Concurrent Legal Proceedings in Cases of Family Violence: The Child Protection Perspective

Notes

^* Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
^** Senior Advisor, National Judicial Institute; Legal Counsel, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 1999-2007. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do necessarily reflect the views of the National Judicial Institute.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Generally the term “family proceedings” is used in this paper to refer to civil proceedings involving separated or divorced parents, and are distinguished from “child protection” proceedings that involve a child protection agency and parents. In many locales in Canada, both types of proceedings are within the jurisdiction of a Family Court (which may be either a superior court or a provincial court.)

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

As will be further discussed in this paper, women and men report being victims of intimate partner violence in roughly equal numbers. However, women are much more likely to be subject to “coercive controlling violence” and are more likely to be the primary caregiver of their children. They are therefore more likely to face the possibility of having their children apprehended in the event that the CPA has concerns about their ability to protect them from exposure to violence.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

The Honourable Donna Martinson and Dr. Margaret Jackson, “Judicial Leadership and Intimate Partner Violence Cases – Judges Can Make a Difference.” National Judicial Institute, 2012.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

See, for example, the Report of the BC Representative for Children and Youth, Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon: Make Their Voices Heard Now (2012)

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

For example, Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, Jewish Child and Family Services (Toronto), and Dilico Anishinabek Family Care in northern Ontario. Manitoba reorganized its child protection system in 2003 - 2005 to transfer responsibility for a significant number of cases to Aboriginal agencies, through the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry-Child Welfare Initiative (AJI-CWI). See http://www.aji-cwi.mb.ca/eng/phasesTimelines.html.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Birnbaum & Bala, “Toward the Differentiation of High-Conflict Families: An Analysis of Social Science Research and Canadian Case Law” (2010) 48:3 Fam Ct Rev 403 at 404.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

CAS of Toronto v LH, 2008 ONCJ 5855, at para. 210, citing Tina Hotton, Childhood Aggression and Exposure to Violence in the Home (Ottawa: Statistics Canada and Department of Justice Canada, 2003); see also e.g Ayoub, Deutsch & Maraganore, “Emotional Distress in Children of High-Conflict Divorce: The Impact of Marital Conflict and Violence” (1999) 37:3 Fam Ct Rev 297 at 298.

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

See e.g. Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks & Bala, "Custody Disputes Involving Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence: The Need for Differentiated Approaches to Parenting Plans" (2008) 46 Family Court Review 500-522.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Austin & Drozd, “Intimate Partner Violence and Child Custody Evaluation, Part I: Theoretical Framework, Forensic Model, and Assessment Issues.” (2012) 9 Journal of Child Custody 250-309, at 262

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Austin & Drozd (2012) at 274.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

Austin & Drodz (2012) at 279.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

Birnbaum & Bala, “Toward the Differentiation of High-Conflict Families: An Analysis of Social Science Research and Canadian Case Law” (2010) 48:3 Fam Ct Rev 403, at 412.

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

See CAS Waterloo v MJD, [2002] OJ 5877 (SC) where a primary care-giver mother made threats against the father and once threatened him with a knife but was awarded custody.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

There are cases where there is significant parental disagreement and litigation over economic issues, but the parents are able to maintain a good co-parenting relationship; these situations are not the subject of this paper.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

See e.g. Fidler, Bala, Saini, A Differential Approach to Children Resisting Post-separation Contact: A Guide for Legal & Mental Professionals (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012); and Fidler & Bala, “Children Resisting Post-separation Contact With A Parent: Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums” (2010) 48 Family Court Review 10-47. The use of the concepts of parental alienation and alienating parental behaviours in this paper is not an endorsement of parental alienation syndrome, a concept advanced by some advocates, but not adopted by the American Psychological Association as an accepted mental disorder.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

See e.g. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v BA, 2005 ONCJ 220, [2005] OJ 2844, Kent J.; Re J.D. (1978), 8 R.F.L. (2d) 209 (Ont. Prov. Ct.); and Re Fortowsky, [1960] O.W.N. 235, 23 D.L.R. (2d) 569 (Ont.C.A.).

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

See e.g. Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 25(4), in force 2006; and British Columbia, Family Law Act, ss. 37(2)(g) & (h) and 38, in force 2013.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Private members Bill C-252, First session, 39th Parliament,, enacted as S.C 2007, c. 14, added s. 17(5.1) to the Divorce Act to provide that in the case of a former spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition, the court shall make a variation order in respect of access that is in the best interests of the child.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

This reform was recommended in 1996 in the Special Parliamentary Joint Committee Report, For the Sake of the Children and appeared in Bill C-22 (2003), which was not enacted.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Reports of sexual abuse made in the context of parental separation have a much higher rate of being unfounded or classified by CAS workers as being fabricated than reports made in other contexts, though of course they must be investigated and some are founded; see Bala, Mitnick, Trocmé & Houston, “Sexual Abuse Allegations and Parental Separation: Smokescreen or Fire?” (2007) 13 Journal of Family Studies 26-56.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

See Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum (2006), Section 3, Scale 2 – Child Exposure to Adult Conflict. The Welfare Eligibility Spectrum is a document that provides detailed guidance for child protection workers in Ontario about investigations of child abuse and neglect, and for appropriate responses in different situations.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v MR, [2003] OJ 4385, at para 11.

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v MJD, [2002] OJ No 5877, 2002 CarswellOnt 6133 (Ont Sup Ct).

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

Ontario Child and Family Services Act, s. 37(2)(f)-(g)

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

For example, legal aid is available to victims of violence in family law cases in Ontario (see http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/type_domesticviolence.asp) and in British Columbia in cases of IPV and high conflict (see http://www.lss.bc.ca/legal_aid/familyIssues.php).

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

See discussion of legal aid and appointment of counsel below.

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

See e.g. Birnbaum, Bala & Bertrand, “The Rise of Self-Representation in Canada’s Family Courts: The Complex Picture Revealed in Surveys of Judges, Lawyers and Litigants” (2013), 91 Canadian Bar Review 67-96. The Criminal Code provides for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination of witnesses, which can prevent the accused in an IPV case from personally cross-examining the victim (s. 486.3(2)); there is no corresponding provision in family law statutes.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

See e.g. Porter v McLennan, 2011 ONCJ 278, where a case conference was required before a motion for interim relief for a father, despite the fact that the mother had excluded the “stay at home dad” from the matrimonial home.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Clement v. Clement [2010] O.J. 653. See also P.A.C. v W.D.C., [2012] A.J. 74 (C.A.) where the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision to award interim custody to the father, due to a concern about the mother alienating the children from the father.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Bala & Ringseis, “Review of the Yukon Family Violence Prevention Act,” (for Yukon Territorial government on contract with Canadian Research Institute for Law & the Family) (July 2002).

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

The Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act S.C. 2013, chap 20, Royal Assent on June 19, 2013 but not yet in force, provides that in situations of family violence on a reserve, a court can make an emergency protection order to, among other things, order that the applicant’s conjugal partner temporarily vacate the home.

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

For a discussion of the issues related to high-conflict separations and assessment reports, see Fidler, Bala, Birnbaum & Kavassalis, Challenging Issues In Child Custody Assessments: A Guide For Legal And Mental Health Professionals (Toronto: Carswell, 2008).

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Bala & Leschied, “Court-Ordered Assessments In Ontario Child Welfare Cases: Review And Recommendations For Reform” (2008) 24 Canadian Journal of Family Law 1-56.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

Shahnaz Rahman & Laura Track, Troubling Assessments: Custody and Access Reports and their Equality Implications for BC Women (Vancouver: West Coast LEAF, 2012); and National Council of Juvenile and Family court Judges, Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Intimate Partner Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2004), online: http://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/ProfessionalResources/BenchGuide.pdf

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

CAS Ottawa v PY, [2007] OJ 1639 (Ont Sup Ct).

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

See Kaplanis v Kaplanis, [2005] OJ 275, 194 OAC 106, 249 DLR (4th) 620 at para 2 in which Weiler JA ruled that the trial judge had exceeded her jurisdiction by ordering counselling. Despite this ruling, judges are still prepared to order that parents attend parenting classes, anger management or counselling as a condition of exercising custody or access rights.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

Florito v Wiggins, 2011 ONSC 1868, 2011 CarswellOnt 5622, W.C. v C.E., 2010 ONSC 3575, [2010] OJ 2738, Filaber v Filaber, [2008] OJ 4449; and J.K.L. v N.C.S., [2008] OJ No 2115.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

L.M. v. T.M., [2012] N.B.J. 376 (Q.B.)

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

[2003] OJ No 1418, 37 RFL (5th) 381 (Ont Sup Ct) Henderson J.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

We note that the there is significant variation in the ability of agencies and third party service providers to provide this kind of assistance to families.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

Mary Rella, BA Dip C.S. “Therapeutic Access: From Supervising Access to Building Parent-Child Relationships.” IMPrint: The Newsletter of Infant Mental Health Promotion, Volume 47, Winter 2006-07, revised April 2010. (excerpts available at http://www.oacas.org/pubs/oacas/journal/2010Fall/access.html)

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

For a statutory provision allowing for an order for police enforcement, see e.g. Ontario, Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 36; for a discussion of the inherent authority of courts to direct police enforcement, see e.g Allen v. Grenier, [1997] O.J. 1198, 145 D.L.R. (4th) 286 (Gen. Div.).

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

Allen v. Grenier, [1997] O.J. 1198, 145 D.L.R. (4th) 286 (Gen. Div.).

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

2011 ONSC 1868. The parens patriae [Latin for parent of the country] jurisdiction of superior courts in Canada refers to the inherent authority of these judges to make orders to protect the interests of children in situations where there is no legislation that addresses a problem or prohibits court action. It is based on the historic jurisdiction of the English Chancery. It would seem that judges in Ontario are somewhat more inclined to use and expand this historic jurisdiction than judges elsewhere, and in Quebec there is some doubt as to whether the Superior Court has the same historic jurisdiction.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

See Aliamisse O Mundulai, “Stretching the Boundaries in Child Access, Custody and Guardianship in Canada, (2005) 21 Can J Fam L 267 at 269; Bahjan v Bahjan, 2010 ONCA 714, 104 OR (3d) 368, Weiler JA; and AA v BB, 2007 ONCA 2, [2007] OJ 2, 83 OR (3d) 561.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

In Ontario, the Child and Family Services Act s. 57.1 allows a court in a child protection proceeding to make a custody order under the provincial family statute in favour of a parent; this usually requires the consent of the agency. As discussed earlier, ordinarily orders under child protection statutes take precedence over orders under family law, but if the CPA agrees to a stay of the protection proceeding or the making of a custody order, this family order will be given effect.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

(1993), 50 R.F.L. (3d) 171 at 181‑183 (N.S.C.A.); see also E.H. v. T.G. (1995), 18 R.F.L. (4th) 21 (N.S.C.A.); and B.P.M. v. B.L.D.E.M. (1992), 42 R.F.L. (3d) 349 at 359‑60 (Ont. C.A.).

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

For a case where a mother with a history of drug use and threatening behaviour was given access only with the permission of the custodial parent, see McGrath v. Thomsen (2000), 11 R.F.L. (5th) 174 (B.C.C.A.).

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

See e.g. Salehi v. Haghighi, 2011 ONCJ 731; C.D. v. J.B., [1996] A.Q. 181, Parker v. Hall, [1996] O.J. 756 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) and Alexander v. Creary (1995), 14 R.F.L. (4th) 311 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) and; see also Matheson v. Sabourin, [1994] O.J. 991 where Hardman Prov. J. cited literature on the effects of having witnessed spousal violence on children, apparently without this literature having been introduced by a witness.

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

J.M. v. A.L., [2013] N.S.J. No. 34 (Fam. Ct.)

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

2012 NSCA 48, at para. 39

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

2005 NSSC 256, at para 24-25.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

See e.g Rogerson v Tessaro [2006] OJ 1825 (C.A.); Pettenuzzo-Deschene v. Deschene 2007 CarswellOnt 5095, 40 RFL (6th) 681( SCJ); C.J.B. v. R.C.J., [2007] BCJ 212 (BCSC); T.S. v. A.V.T., [2008] AJ 293 (ABQB); Savage v. Savage, [2007] OJ 312 (S.C.J.); Polsfut v. Polsfut, [2008] SJ (SKQB); and Faber v Gallianco, 2012 ONSC 764.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

See Fidler, Bala, Saini, A Differential Approach to Children Resisting Postseparation Contact: A Guide for Legal & Mental Professionals (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012); and Fidler & Bala, “Children Resisting Post-separation Contact With A Parent: Concepts, Controversies And Conundrums “(2010) 48 Family Court Review 10-47.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

See discussion below.

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

See e.g. Bailey v. Bailey [1996] OJ 4891; Roda v. Roda [2000] OJ 3786 (SCJ); and El-Murr v. Kiameh [2006] OJ 1521 (OCJ)

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

See e.g. P. (J.E.) v. W. (H.J.)(1987), 11 R.F.L. (3d) 136 (Sask. Q.B ) where a six year old girl had an aversion towards her father because of the mother's hostility to him. The mother was opposed to access, despite mediation efforts. The court refused to order access, at least until "the child is considerably older". See also R.G.A. v K.A.C, 2011 Carswell Ont 4462 (OCJ) where the court found that the custodial mother had been engaging in alienating conduct, but concluded that since the father was not seeking custody, there was no realistic way to enforce access, and declined to order access.

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

See, for example, s. 4(1) and s. 4(6) of Alberta, Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c C-12 and ss. 14(1), (3) & (6) of British Columbia, Child, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c 46.

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

In 2008, 34% of all substantiated investigations identified exposure to intimate partner violence as the primary category of maltreatment (an estimated 29,259 cases or 4.86 investigations per 1,000 children): Nico Trocmé et al., Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008.(Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011).

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60

Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County v F(W), 2003 CanLII 54117 (ON CJ)

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61

FH v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 SCR 41, citing a British child protection case, In re B (Children), [2008] 3 WLR 1, [2008] UKHL 35; DCW (PEI) v AH and JD, 2009 PECA 19; Nova Scotia (Community Services) v CM, 2011 NSSC 112 ; SJB et al v Child and Family All Nations Coordinated Response Network, 2009 MBQB 12 ; PCI v Saskatchewan (Social Services), 2009 SKQB 335; Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan v AD (1994), 1 RFL (4th) 268 (Ont Ct Gen Div).

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62

For example, C.L.M. v. D.G.W., [2004] A.J. No. 329, 2004 ABCA 112. For the opposing view, see Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. D.M., [2002] O.J. No. 1421 (Sup.Ct.)

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63

See, for example, Ontario Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C.11, s 5

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Footnote 64

Children’s Aid Society Region of Halton v. O.(J.) 2013 ONCJ 191, 2013 O.J. 1691at par.29

Return to footnote 64 referrer

Footnote 65

For a discussion of the jurisprudence in these cases, particularly regarding the need for expert evidence demonstrating the child would be traumatized by testifying, see Children’s Aid Society Region of Halton v. O.(J.), supra.

Return to footnote 65 referrer

Footnote 66

Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v KR and CW, (2001) OJ No 5754; Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) v. C.M. and D.L. (2005), 23 R.F.L. (6th) 10; Newfoundland and Labrador (Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services) v. A.C. [2012] N.J. No. 54.

Return to footnote 66 referrer

Footnote 67

B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, 1995 CanLII 115 (SCC) , [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC) , [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46.

Return to footnote 67 referrer

Footnote 68

Chatham-Kent Children's Services v JK, [2009] OJ No 5423. While courts will be reluctant to exclude evidence in a child protection proceeding, in some contexts judges do take account of the Charter to exclude evidence that might be considered unreliable : see e.g. C.A.S of Toronto v D.M. , [2001] O.J. 4425 (Ct. J.); and Catholic C.A.S. of Toronto v J.L., [2003] O.J. 1722 (Ct.J.), per Jones J.

Return to footnote 68 referrer

Footnote 69

Chatham-Kent Children's Services v JK, supra at par. 63.

Return to footnote 69 referrer

Footnote 70

International Institute for Child Rights and Development, University of Victoria. Family Group Conferencing Literature Review. Report prepared for the Child and Youth Officer for British Columbia, October 2005. http://www.rcybc.ca/groups/Project%20Reports/fgc_lit_review.pdf

Return to footnote 70 referrer

Footnote 71

See, for example, Angela Cameron, “Sentencing Circles and Intimate Violence: A Canadian Feminist Perspective” (2006) 18:2 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 479-512.

Return to footnote 71 referrer

Footnote 72

Problem-solving in Canada’s Courtrooms: A Guide to Therapeutic Justice. National Judicial Institute, 2011, p.30; Kierstead, Shelley M., “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Child Protection” (December 30, 2011). Barry Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 31, 2011; Osgoode CLPE Research Paper No. 34/2012

Return to footnote 72 referrer

Footnote 73

See Children’s Aid Society Region of Halton v. O.(J.), supra at par. 43.

Return to footnote 73 referrer

Footnote 74

The principle that an acquittal in a criminal prosecution will not bar a civil action arising from the same circumstances is discussed in Polgrain Estate v. Toronto East General Hospital, [2008] O.J. No. 2092 (CA)

Return to footnote 74 referrer

Footnote 75

See e.g. Bala, Birnbaum & Bertrand, “Controversy about the Role Children’s Lawyers: Advocate or Best Interests Guardian? Comparing Attitudes & Practices in Alberta & Ontario – Two Provinces with Different Policies” (accepted for Oct 2013), Family Court Review.

Return to footnote 75 referrer

Footnote 76

Where the evidence does not support a conviction or where a breach of the Charter is proven and the evidence is excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, withdrawal of the charge or an acquittal is, of course, the appropriate legal outcome for the criminal proceeding. Our concern is with the protection of children in cases where it is more likely than not that they are at risk of violence.

Return to footnote 76 referrer

Footnote 77

See, for example, DCP v. J.P., J.L., and L.M., 2013 PESC 6.

Return to footnote 77 referrer

Footnote 78

R. v. Heikamp, [1999] O.J. No. 5382 The charge was quashed at the preliminary inquiry stage.

Return to footnote 78 referrer

Footnote 79

See, for example, Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v MB, [2007] OJ No 1054 (Sup Ct J); Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v CW, 2008 CanLII 13181 (ONSC); Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v EO [2009] OJ No 5534 (Sup Ct); CB v Alberta (Child, Youth & Family Enhancement Act, Director), 2008 ABQB 165; Winnipeg (Child and Family Services) v LMT, 1999 CanLII 14177 (MB QB).

Return to footnote 79 referrer

Footnote 80

OACAS Child Welfare Report, 2012, p.10

Return to footnote 80 referrer

Footnote 81

For the Good of Our Children and Youth: Report of the Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel. November 2010, p.29. http://saskchildwelfarereview.ca/CWR-panel-report.pdf

Return to footnote 81 referrer

Footnote 82

Ken Fowler, PhD, Children in Care in Newfoundland and Labrador, September 2008, p.89 http://www.gov.nl.ca/cyfs/publications/childcare/InCareReport.pdf

Return to footnote 82 referrer

Footnote 83

Closing the Gap Between Vision and Reality: Strengthening Accountability, Adaptability and Continuous Improvement in Alberta’s Child Intervention System. Final Report of the Alberta Child Intervention Review Panel, June 30, 2010, p.70. http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/publications/en/AB-Child_Intervention_Panel.pdf.

Return to footnote 83 referrer

Footnote 84

See, for example, the Auditor General’s report in 2008 and 2011.

Return to footnote 84 referrer

Footnote 85

[1999] 3 S.C.R. 46.

Return to footnote 85 referrer

Footnote 86

See e.g. Re V, 2009 SKQB 50; and Huron-Perth CAS v JJ, [2006] OJ 5372 (Ont. Ct. J.), where the court stated that “it is reasonable to think that the legal aid program in the province is capable of assessing financial eligibility in a sensible, logical and humane fashion.”

Return to footnote 86 referrer

Footnote 87

Kate Kehoe and David Wiseman, “Reclaiming a Contextualized Approach to the Right to State-Funded Counsel in Child Protection Cases”, (2012) 63 UNB LJ 166.

Return to footnote 87 referrer

Footnote 88

This approach was adopted by the British Columbia Supreme Court in British Columbia (Director of Child, Family & Community Service) v. L.(T.), 2010 BCSC 105.

Return to footnote 88 referrer

Footnote 89

Notable exceptions are courses that address child protection issues at the University of Ottawa, the University of Toronto, Osgoode Hall and Queen’s University.

Return to footnote 89 referrer

Footnote 90

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/law-commission-calls-on-schools-to-instruct-students-on-realities-of-violence-against-women.html?print=1&tmpl=component

Return to footnote 90 referrer

Footnote 91

The Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC-O) has begun to address the lack of professional education in the child protection field by offering a four day program in Toronto in the fall of 2013.

Return to footnote 91 referrer

Footnote 92

Professor Nicholas Bala raised this issue during his testimony before the Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario on February 21, 2008. The transcript of Professor Bala's testimony can be found online: http://mail.tscript.com/trans/pfp/feb_21_08/index.htm

Return to footnote 92 referrer

Footnote 93

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon – Make Their Voices Heard Now. Report of the BC Representative for Children and Youth, 2012, p. 72; P Jaffe & M. Juodis, “Children as victims and witnesses of intimate partner homicide: Lessons learned from intimate partner violence death review committees” [2006] Juvenile and Family Court Journal 13 – 27.

Return to footnote 93 referrer

Footnote 94

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon – Make Their Voices Heard Now, p.54, 59

Return to footnote 94 referrer

Footnote 95

See e.g. W.C. v C.E., 2010 ONSC 3575.

Return to footnote 95 referrer

Footnote 96

Breach of a child protection order is a provincial offence, and may not be prosecuted with vigour in a system with already stretched resources. Maximum penalties for breaching child protection orders vary from six months/$1000 fine (Ontario) to 24 months/$50,000 fine (Manitoba). A person who breaches a bail, probation or conditional sentence order, on the other hand, may be subject to immediate detention under the Criminal Code.

Return to footnote 96 referrer

Footnote 97

Parents without care of children and a history of intimate partner violence (i.e. typically abusive men) may have less incentive to comply with terms of child protection orders.

Return to footnote 97 referrer

Footnote 98

See Children’s Aid Society Region of Halton v. O. (J.), supra, where the court permitted the introduction of transcripts of the children’s evidence in a criminal preliminary hearing for assault charges against their parents, but permitted counsel for the parents to cross-examine the children on this evidence.

Return to footnote 98 referrer

Footnote 99

Helen How, quoted in Di Luca et al, Best Practices Where There is Family Violence (Criminal law Perspective) (March 2012) p.15; see also Peguis Child and Family Services v. C.S., [2009] M.J. No. 302 (Q.B.), where police objected to the release of records involving minors to a child protection agency on the grounds that the child protection agency seeking the records would not treat the minors properly.

Return to footnote 99 referrer

Footnote 100

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. B. (S). [2008] OnCJ 358 (CanLII), at pars 13 – 16.; see also Peguis Child and Family Services v. C.S., [2009] M.J. No. 302 (Q.B.)

Return to footnote 100 referrer

Footnote 101

New Brunswick (Minister of Health) v. G.J. [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46 at par. 76 per Lamer C.J.C

Return to footnote 101 referrer

Footnote 102

Di Luca et al, Best Practices Where There is Family Violence (Criminal Law Perspective) (March 2012) p.29

Return to footnote 102 referrer

Footnote 103

R. v. Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59

Return to footnote 103 referrer

Footnote 104

Children’s Aid Society of Huron County v. R.G., [2003] O.J. No. 3104 (O.C.J.)

Return to footnote 104 referrer

Footnote 105

Di Luca et al, Best Practices Where There is Family Violence (Criminal Law Perspective) (March 2012) p.15. A similar suggestion that participants in the criminal justice system have a better understanding of children’s needs than do child protection workers was addressed by Justice Thompson of the Manitoba Queen’s Bench, Family Division, in Peguis Child and Family Services, [2009] M.J. No. 302 (Q.B.): “This position is difficult to understand. Peguis Child and Family Services is a mandated child protection agency whose staff has typically greater training and experience in dealing with children in distress than do the members of the Service.”

Return to footnote 105 referrer

Footnote 106

K.G.B. statements refer to statements taken by the police from a witness or victim that can be used to prove the guilt of the accused even if the witness or victim is recanting. To be admissible these statements must be taken in accordance with a process established in the Supreme Court decision in R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740, which requires a reliable record (usually satisfied by video-recording) and a warning to the person making the statement of the importance of truth telling in making the statement and possible consequences of dishonesty

Return to footnote 106 referrer

Footnote 107

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, pp. 33, 38, 41

Return to footnote 107 referrer

Footnote 108

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, p. 49

Return to footnote 108 referrer

Footnote 109

Di Luca et al, Best Practices Where There is Family Violence (Criminal Law Perspective) (March 2012) p.15

Return to footnote 109 referrer

Footnote 110

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, p. 57

Return to footnote 110 referrer

Footnote 111

Intimate Partner Violence Death Review Committee (Ontario) 2011 Annual Report, pp.8 – 9. http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/stellent/groups/public/@mcscs/@www/@com/documents/webasset/ec160943.pdf

Return to footnote 111 referrer

Footnote 112

Jaffe, P. and Juodis, M. (2006) Children as victims and witnesses of intimate partner homicide: Lessons learned from intimate partner violence death review committees. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 13-27.

Return to footnote 112 referrer

Footnote 113

In Manitoba, there is no penalty for any person failing to report, but members of regulated professions who breach this duty can be reported to their licensing body. The Child and Family Services Act, C.C.S.M., c. C80, s.18. Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Quebec and Yukon do not impose penalties or provide for advising regulating bodies of a failure to report. Child Protection Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. C-5.1., s.22; Child and Family Services Act, S.S. 1989-90, c. C-7.2; Youth Protection Act, R.S.Q., chapter P-34.1; Child and Family Services Act, S.Y. 2008, c. 1.

Return to footnote 113 referrer

Footnote 114

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, p.78

Return to footnote 114 referrer

Footnote 115

D.P. v. Wagg (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 746 (Div. Ct.)

Return to footnote 115 referrer

Footnote 116

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. P.(D.), 2006 ONCJ 170, affirmed [2007] O.J. No. 3601 (ONSC); Peguis Child and Family Services v. C.S., [2009] M.J. No. 302 (Q.B.)

Return to footnote 116 referrer

Footnote 117

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. P.(D.), 2006 ONCJ 170, affirmed [2007] O.J. No. 3601 (ONSC); Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba v. B.D.B., [2009] M.J. No. 419; 2009 MBQB 316 (Man QB Family Division)

Return to footnote 117 referrer

Footnote 118

Peguis Child and Family Services v. C.S., [2009] M.J. No. 302 (Q.B.),at par. 41 per M. A. Thompson J.

Return to footnote 118 referrer

Footnote 119

W.H. v. H.C.A., 2006 CanLII 27865.

Return to footnote 119 referrer

Footnote 120

R. v. Miller (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 156 (BCCA) R. v. R.A.M., [1994] M.J. No. 597 (Man.C.A.).

Return to footnote 120 referrer

Footnote 121

A judge is not required to accept an agreement made between the accused and the Crown as to sentence, and may refuse to accept a plea to a lesser charge. However, “trial judges in most cases do, and should, give great weight to the decision of counsel for the prosecution, as a representative of the public interest with heavy responsibilities, to accept a plea of guilty to an included or lesser offence.” Provided the Crown demonstrates that the plea reflects “a reasonable exercise of prosecutorial discretion having regard to the public interest in the effective administration of justice”, it is reasonable for a judge to accept the plea: R. v. Naraindeen (1990), 80 C.R. (3d) 66) (Ont.C.A.) at para. 29.

Return to footnote 121 referrer

Footnote 122

R v McNeil (2009), 62 C.R. (6th) 1 (S.C.C.)

Return to footnote 122 referrer

Footnote 123

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. P.(D.), 2006 ONCJ 170, affirmed [2007] O.J. No. 3601 (ONSC).

Return to footnote 123 referrer

Footnote 124

British Columbia, Family Law Act, s. 37(2)(g) & (h) & 38; Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act; Nova Scotia Maintenance and Custody Act s.18(6)(j)

Return to footnote 124 referrer

Footnote 125

British Columbia, Family Law Act, s. 37(2)(j)

Return to footnote 125 referrer

Footnote 126

Ontario, Child and Family Services Act, s.59.2

Return to footnote 126 referrer

Footnote 127

British Columbia, Family Law Act, s.1; Nova Scotia Maintenance and Custody Act s.2(da)

Return to footnote 127 referrer

Footnote 128

See e.g. British Columbia, Family Law Act s.38; Nova Scotia Maintenance and Custody Act RSNS 1989 c160 s. 18(7).

Return to footnote 128 referrer

Footnote 129

Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act, s35; British Columbia Family Law Act s. 188(1)(b). Because breaches of restraining orders are not identified in these statutes as provincial offences, such breaches are now enforceable under s.127 of the Criminal Code. Child protection courts in Ontario can also impose such orders: Child and Family Services Act, s. 57.1(3)&(4).

Return to footnote 129 referrer

Footnote 130

Manitoba, Child and Family Services Act s.18.4(1.1)

Return to footnote 130 referrer

Footnote 131

Ontario, Children’s Law Reform Act, s.21(2)(b)

Return to footnote 131 referrer

Footnote 132

New Brunswick Family Services Act SNB 1980 cF-2.2, s.7(a)

Return to footnote 132 referrer

Footnote 133

Ontario, Child and Family Services Act, s.57.1

Return to footnote 133 referrer

Footnote 134

Ontario, Child and Family Services Acts s. 72(2). A practice memorandum was created in response to these amendments, to clarify the Crown’s duty to report to the CAS in Ontario. March 31, 2000 Practice Memorandum.

Return to footnote 134 referrer

Footnote 135

New Brunswick’s Family Services Act (s. 31(1)(f)) and Alberta’s Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (s.1(3)(a)(ii)(C)) both include exposure to intimate partner violence as grounds for child protection intervention.

Return to footnote 135 referrer

Footnote 136

The BC Representative for Children and Youth noted the challenges CPA workers face in determining whether exposure to violence is grounds for a finding that a child is in need of protection in the absence of explicit language in the governing statute. Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, p. 64.

Return to footnote 136 referrer

Footnote 137

Such as is currently provided for in the British Columbia Family Law Act, ss. 183(3)(c) & 188(2)

Return to footnote 137 referrer

Footnote 138

See e.g. Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, Meaningful Change for Family Justice: Beyond Wise Words: Final Report of the Family Justice Working Group of the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (April 2013), Recommendation 19

Return to footnote 138 referrer

Footnote 139

Practice Direction regarding the Integrated Intimate partner Violence Court at 311 Jarvis Street, Toronto (April 26, 2013) http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/legal-professionals/practice-directions/toronto-region/integrated-intimate partner-violence-court/

Return to footnote 139 referrer

Footnote 140

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/integrated-intimate partner-violence-court/overview/

Return to footnote 140 referrer

Footnote 141

As explained on the Ontario Court of Justice website: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/integrated-intimate partner-violence-court/

Return to footnote 141 referrer

Footnote 142

www.nycourts.gov/courts/problem_solving/idv/home.shtml

Return to footnote 142 referrer

Footnote 143

www.lawschool.cornell.edu/womenandjustice/Featured-Judges/Judge-John-Rowley-IDV.cfm

Return to footnote 143 referrer

Footnote 144

www.yukoncourts.ca/courts/territorial/dvtoc.html; Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. The Intimate partner Violence Treatment Option (DVTO), Whitehorse, Yukon: Final Evaluation Report October 2005 http://people.ucalgary.ca/~crilf/publications/Final_Outcome_Analysis_Report.pdf

Return to footnote 144 referrer

Footnote 145

Return to footnote 145 referrer

Footnote 146

http://www.ucalgary.ca/resolve/reports/2011/2011-01.pdf

Return to footnote 146 referrer

Footnote 147

http://caringdads.org/pros/res/ap/130-response-to-respect

Return to footnote 147 referrer

Footnote 148

The Honourable Donna Martinson, One Assault Allegation, Two Courts: Can We Do A Better Job of Coordinating the Family and Criminal Proceedings, Managing the Intimate partner Violence Case, National Judicial Institute Conference, Quebec City, November 16-19, 2010

Return to footnote 148 referrer

Footnote 149

Nova Scotia and British Columbia, for example

Return to footnote 149 referrer

Footnote 150

For a discussion of how conferencing can work between two courts in Canada, see Giesbrecht v Giesbrecht, 2013 MBQB 115 per Diamond J.

Return to footnote 150 referrer

Footnote 151

Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. P.(S.) et al., 2009 ONCJ 473.

Return to footnote 151 referrer

Footnote 152

As suggested by Justice Glenn in Children’s Aid Society of Huron County v. R.G., [2003] O.J. No. 3104 (O.C.J.) at par. 9

Return to footnote 152 referrer

Footnote 153

For example, a social worker from the Pembroke child protection agency works in the office of the Pembroke police services. http://www.oacas.org/criticalconnections/resources/h1.pdf

Return to footnote 153 referrer

Footnote 154

Forum presentations can be found at http://www.oacas.org/criticalconnections/

Return to footnote 154 referrer

Footnote 155

http://www.endviolence.ca/about-us/

Return to footnote 155 referrer

Footnote 156

www.fvpwaterloo.ca/en/

Return to footnote 156 referrer

Footnote 157

http://www.oacas.org/criticalconnections/resources/h2.pdf, http://www.wwlhin.on.ca/uploadedFiles/Celebrating%20Success%20-%20Family%20Violence%20Project.doc.pdf

Return to footnote 157 referrer

Footnote 158

www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/childprotectionstandards.aspx#receipt

Return to footnote 158 referrer

Footnote 159

Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon, p.45

Return to footnote 159 referrer

Footnote 160

Lisa Tomlinson, Differential Response in Intimate Partner Violence Cases, presentation to the National Judicial Institute, October 2012.

Return to footnote 160 referrer

Footnote 161

Tomlinson, ibid

Return to footnote 161 referrer

Footnote 162

CAS York v AS, 2010 ONSC 1287 (SC), affd. 2011 ONSC 1732 (Div. Ct.).

Return to footnote 162 referrer

Footnote 163

CAS Waterloo v KAL, 2010 ONCJ 80, per McSorley J.

Return to footnote 163 referrer

Footnote 164

Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, Commentary to Rule 4.01.

Return to footnote 164 referrer

Footnote 165

The only exception to solicitor-client privilege is where there is a clear risk of imminent serious bodily harm or death: Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455.

Return to footnote 165 referrer

Footnote 166