British Columbia (Children and Family Development) v SC, 2024 BCPC 35.
Summary
S.C. seeks to change or cancel a continuing custody order (CCO) that was made in 2004, pursuant to s 54(1) and Rule 8(6) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). Prerequisites for s 54(1) hearing are not established, and matter proceeds as Rule 8(6) application. Harris J determines, even in considering a timeline favourable to S.C., the application…
Read Full Text ▼S.C. seeks to change or cancel a continuing custody order (CCO) that was made in 2004, pursuant to s 54(1) and Rule 8(6) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA). Prerequisites for s 54(1) hearing are not established, and matter proceeds as Rule 8(6) application. Harris J determines, even in considering a timeline favourable to S.C., the application was not filed within a reasonable time, and it is dismissed.
Region
British Columbia
Treaty Region(s)
N/A
Date
2024-02-09
Nation Name
Omitted for publication.
Jurisdiction
- BC: Provincial Court of British Columbia (BCPC)
Case Year
2024
File Type: application/pdf
File Size: 238 KB
Download
Case Brief
Case Link
(www.canlii.org)
Issues
Test for an application under a Rule 8(6):
Has the application been made within a reasonable time;
Did the applicant have a good reason for not attending the hearing where the order was made;
Is there a good reason to change or cancel the order; and
Would cancelling or changing the order be in the best interests of the child?
Relevant Excerpts
[8] I am dealing with an Indigenous family. As I go through my analysis I must be mindful of the federal legislation that applies to Indigenous families. I am also mindful that, Ms. C.’s and Mr. D.’s actions and behaviours as set out in the evidence before me may well be related to the impacts of colonialism on Indigenous peoples in Canada.
[42] In my view, Ms. C.’s interactions with Social Worker L.T. are inconsistent with her evidence that she believed she was T.T.K.C.’s guardian. I bear in mind that Ms. C. is an Indigenous woman who was dealing with a government agency at the time and, the experiences of Indigenous people in Canada could cause an Indigenous person to be hesitant to make inquiries or demands of a social worker. But, I do not have that evidence specifically before me. In fact, the text messages between Ms. C. and Social Worker L.T. make it clear that, at least by March 2020, Ms. C. was not afraid to do exactly that.
Case History
British Columbia (Children and Family Development) v. S.C., 2023 BCPC 60.
Bill C92 Citations
Legislative Citations
Child, Family and Community Service Act, RSBC 1996, c 46. (CFCSA)
Section 45(1.1) & 54(1)
Provincial Court (Child, Family and Community Service Act) Rules, BC Reg 533/95. (PCR)
Rule 8(6)
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14. (FED UNDRIP)
Case Law Considered
Director of Child, Family and Community Services v CR and RD, 2005 BCPC 449.
Director of Child, Family and Community Services v TA, 2008 BCPC 57.
Director v CR and RD, 2005 BCPC 449.
Director v TA, 2008 BCPC 57.
W(S) v British Columbia (Director of Family and Child Services), 2001 BCPC 33.
Tags: Continuing Custody Order,
Historical context considered,
Notice