hines v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (N.S.) (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 284 A.P.R. 240; 78 D.L.R.(4th) 162 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 205].

Doe et al. v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Ont.) et al. (1992), 53 O.A.C. 236; 7 C.P.C.(3d) 33, refd to. [para. 205].

John Doe - see Doe.

Janigan v. Harris (1989), 70 O.R.(2d) 5 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 211].

Poizer v. Ward, [1947] 4 D.L.R. 316 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 212].

Statutes Noticed:

African Charter on Human and People's Rights, art. 6 [para. 149].

American Convention on Human Rights, art. 7 [para. 149].

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, art. 1, art. 25 [para. 149].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(a) [para. 23 et seq]; sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4, sect. 5 [para. 136]; sect. 6 [para. 125]; sect. 7 [para. 23 et seq.]; sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 10, sect. 11, sect. 12, sect. 13, sect. 14 [paras. 36, 134, 136]; sect. 15 [para. 136]; sect. 32 [para. 77]; sect. 33 [para. 124].

Child Welfare Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 66, sect. 19(1)(b)(ix), sect. 21, sect. 27, sect. 28(1), sect. 28(10), sect. 28(12), sect. 30(1)2 [para. 23 et seq.]; sect. 37 [para. 50]; sect. 41 [para. 23 et seq.].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 124].

Courts of Justice Act, S.O. 1984, c. 11, sect. 122 [para. 159]; sect. 122(4) [para. 203]; sect. 122(5) [para. 204]; sect. 141(1) [para. 186].

Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, sect. 109 [para. 159]; sect. 131(1) [para. 186].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 126(1) [para. 148].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 5(1) [para. 149].

International Covenant on Civil and Politi­cal Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, arts. 6, 9(1) [para. 149].

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 57.01(1) [para. 186]; rule 57.01(1)(d) [para. 166]; rule 57.01(2) [para. 163 et seq.].

Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, sect. 42(1) [para. 172]; sect. 47 [para. 182].

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment [para. 32].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), art. 3 [para. 149].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bala, Nicholas and J. Douglas Redfearn, Family Law and the "Liberty Interest": Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights (1983), 15 Ottawa L. Rev. 274, pp. 281 [para. 31]; 301 [para. 45].

Colvin, Eric, Section Seven of the Cana­dian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 560, p. 584 [para. 133].

Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl., 1st Sess., Oct. 6, 1980, p. 3285 [para. 149].

Orkin, Mark M., The Law of Costs (2nd Ed. 1993), pp. 2-17, 2-18, 2-20, 2-31, 2-32, para. 205.2 [paras. 185, 186, 190, 211, 212].

Counsel:

John M. Burns, W. Glen How, Q.C., and David C. Day, Q.C., for the appellants;

Alexander Duncan, for the respondent, the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto;

Debra Paulseth, for the respondent, the Official Guardian of Ontario;

Janet E. Minor and Robert E. Charney, for the respondent, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Roslyn J. Levine, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Isabelle Harnois, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

W. Glen How & Associates, Halton Hills, Ontario, for the appellants;

Heather L. Katarynych, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto;

Debra Paulseth, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Official Guardian of Ontario;

Janet E. Minor and Robert E. Charney Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Roslyn J. Levine, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Isabelle Harnois and Monique Rousseau, Ste-Foy, Quebec, for the Attorney Gen­eral of Quebec.

This appeal was heard on March 17, 1994, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Judgment on the appeal was rendered on March 17, 1994, with reasons and judgment on the cross-appeal delivered in both official languages on January 27, 1995, including the following opinions:

La Forest, J. (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 83;

Iacobucci and Major, JJ. (joint con­curring reasons)(Cory, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 84 to 111;

Lamer, C.J.C. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 112 to 152;

Sopinka, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraph 153;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (concurring reasons on main appeal, dissenting on cross-appeal) - see paragraphs 154 to 235.