Case information

Aboriginal law — Aboriginal rights — Self-government — Status of persons — Child protection — Should the definition of “parent” in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 and thus the determination of who is a party to a child protection proceeding, be interpreted to include temporary caregivers and those who might acquire “parent” status during the course of a child protection proceeding? — What deference, if any, should the court show to customary care agreements entered into by First Nations exercising their inherent right to self-government in relation to child and family services? — Who are the proper parties to a child welfare proceeding, and in particular to a customary care agreement respecting the placement of an Indigenous child? — What are the proper considerations to weigh when considering the best interests of an Indigenous child? — If the court erred with respect to the above issue, what is the appropriate remedy?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (the “Society”) became involved with the family shortly after the child’s birth because her parents. T.E. and L.D., presented many concerns, including adult conflict, homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. Under Society supervision, the child was placed with a series of relatives, with none of the placements lasting for long. Formal protection proceedings were commenced on November 20, 2020. The Society apprehended the child on January 27, 2021 and placed her with T.M. as a foster placement, with the approval of the parents. T.M. later obtained an order for temporary care and custody of the child. After approximately nine months, this placement also fell apart, and the child was apprehended by the Society and placed in the care of the mother’s half-sister with an access order in favour of T.M. In February 2022, the Society, the Oneida First Nation, the current caregiver and the parents signed a Customary Care Agreement that placed the child with the mother’s half-sister. Any rights of custody or access for T.M. were not dealt with in the agreement. The father brought a motion to dismiss the child protection proceedings in view of the agreement. T.M. brought a motion to be added as a party. The motion judge dismissed the child protection proceedings and ruled that T.M. had no standing to participate in the action. This decision was overturned on appeal. The action was reinstated and T.M. was held to have party status, under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, S.O. 2017, c. C-14.