The Voice of the Child in Divorce, Custody and Access Proceedings

ENDNOTES

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents]

• [1]  ^{Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11.}
  
  
• [2]  ^{(1982), 26 R.F.L. (2d) 113 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [3]  ^{Zacksv. Zacks (1973) 10 R.F.L. 53 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [4]  ^{H.T.G. Andrews and P. Gelsomino, "The Legal Representation of Children in Custody and Protection Proceedings:  A Comparative View" in Family Law:  Dimensions of Justice (edited by R. Abella and C. L'Heureux-Dubé), (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1983) at 243; and C. Bernard, R. Ward, and B. Knoppers, "Best Interests of the Child Exposed:  A Portrait of Quebec Custody and Protection Law" (1992-93), 11 Can. J. Fam. L. 57 at 136.}
  
  
• [5]  ^{S. Toope, "The Convention on The Rights of the Child:  Implications for Canada" in Children's Rights A Comparative Perspective ed. S. M. Freeman (England:  Dartmouth Publishing Limited, 1996) at 55.}
  
  
• [6]  ^{J. Begley, "The Representation of Children In Custody And Access Proceedings" (1994), 10 Solicitors' Journal 1 at 12; and R. Boll, "Who Speaks For The Child?  The Right to Independent Legal Representation." (1993-94), Law Now 8 at 9.}
  
  
• [7]  ^{See A. Mamo "Child Representation" Chapter 13 at 13-27 in J. McLeod, Child Custody Law and Practice (Toronto:  Thomson Canada Limited, 1999 Updates) and A. P. Nasmith "The Inchoate Voice" (1991-92), 8 Can. Fam. L.Q. 43 at 54.  See also Australian Law Reform Commission, Speaking for Ourselves:  Children and the Legal Process (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996).}
  
  
• [8]  ^{Nasmith, ibid; at 55.}
  
  
• [9]  ^{Bernard et al., op.cit., note 4, at 131.}
  
  
• [10]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 7, at 54 and 45.}
  
  
• [11]  ^{Bernard et al., op.cit., note 4, at 134.}
  
  
• [12]  ^{Bernard et al., op.cit., note 4, at 125.  As stated by Supreme Court of Canada in Stevenson v. Florant, [1925] S.C.R. 532, the wishes of the child are not to be confounded with the interest of the child.}
  
  
• [13]  ^{Ibid., at 122.}
  
  
• [14]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [15]  ^{Ibid., at 131.}
  
  
• [16]  ^{Extract from the Journals of the House of Commons, November 18, 1997 in For the Sake of the Children, Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, Joint Chairs The Honourable Landon Pearson and Roger Gallaway, M.P. (Ottawa:  Public Works and Government Services Canada, December 1998) at xii.}
  
  
• [17]  ^{For the Sake of the Children, ibid., at 1.}
  
  
• [18]  ^{Ibid., at 22.}
  
  
• [19]  ^{Ibid., at 23.}
  
  
• [20]  ^{UNGA Resolution, November 20, 1989, U.N. Doc A/Res/44/25.  In force September 2, 1990.}
  
  
• [21]  ^{See H.D. Davidson, "The Child's Right To Be Heard and Represented" in Children's Rights in America:  U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, ed. C. Price Cohen and H.D. Davidson, (U.S.A.:  American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, 1990) at 164.}
  
  
• [22]  ^{C. Huddart and J. Ensminger, "Hearing the Voice of Children" (1991-92), 8 Can. Fam. L.Q. 95 at 96.}
  
  
• [23]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 7, at 66.}
  
  
• [24]  ^{(New York:  Alfred A. Knopf, 1962).}
  
  
• [25]  ^{See discussion in M. Freeman, The Rights and Wrongs of Children (Dover, N.H.:  F. Pinter, 1983) at 8.}
  
  
• [26]  ^{Freeman, ibid., at 9.  See discussion by S. Scott in "From Major to Minor:  An Historical Overview of Children's Rights and Benefits" (1993), 9 Journal of Law and Social Policy 222 at 229.}
  
  
• [27]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [28]  ^{Ibid., at 10.}
  
  
• [29]  ^{Ibid., and Scott, op.cit., note 26, at 230.}
  
  
• [30]  ^{Ibid. See discussion at 13.}
  
  
• [31]  ^{M. Freeman, "Whither Children:  Protection Participation, Autonomy?" (1994), 22 Man. L.J. 307 at 320; and Freeman, ibid., at 20.}
  
  
• [32]  ^{C. Barton and G. Douglas, Law and Parenthood (London, England:  Butterworths, 1995) at 423.}
  
  
• [33]  ^{H.T.G. Andrews and P. Gelsomino, "The Legal Representation of Children in Custody and Protection Proceedings:  A Comparative View" in Family Law:  Dimensions of Justice, ed. R. Abella and C. L'Heureux-Dubé (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1983) at 241; and C. Bernard, R. Ward, and B. Knoppers, "Best Interests of the Child Exposed:  A Portrait of Quebec Custody and Protection Law" (1992-93), 11 Can. J. Fam. L. 57 at 122-123.}
  
  
• [34]  ^{387 U.S. 1 (1967).}
  
  
• [35]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [36]  ^{393 U.S. 503 (1969).  This case involved the right of students to freedom of expression.  Students in an Iowa high school wore black armbands to express their objection to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.}
  
  
• [37]  ^{(1975), 9 O.R. (2d) 185 at 192; 21 R.F.L. 315 at 323 (Ont. Co. Ct.).}
  
  
• [38]  ^{Part III (Victoria:  Queen's Printer, 1975).}
  
  
• [39]  ^{Ibid., at 6-7.}
  
  
• [40]  ^{See, for example, Bill 86 (Children's Rights Act, 1984) of the 4th Session of the 32nd Legislative Assembly of Ontario, First Reading, May 29, 1984.}
  
  
• [41]  ^{(New York:  E.P. Dutton, 1974).}
  
  
• [42]  ^{(New York:  MacMillan, 1974).}
  
  
• [43]  ^{See discussion in M. Wald, "Children's Rights:  A Framework for Analysis" in Children's Rights in the Practice of Family Law (Toronto:  Carswell, 1986) at 4.}
  
  
• [44]  ^{Freeman, op.cit., note 31, at 312-314.}
  
  
• [45]  ^{(1973), 43 Harvard Educ. R. 487.}
  
  
• [46]  ^{See "Hillary Clinton Child Saver:  What She Values Will Not Help the Family," Harper's Magazine, 1992, October Issue, at 74 for a discussion of Rodham-Clinton's views.}
  
  
• [47]  ^{Freeman, op.cit., note 25, at 23.}
  
  
• [48]  ^{Wald, op.cit., note 43, at 6.}
  
  
• [49]  ^{M. Minow "Interpreting Rights:  An Essay for Robert Cover" (1987), 96 Yale Law Journal 1860, at 1863.}
  
  
• [50]  ^{(1991), 17 Ohio North L. R. 543.  See also G. Russ, "Through the Eyes of a Child, Gregory K.:  A Child's Right to Be Heard"(1993), 27 Fam. L.Q. 365 at 370-371.}
  
  
• [51]  ^{D. Nelken "Afterward:  Choosing Rights for Children" in Children's Rights and Traditional Values, eds. G. Douglas and L. Sebba.  (Vermont:  Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998) at 315.}
  
  
• [52]  ^{UNGA Resolution, November 20, 1989, UN Doc A/RES/44/25.  In force September 2, 1990.  See also Recommendation 1286 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on a European Strategy for Children adopted January, 1996, 4th sitting.}
  
  
• [53]  ^{See for example, British Columbia Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law, op.cit., note 38.}
  
  
• [54]  ^{Wald, op.cit., note 43 at 11.}
  
  
• [55]  ^{Ibid., at 9.}
  
  
• [56]  ^{See also European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights in Germany The Rights of the Child: A European Perspective (German Council of European Publishing, 1996).}
  
  
• [57]  ^{R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1.}
  
  
• [58]  ^{Wald, op.cit., note 43, at 16.}
  
  
• [59]  ^{Freeman, op.cit., note 31, at 324.}
  
  
• [60]  ^{Op.cit., at note 52.}
  
  
• [61]  ^{M. Freeman, "Introduction:  Children as Persons" in Children's Rights:  A Comparative Perspective, ed. M. Freeman (England:  Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1996) at 1.}
  
  
• [62]  ^{S. Toope, "The Convention on the Rights of the Child:  Implications for Canada" in Children's Rights:}
  
  
• ^{A Comparative Perspective, ed. M. Freeman (England:  Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1996), at 47.}
  
  
• [63]  ^{Op.cit., at note 52.}
  
  
• [64]  ^{Nelken, op.cit., note 51, at 315.}
  
  
• [65]  ^{Barton and Douglas, op.cit., note 32, at 39.}
  
  
• [66]  ^{Freeman, op.cit., note 31, at 319.}
  
  
• [67]  ^{Ibid., at 318.}
  
  
• [68]  ^{Ibid., at 319.}
  
  
• [69]  ^{Barton and Douglas, op.cit., note 32, at 42.}
  
  
• [70]  ^{G. Van Bueren, "The Right of the Child to Freedom of Expression" in The International Law on the Rights of the Child (The Netherlands:  Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) 131 at 136.}
  
  
• [71]  ^{Y. Ronen, "Protection for Whom and for What?  Protection Proceedings and the Voice of the Child at Risk" in Children's Rights and Traditional Values, ed. G. Douglas and L. Sebba (Vermont:  Ashgate Publishing Company, 1998) at 250.}
  
  
• [72]  ^{Ibid., at 249.}
  
  
• [73]  ^{G. Van Bueren, "The Right of the Child to Freedom of Expression" in The International Law on the Rights of the Child (The Netherlands:  Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) 131 at 136.}
  
  
• [74]  ^{Ibid., at 138.}
  
  
• [75]  ^{Ibid., at 137.}
  
  
• [76]  ^{Ibid., at 138.}
  
  
• [77]  ^{Ibid., at 137.  See also Australian Law Reform Commission, Speaking for Ourselves:  Children and the Legal Process (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996).}
  
  
• [78]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [79]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [80]  ^{G. Barn and A. Franklin, "Issues in Developing Children's Participation Rights:  The Experience of Save the Children in the U.K." in Monitoring Children's Rights, ed. E. Verhellen (The Hague, The Netherlands:  Kluwer Law International, 1996) 305, at 306.}
  
  
• [81]  ^{Ronen, op.cit., note 71, at 257.}
  
  
• [82]  ^{H. Davidson, "The Child's Right To Be Heard and Represented" in Children's Rights in America:  U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, ed. C. Price Cohen and H. Davidson (U.S.A.:  America Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, 1990) at 151.}
  
  
• [83]  ^{(Ottawa:  Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998) at 21-22.}
  
  
• [84]  ^{C. Bernard, R. Ward, and B. Knoppers, "Best Interests of the Child Exposed:  A Portrait of Quebec Custody and Protection Law" (1992-93), 11, Can. J. Fam. L. 58 at 136.  See also J. Begley, "The Representation of Children in Custody and Access Proceedings" (1994), 10 Solicitors' Journal 1 at 15, A.P. Nasmith "The Inchoate Voice" (1991-92), 8 Can. Fam. L.Q. 43, and G. Thomson "Eliminating Role Confusion in the Child's Lawyer:  The Ontario Experience" (1983), 4 Can. J. Fam. L. 125 at 133.}
  
  
• [85]  ^{138 N.W. (2d) 185 (Wisconsin Sup. Ct. 1965) at 191.}
  
  
• [86]  ^{[1983] 2 S.C.R. 173 at 185.}
  
  
• [87]  ^{Law Reform Commission of Canada, The Family Court, Working Paper No. 1 (Ottawa, 1974).}
  
  
• [88]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [89]  ^{See discussion in Reid v. Reid (1975), 25 R.F.L. 209 (Ont. Div. Ct.).}
  
  
• [90]  ^{His Honour Judge A. P. Nasmith, "The Inchoate Voice" (1991-92), 8 Can. Fam. L.Q. 43 at 44; R. Boll, "Who Speaks For The Child?  The Right to Independent Legal Representation" (1993-94), Law Now 8 at 9; and G. Thomson, "Eliminating Role Confusion In The Child's Lawyer:  The Ontario Experience" (1983-84), 4 Can. J. Fam. L. 125 at 126.}
  
  
• [91]  ^{See C. Davies, Family Law in Canada (Toronto:  Carswell Legal Publications, 1984) at 539-540.}
  
  
• [92]  ^{A. Mamo "Child Representation" in J. McLeod, Child Custody Law and Practice (Toronto:  Thomson Canada Limited, 1998 updates) at 13-18.}
  
  
• [93]  ^{Thomson, op.cit., note 90, at 126.}
  
  
• [94]  ^{[1986] 2 W.W.R. 577 (Man. C.A.).}
  
  
• [95]  ^{(1976), 26 R.F.L. 91 at 96 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).}
  
  
• [96]  ^{(1984), 39 R.F.L. (2d) 383 (Man. Q.B.).}
  
  
• [97]  ^{(1981), 21 R.F.L. (2d) 173 at 178 (Ont. H.C.).}
  
  
• [98]  ^{Lavitch, op.cit., note 94.  The issue before the Manitoba Court of Appeal was whether the courts in Manitoba or California had jurisdiction to decide the custody matter.}
  
  
• [99]  ^{(1984), 44 R.F.L. (2d) 187 (Ont. H.C.).}
  
  
• [100]  ^{(1984), 37 R.F.L. (2d) 333, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused (1984), 3 O.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [101]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [102]  ^{[1997] W.D.F.L. 718 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div).}
  
  
• [103]  ^{(1975), 25 R.F.L. 209 at 216 (Ont. Div. Ct.)}
  
  
• [104]  ^{[1996] W.D.F.L. 823 (Ont. Gen. Div).} 
  
  
• [105]  ^{Mamo, op.cit.,note 92, at 13-27 to 13-29.}
  
  
• [106]  ^{Ibid., at 13-27.  See also S. Wilber, "Independent Counsel for Children" (1993), 27 Fam. L.Q. 349 at 351.}
  
  
• [107]  ^{T. Maczko, "Some Problems With Acting For Children," (1979), 2 Can. J. Fam. L. 267 at 279.}
  
  
• [108]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [109]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 60.}
  
  
• [110]  ^{Maczko, op.cit., note 107, at 283.}
  
  
• [111]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-6.}
  
  
• [112]  ^{Ibid., at 13-9.}
  
  
• [113]  ^{(1975), 25 R.F.L. 209 at 216 (Ont. Div. Ct.).  See Re Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 at 425-426.}
  
  
• [114]  ^{(1991), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 1 at 13 (Ont. Ct. Prov. Div.), appealed to (1991), 35 R.F.L. (3d) 297 (Ont. Gen. Div.)}
  
  
• [115]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [116]  ^{R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 128.}
  
  
• [117]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [118]  ^{1987, c.F20, S. 2(2).  See also section 394.1 Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.}
  
  
• [119]  ^{R.S.O. 1990, C.12.}
  
  
• [120]  ^{Office of the Children's Lawyer Policy Statement:  Role of Child's Counsel, 1995.}
  
  
• [121]  ^{R.S.O. 1990, c.C. 43.}
  
  
• [122]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [123]  ^{Office of The Children's Lawyer Policy Statement, op.cit., note 120; and Office of the Children's Lawyer, Annual Review, 1997/1998.}
  
  
• [124]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-1.}
  
  
• [125]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [126]  ^{H. T. G. Andrews and P. Gelsomino, "The Legal Representation of Children in Custody and Protection Proceedings:  A Comparative View" in Family Law:  Dimensions of Justice (edited by R. Abella and C. L'Heureux-Dubé) (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1983) at 251, and J. Begley, "The Representation of Children in Custody and Access Proceedings" (1994), 10 Solicitors' Journal 1 at 18.  See also D.B. and P.B. v. Director of Child Welfare for Newfoundland (1982), 30 R.F.L. (2d) 438 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [127]  ^{Boll, op.cit., note 90, at 9; C. Huddart and J. Ensminger, "Hearing the Voice of Children" (1991-92) 8 Can. Fam. L.Q.  95 at 104; and "The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper prepared by The Quebec Bar Committee" (1996), 13 Can. J. Fam. L. 49 at 78.}
  
  
• [128]  ^{"The Legal Representation Of Children" ibid., and Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 251.}
  
  
• [129]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 45.}
  
  
• [130]  ^{Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 252.}
  
  
• [131]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 127, at 105.}
  
  
• [132]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-19 to 13-21.  See also Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 252.}
  
  
• [133]  ^{Report No. 43 (Edmonton, Alberta:  October 1984).}
  
  
• [134]  ^{(1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 540 at 548, appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal (1994), 18 O.R. (3d) 753.}
  
  
• [135]  ^{See discussion in Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 127, at 105-106.  See also Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 47 and 58.}
  
  
• [136]  ^{Nasmith, ibid., at 49.}
  
  
• [137]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 12; and M. Bernstein, "Towards a New Approach to Child Representation:  How Less is More in Child Welfare Proceedings" (1993-94), 10 Can. Fam. L.Q. 187 at 190.}
  
  
• [138]  ^{Ibid., and Boll, op.cit., note 90, at 9.}
  
  
• [139]  ^{Begley, ibid.}
  
  
• [140]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-20; and Begley, ibid.}
  
  
• [141]  ^{Strobridge, Ontario Court of Appeal, op.cit., note 134.}
  
  
• [142]  ^{[1995] O.J. No. 3275 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).}
  
  
• [143]  ^{(1996), 21 R.F.L. (4th) 7 (Ont. C.A.).}
  
  
• [144]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 12; and Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-20.}
  
  
• [145]  ^{(1977-1978), 16 J. Fam. Law at 1 at 13.}
  
  
• [146]  ^{See Davies, op.cit., note 91, at 540.}
  
  
• [147]  ^{Bernstein, op.cit., note 137, at 201.}
  
  
• [148]  ^{Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 252.}
  
  
• [149]  ^{Ibid., and Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 127, at 105.}
  
  
• [150]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children," op.cit., note 127, at 80-81.}
  
  
• [151]  ^{Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 253; and Nasmith, op.cit., note 90 at 45.}
  
  
• [152]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 12.}
  
  
• [153]  ^{Report of the Law Society of Upper Canada Subcommittee on Representation of Children (Toronto:  Law Society of Upper Canada, 1981).}
  
  
• [154]  ^{Ibid., at 4.}
  
  
• [155]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [156]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 58.}
  
  
• [157]  ^{R. S. Abella, C. L'Heureux-Dubé, and M. L. Rothman, "Code of Recommended Procedures in the Resolution of Family Disputes" in Family Law:  Dimensions of Justice, ed. R. Abella and C. L'Heureux-Dubé (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1983) at 327-328.}
  
  
• [158]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-29.}
  
  
• [159]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 12.  See also E. Kruzick and D. Zemans "In The Best Interest Of The Child:  Mandatory Legal Representation" (1992), 69 Denver Univ. Law Rev. 605 at 613.}
  
  
• [160]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-18.}
  
  
• [161]  ^{(1980), 27 O.R. (2d) 314 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) at 316-317.}
  
  
• [162]  ^{Ibid., at 318.}
  
  
• [163]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 13.}
  
  
• [164]  ^{Abella, L'Heureux-Dubé and Rothman op.cit., note 157, at 327-328.}
  
  
• [165]  ^{Thomson, op.cit., note 90, at 137.}
  
  
• [166]  ^{Ibid., at 138.}
  
  
• [167]  ^{Ibid., and Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-39.}
  
  
• [168]  ^{Nasmith,op.cit., note 90, at 54.}
  
  
• [169]  ^{"Recent Developments in Legal Representation of Children:  A Growing Concern With the Concept of Capacity" (1978), 1 Can. J. Fam. L. 375.}
  
  
• [170]  ^{Bernstein, op.cit., note 137, at 207.}
  
  
• [171]  ^{"Representation of the Child in Protection Proceedings:  The Determination of Decision-Making Capacity" (1983), 17 Fam. L.Q. 287 at 312-314.}
  
  
• [172]  ^{Leon, op.cit., note 169, at 432-433.}
  
  
• [173]  ^{Bernstein, op.cit., note 137, at 207.}
  
  
• [174]  ^{Ramsey, op.cit., note 171, at 312-313.}
  
  
• [175]  ^{Mamo. op.cit., note 92, at 13-35.  See also Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 52.}
  
  
• [176]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 13.}
  
  
• [177]  ^{D.P. and P.B. v. Director of Child Welfare for Newfoundland (1982), 30 R.F.L. (2d) 438 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [178]  ^{"Counsel For Christopher:  Representing An Infants Best Interests In The Supreme Court of Canada" (1983), 33 R.F.L. (2d) 16 at 23.}
  
  
• [179]  ^{Report of The Law Society of Upper Canada Subcommittee, op.cit., note 153.}
  
  
• [180]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-32.}
  
  
• [181]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [182]  ^{Ibid., at 13-38.}
  
  
• [183]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children," op.cit., note 127, at 85.}
  
  
• [184]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 54.}
  
  
• [185]  ^{Ibid., at 55.}
  
  
• [186]  ^{Ibid., at 54.}
  
  
• [187]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92 at 13-40 to 13-41; and Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 47.}
  
  
• [188]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper prepared by the Quebec Bar, op.cit., note 127, at 108.}
  
  
• [189]  ^{D.A. Rollie Thompson, "Rules of Evidence and Preparing for Court," in Canadian Child Welfare Law:  Children, Families and the State, (edited by N. Bala, J. Hornick, and R. Vogl) (Toronto:  Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc., 1991) at 300.}
  
  
• [190]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [191]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 90, at 55.}
  
  
• [192]  ^{S. Himel, "Representing Children," in Canadian Welfare Law:  Children Families, and The State, ed. N. Bala, J. Hornick, and R. Vogl (Toronto:  Thompson Educational Publishing Inc., 1991) at 201.}
  
  
• [193]  ^{See, for example, Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C-11, Section 72.}
  
  
• [194]  ^{Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct, (Toronto:  Law Society of Upper Canada) Rule 4, Commentary 11.}
  
  
• [195]  ^{Himel, op.cit., note 192, at 202.}
  
  
• [196]  ^{F. Maczko, "Some Problems With Acting For Children" (1979), 2 Can. J. Fam. L. 267.}
  
  
• [197]  ^{Ibid., at 291 and 297.  Note that in the Child and Family Services Act in Ontario, op.cit.,note 193, a solicitor/client privilege exists with respect to the duty to report abuse.}
  
  
• [198]  ^{Op.cit.,note 127, at 113-114.}
  
  
• [199]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [200]  ^{Andrews and Gelsomino, op.cit., note 126, at 254.}
  
  
• [201]  ^{Himel, op.cit., note 192, at 202.}
  
  
• [202]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper," op.cit., note 127, at 109-110.}
  
  
• [203]  ^{Maczko, op.cit., note 196, at 297.}
  
  
• [204]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper," op.cit., note 127, at 121-122; and Thomson, op.cit., note 90, at 145.}
  
  
• [205]  ^{Begley, op.cit., note 126, at 15.}
  
  
• [206]  ^{Bernard, Ward, and Knoppers, op.cit., note 84, at 147.}
  
  
• [207]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper," op.cit., note 127, at 118.}
  
  
• [208]  ^{Mamo, op.cit., note 92, at 13-8.}
  
  
• [209]  ^{"The Legal Representation of Children:  A Consultation Paper," op.cit., note 127, at 117-118.}
  
  
• [210]  ^{Ibid., at 111-115.}
  
  
• [211]  ^{C. Huddart and J. Ensminger, "Hearing the Voice of Children" (1991-92), Can. Fam. L.Q. 95 at 101; J. McLeod, "Factors Governing the Award of Custody" in Child Custody Law and Practice, ed. J. McLeod (Ontario:  Thomson Canada Ltd., 1992) at 4-36.  See also Wakaluk v. Wakaluk (1976), 25 R.F.L. 192 (Sask. C.A.).}
  
  
• [212]  ^{Note that Huddart and Ensminger, ibid., at 101, assert that "there are no systematic studies underpinning those conclusions."}
  
  
• [213]  ^{See discussion by R. Bessner on Child Witnesses in Wilson on Children and the Law (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1996 updates) at 6.65.}
  
  
• [214]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 100.}
  
  
• [215]  ^{"Children and the Legal Process:  Changing The Rules of Evidence" (1992), 50 The Advocate 727.}
  
  
• [216]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 96.}
  
  
• [217]  ^{Ibid., at96.}
  
  
• [218]  ^{Ibid., at 97.}
  
  
• [219]  ^{Ibid., at 101.}
  
  
• [220]  ^{The Honourable Madame Justice Beverly McLachlin, op.cit., note 215, at 728.}
  
  
• [221]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 100.}
  
  
• [222]  ^{J. Y. Parker, "The Rights of Child Witnesses:  Is The Court A Protector Or Perpetrator?" (1982), 17 New Eng. L. Rev. 643, at 696.  See also Ontario Medical Association's Committee on Child Welfare, "The Child in Court:  Some Changes Needed (1987), Ont. Med. Rev. 93, at 94.}
  
  
• [223]  ^{R. Bessner, Report on Child Witnesses, Ontario Law Reform Commission, (Toronto, 1991) at 72.}
  
  
• [224]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [225]  ^{[1990] 2 S.C.R. 30.}
  
  
• [226]  ^{(1992), 13 C.R. (4th) 257 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [227]  ^{(1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 325 at 331 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [228]  ^{(1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 285 at 311 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [229]  ^{(1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 325 at 334 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [230]  ^{The Honourable Madame Justice Beverly McLachlin; op.cit., note 215, at 737.}
  
  
• [231]  ^{The King v. Brasier (1779), 168 E.R. 202.}
  
  
• [232]  ^{R. v. Antobus (1946), 3 C.R. 357 (B.C.C.A.).}
  
  
• [233]  ^{See R.S.C. 1970, c.E-10.}
  
  
• [234]  ^{An Act to Amend The Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1959, C.31, s.1; Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.145, s.18.}
  
  
• [235]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1980, ibid., s.18(2).}
  
  
• [236]  ^{See R. Bessner, "The Competency of the Child Witness:  A Critical Analysis of Bill C-15," (1989), 31 Crim. L.Q.  481.}
  
  
• [237]  ^{See Chapter 1, "Psychological Studies On The Reliability of Children's Testimony" in The Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Child Witnesses, op.cit., note 223, at 7-18.}
  
  
• [238]  ^{Scottish Law Commission, Report on the Evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses (Edinburgh, Scotland:  1989); Law Reform Commission of Ireland, Report on Child Sexual Abuse (September 1990).  J.C. Yuille, M. A. King  and D. MacDougall, Child Victims and Witness:  The Social Science and Legal Literatures (Ottawa:  Department of Justice Canada, 1988), and J.R. Christiansen and "The Testimony of Child Witnesses:  Fact, Fantasy and The Influence of Pre-trial Interview (1987), 62 Wash. L. Rev. 705, at 707.}
  
  
• [239]  ^{S. Rozell, "Are Children Competent Witnesses?:  A Psychological Perspective" (1985), 63 Wash. U.L.Q. 815 at 820; C. Hedderman, Children's Evidence:  The Need for Corroboration (Research and Planning Unit Paper 41. (London England:  Home Office, 1987); G.B. Melton, Children's Competency to Testify" (1981), 5 Law and Human Behavior 73, at 82; D.C. Raskin and J.C. Yuille, "Problems in Evaluating Interviews of Children in Sexual Abuse Cases" in S.J. Ceci, D.F. Ross, and M.P. Toglia eds., Perspectives on Children's Testimony (New York:  Springer Verlay, 1989) 184, at 190; and A. Yates, "Should Young Children Testify in Cases of Sexual Abuse?" (1987), 144.  Am. J. Psychiatry 476, at 478.}
  
  
• [240]  ^{B. Nurcombe, "The Child as Witness:  Competency and Credibility" (1986), 25 J. Am. Acad. Child Psychiatry 473, at 475; J. R. Spencer and R. Flin, The Evidence of Children:  The Law and the Psychology (London England:  Blackstone Press, 1990) at 270; and D.J. Foté, "Child Witnesses in Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings:  The Capabilities, Special Problems, and Proposals for Reform." (1985), 13 Pepperdine L. R. 157 at 158.}
  
  
• [241]  ^{Spencer and Flin, ibid., at 259; and M. K. Johnson and M. A. Foley, "Differentiating Fact from Fantasy:  The Reliability of Children's Memory" (1984), 40 J. of Social Issues 33, at 45.}
  
  
• [242]  ^{S.C. 1987, c.24.}
  
  
• [243]  ^{R.S.C. 1970, c.E-10.}
  
  
• [244]  ^{(1981), 32 O.R. (2d) (Ont. C.A.).}
  
  
• [245]  ^{Canada Evidence Act R.S.C. 1970, c.E-10, section 16(2).}
  
  
• [246]  ^{See R. Bessner op.cit., note 236.}
  
  
• [247]  ^{R. v. Bannerman (1966), 48 C.R. 110 (Man. C.A.), affirmed without reasons by the Supreme Court of Canada, [1966] S.C.R. v, 50 C.R. 76 n.}
  
  
• [248]  ^{(1993), 25 C.R. (4th) 1 S.C.C., at 24.}
  
  
• [249]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [250]  ^{Ibid., at 10.}
  
  
• [251]  ^{Ibid., at 24.}
  
  
• [252]  ^{Ibid., at 24-25.}
  
  
• [253]  ^{The Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths (Ottawa, 1984).}
  
  
• [254]  ^{Ibid., volume 1, at 373-374.}
  
  
• [255]  ^{See discussion in R. v. Marquard, op.cit., note 248, at 26.}
  
  
• [256]  ^{Ibid., at 25-26.}
  
  
• [257]  ^{Judge Peter Nasmith, (1990), 24 L. Soc. Gaz. 230, at 237-238.}
  
  
• [258]  ^{Ibid., at 231-232.}
  
  
• [259]  ^{The Ontario Law Reform Commission, op.cit., note 223, at 37.}
  
  
• [260]  ^{Evidence Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c.124, s.5.}
  
  
• [261]  ^{The Saskatchewan Evidence Amendment Act, S.S. 1989-90, c.57, s.4, enacting ss. 42-42.3 of the Saskatchewan Evidence Act, R.S.S. 1978, c.S-16.}
  
  
• [262]  ^{Newfoundland Evidence Act, R.S.N. 1980, c.E-16, as amended by S.N. 1995, c.34, s.1.}
  
  
• [263]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E-23, as amended by S.O. 1995, c.6, s.6(1).}
  
  
• [264]  ^{Op.cit.,note 262.}
  
  
• [265]  ^{Op.cit.,note 263.}
  
  
• [266]  ^{London Child Witness Project (London, Ontario, Nov. 1990), at 22; and Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 83.}
  
  
• [267]  ^{See discussion in Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Discussion Paper on Evidence of Children and Other Vulnerable Witnesses (Perth, Australia, April 1990), at 60; Law Reform Commission of Ireland, op.cit., note 238, at 70; Scottish Law Reform Commission, op.cit., note 238, at 19; and D.Whitcomb, "When the Victim is a Child:  Past Hope, Current Reality, and Future Promise of Legal Reform in the United States" in J. R. Spencer, G. Nicholson, R. Flin, and R. Bull (eds), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings:  An International Perspective (Cambridge Lectures, England, June 1989).}
  
  
• [268]  ^{R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46, s.486(2.1) as enacted by R.S.C. 1985, c.-19 (3rd Supp.), s.14.}
  
  
• [269]  ^{1997, c.16, s.6.}
  
  
• [270]  ^{See for example R. v. Paul M. (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 341 (Ont.C.A.).}
  
  
• [271]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [272]  ^{London Child Witness Project, op.cit., note 266, at 108.}
  
  
• [273]  ^{Op.cit., note 261.}
  
  
• [274]  ^{Op.cit.,note 260.}
  
  
• [275]  ^{Op.cit., note 263.}
  
  
• [276]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [277]  ^{See Scottish Law Commission, op.cit., note 238, at 21; and Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, op.cit., note 267, at 45.}
  
  
• [278]  ^{Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, ibid., at 45.}
  
  
• [279]  ^{Ibid., at 49.}
  
  
• [280]  ^{D. F. Foté, "Child Witnesses in Sexual Abuse Criminal Proceedings:  Their Capabilities, Special Problems, and Proposal for Reform" (1985), 13 Pepperdine L. R. 157, at 180.}
  
  
• [281]  ^{Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 84-90; and J. C. Robbard and L. J. Kordyban, "The Child Witness:  Reconciling the Irreconcilable" (1989), 27 Alta. L. Rev. 327, at 351.}
  
  
• [282]  ^{1997, c.16, s.6.}
  
  
• [283]  ^{The Saskatchewan Evidence Act, op.cit., note 261 at s.42.1.}
  
  
• [284]  ^{British Columbia Evidence Act, op.cit., note 260 at s.72.}
  
  
• [285]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act , op.cit., note 263.}
  
  
• [286]  ^{Foté, op.cit., note 280, at 175.}
  
  
• [287]  ^{Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, op.cit., note 267, at 45.}
  
  
• [288]  ^{Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 42; Scottish Law Commission, op.cit., note 238, at 18-19; Law Reform Commission of Ireland, op.cit., note 238, at 72-73; and Law Reform Commission of Tasmania, Child Witness (1989) at 1.}
  
  
• [289]  ^{Spencer and Flin, ibid., at 158; Scottish Law Commission, ibid., at 124; and R. Eatman and J. Bulkley, Protecting Child Victim/Witnesses (American Bar Association National Legal Research Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, February 1986), at 21.}
  
  
• [290]  ^{See discussion in Law Reform Commission of Tasmania, op.cit., note 288, at 12-14; Spencer and Flin, ibid., at 157; and C. L. Marchese, "Child Victims of Sexual abuse:  Balancing A Child's Trauma Against the Defendant's Confrontation Rights – Coy v. Iowa" (1990), 6 J.  Contemp. Health Law and Policy 411, at 419.}
  
  
• [291]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act, op.cit., note 263.}
  
  
• [292]  ^{Ibid., at s.18.3(2).}
  
  
• [293]  ^{B. McAllister, "Article 38.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:  A Legislative Response to the Needs of Children in the Courtroom," (1986), 18 St. Mary's L.J. 279, at 311.}
  
  
• [294]  ^{R. v. L. (D.O.) 25 C.R. (4th) 1285 at 306.  See also R. v. F(C.C.) (1997), 154 D.L.R. (4th) 13 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [295]  ^{Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 161.}
  
  
• [296]  ^{1997, c.16, s.7.}
  
  
• [297]  ^{Section 715.1of the Criminal Code provides:  In any proceeding relating to an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), or section 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272 or 273, in which the complainant or other witness was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offence is alleged to have been committed, a videotape made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, in which the complainant or witness describes the acts complained of, is admissible in evidence if the complainant or witness, while testifying, adopts the contents of the videotape.}
  
  
• [298]  ^{R. v. L. (D.O.), op.cit., note 294, at 307.}
  
  
• [299]  ^{The Saskatchewan Evidence Act, op.cit., note 261.}
  
  
• [300]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act, op.cit., note 263, s.18.3.}
  
  
• [301]  ^{R. v. L.(D.O.), op.cit., note 294, at 316-317.}
  
  
• [302]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 102; Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Child Witnesses, op.cit., note 223, at 92.}
  
  
• [303]  ^{For the Sake of the Children, Report of The Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access (Ottawa:  December 1998) at 19.}
  
  
• [304]  ^{Scottish Law Commission, op.cit., note 238, at 7.}
  
  
• [305]  ^{Section 486(1.2) Criminal Code.}
  
  
• [306]  ^{Ontario Evidence Act, op.cit., note 263, s.18.5.  See also article 394.4 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.}
  
  
• [307]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [308]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 102; Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, 296-297.}
  
  
• [309]  ^{See American Bar Association, Guidelines for the Fair Treatment of Child Witnesses in Cases Where Child Abuse is Alleged (Washington D.C.:  May 1985), at 9-10.  See also Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 297.}
  
  
• [310]  ^{Re Kathleen R (unreported) (August 31, 1983, Ont. Prov. Ct.).}
  
  
• [311]  ^{G. Goodman and V. Helgeson, "Child Sexual Assault:  Children's Memory and the Law" (1989), 12 Prov. Judges J. 17 at 26.}
  
  
• [312]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 102.}
  
  
• [313]  ^{For the Sake of the Children, note 303, at 22.}
  
  
• [314]  ^{Op.cit.,note 294, at 323.}
  
  
• [315]  ^{J. Sopinka and S. N. Lederman, The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1974), at 39-40.}
  
  
• [316]  ^{D.A.R. Thompson, "Children Should Be Heard But Not Seen:  Children's Evidence in Protection Proceedings" (National Family Law Programme) (Calgary, July 1990), at H2-9.}
  
  
• [317]  ^{Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240, at 135.}
  
  
• [318]  ^{[1965] A.C. 201, at 238, [1963] 3 All E.R. 191, at 208 (H.L.).}
  
  
• [319]  ^{Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, op.cit., note 267, at 13.}
  
  
• [320]  ^{Re Kathleen R., op.cit., note 305.}
  
  
• [321]  ^{[1990] S.C.R. 30, 77 C.R. (3d) 347 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [322]  ^{A. P. Nasmith, "The Inchoate Voice" (1991-92), 8 Can. Fam. L.Q.  43 at 39.}
  
  
• [323]  ^{(1991), 79 C.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.).}
  
  
• [324]  ^{Ibid., at 9.}
  
  
• [325]  ^{Ibid., at 13.}
  
  
• [326]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [327]  ^{Ibid., at 14.}
  
  
• [328]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [329]  ^{[1996] S.C.J. no. 8.}
  
  
• [330]  ^{[1992] 2 S.C.R. 915.}
  
  
• [331]  ^{(1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 641 (Ont. C.A.).}
  
  
• [332]  ^{[1995] A.J. No. 170.}
  
  
• [333]  ^{(1993), 132 N.B.R. (2d) 331 (Q.B.).}
  
  
• [334]  ^{C. (C.) v. B.(L.) (unreported), December 12, 1995 (Nfld. U.F.C.), Docket No. 92/0665.}
  
  
• [335]  ^{Op.cit.,note 325, at 653.}
  
  
• [336]  ^{A. Shipley, "Custody Law Reform in Ontario:  The Children's Law Reform Act" in Children's Rights In The Practice of Family Law (edited by B. Landau) (Toronto:  Carswell, 1986) at 173-174.}
  
  
• [337]  ^{McLachlin, op.cit., note 215, at 727.}
  
  
• [338]  ^{See Huddart and Ensminger, op.cit., note 211, at 102-103 for a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the judicial interview.}
  
  
• [339]  ^{Huddart and Ensminger, ibid., at 96 who state that a judicial interview is "not only difficult but fraught with peril"; Nasmith, op.cit., note 323, at 64; and Judge R. S. Abella, Justice C. L'Heureux-Dubé and Justice}
  
  
• ^{M. Rothman, "A Code of Recommended Procedures in the Resolution of Family Disputes" in Family Law:  Dimensions of Justice" (edited by R. S. Abella and C. L'Heureux-Dubé) (Toronto:  Butterworths, 1983) at 329.}
  
  
• [340]  ^{Abella, L'Heureux-Dubé, Rothman, ibid.}
  
  
• [341]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [342]  ^{(1989), 23 R.F.L. (3d) 154.}
  
  
• [343]  ^{Nasmith, op.cit., note 323, at 64.}
  
  
• [344]  ^{(1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 239.}
  
  
• [345]  ^{(1996), 21 R.F.L. (4th) 54 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).}
  
  
• [346]  ^{Abella, L'Heureux-Dubé, Rothman, op.cit., note 340, at 329.}
  
  
• [347]  ^Ibid.
  
  
• [348]  ^{R.S.O. 1990 c.C.12.}
  
  
• [349]  ^{Spencer and Flin, op.cit., note 240.}
  
  
• [350]  ^{Court Design Issues Affecting Children and Other Vulnerable Witnesses (B.C. Ministry of the Attorney General Community Justice Branch, Victim Services Division Child Abuse Committee, 1996).}
  
  
• [351]  ^{For example, an assessment for a child may be ordered pursuant to provincial legislation.  The child's statements concerning their wishes "may" be conveyed to the court.  See section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990, c.C-12.  See also N. Bala, "Assessing the Assessor:  Legal Issues" (1990), 6 Can. Fam. L.Q.  179.}
  
  

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents]