British Columbia (Director, Ministry of Children and Families) v S.L.J., 2024 BCPC 260.

The society seeks an interim order pursuant to s. 35(2)(d) of the Child Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) that the children remain in the care of the society until a protection hearing is held. S.L.J. provides evidence that the concerns of the society were mitigated. Thomas J. orders there was sufficient reason to apprehend, but it is in best interest of the children to be placed back with S.L.J., with direct supervision of society, while awaiting protection hearing.  

Was the Director justified in removing the children on April 25, 2024?

If the court determines removal was justified, what is the best way to care for the children, pending the conclusion of the protection hearing?

[61] With both the Children identified by S.L.J. and C.S. as Indigenous, I am satisfied that the Children are “Indigenous children” as set out in the definition of the CFCSA and the Federal Act. While the Director has taken some steps to confirm N.R.J.’s Indigenous identity, the investigations are ongoing. I recognize that Canada’s colonial history and assimilationist policies caused many Indigenous people to become displaced and disconnected from their communities so it may be more challenging to find those connections. Canada’s assimilationist policies created categories of Indigenous people who are recognized by government and those who are not. For these reasons, this may make it more challenging to establish or locate those connections to confirm Indigenous identity.

[62] The Federal Act calls for a new approach in the delivery of child protection services; which recognizes the tragic history of residential school and the 60’s scoop, and the intergenerational impact of colonization and promotes the significance of cultural connections for the children. The Federal Act imposes national standards for the care of Indigenous children, and applies to the provision of child and family services to Indigenous children. The CFCSA applies concurrently to the Federal Act, subject to the doctrine of federal paramountcy. (see: T.L. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 BCSC 2203 at para 21.) In the case of conflict between the CFCSA and the Federal Act, the Federal Act applies.

[63] Sections 10-17 of the Federal Act set out the national minimum standards for the care of Indigenous children. National standards must be interpreted according to the interpretive principles set out in Section 9: the best interests of the child (here, Indigenous child), cultural continuity and substantive equality. (see: J.W. v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 2023 BCSC 512)

None.

• Section 9: Principles
• Section 10
• Section 11: Effect of services
• Section 12
• Section 13: Representations and party status
• Section 14
• Section 15: Socio-economic conditions
• Section 16
• Section 17: Attachment and emotional ties

Children, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c 46. (CFCSA)
Sections 2; 3; 13; 30; 35; 37; 68(2)(a)

BB v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services), 2005 BCCA 46.

BC (Child, Family and Community Service) v SB and DMB, 2022 BCPC 140.

British Columbia (Child & Family Services) v KS, 2020 BCPC 97.

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service) v SG, 2019 BCPC 258.

BR v KK, 2015 BCSC 1658.

BS v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 1998 CanLII 5958 (BCCA).

Director, Child, Family and Community Service Act v H, 2008 BCSC 701.

JW v British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Service), 2023 BCSC 512.

TL v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 BCSC 2203.