Case information

Status of persons — Child protection — Whether rights and freedoms granted by charters take precedence over statute — Whether violation of rights and freedoms is serious ground for challenging constitutional validity of provision of statute — Whether violation of rights and freedoms is serious ground for granting leave to appeal out of time — Whether provisions of Youth Protection Act and others infringe rights and freedoms granted by charters — Whether Youth Protection Act is unconstitutional — Whether Youth Protection Act remains invalid in event that government invokes notwithstanding clause — Whether Youth Protection Act must be suspended for period of six months — Whether government is required to pay amount in punitive (exemplary) damages because of fact that legislature passed legislation, in performance of its executive function, that was subsequently declared of no force or effect by court. If so, amount that government is required to pay in punitive (exemplary) damages to plaintiffs — Whether court must refer case to Court of Québec, Youth Division, so that it can render judgment in accordance with rights and freedoms of children — Youth Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 34.1.

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) (PUBLICATION BAN ON PARTY) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

Two children, X and Y, were born prematurely at thirty (30) weeks of pregnancy. From the moment they were born, they needed care. Y required constant respiratory support and was hospitalized for several months. Over the course of those months, the relationship between the parents and the treatment team deteriorated to the point where the parents sent a demand to the hospital. The father, on his own initiative and against the advice of the treating physicians, reduced the density of the air received by Y through their support apparatus. The director of youth protection asked the court to declare the security and development of X and Y in danger because they were, or could be, victims of neglect as regards their health.

At first instance, Judge Brillon found that the father clearly showed neglect as regards the health care of Y by reducing the density of the air from the respiratory apparatus. Regarding X, he found that the evidence was overwhelming that the child was at risk of neglect as regards health. The Superior Court found that Judge Brillon did not commit any error of law or fact.

The applicants once again brought various motions before the Court of Québec, including an application to have the health and security of Z, a third child of the couple, declared not in danger. Judge Brillon found that none of their applications had any chance of success, that they were abusive and that they had to be dismissed. The applicants then filed applications for leave to appeal with the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, which also failed.