logo
Province's approach in child-custody case goes against law's intent, court says

Province's approach in child-custody case goes against law's intent, court says

CBC07-02-2025

Social Sharing
New Brunswick's Child and Youth Well-Being Act has been in effect for a year, and there are contradictory accounts of how it has changed the government's approach to child-custody cases.
According to the Department of Social Development, there are improvements, but a recent New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision suggests officials don't always act in the spirit of the legislation's "child-centric" philosophy.
"Anecdotally we're seeing the evidence its getting better," the deputy minister, Jim Mehan, told the legislature's public accounts committee last week, though he acknowledged there isn't enough data to say for sure.
In the court of appeal case, Justice Kathleen Quigg wrote that the province's approach in the case of a 12-year-old boy "is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the act."
Quigg said in a 25-page decision that the province's logic would lead to an "absurd" phenomenon of everyone but a child's parent having the right to ask the court for permission to have contact with a child.
"An interpretation that accepts arbitrary distinctions or promotes inefficiencies within the justice system cannot be adopted, because the legislature does not intend absurd consequences," she wrote.
This ignores the child's rights rather than focusing on them. - Justice Kathleen Quigg
The Child and Youth Well-Being Act was adopted by the legislature in 2022 but only took legal effect in January 2024.
It was designed to improve how the province handles child protection cases — situations where the government must step in and remove a child from their parents' custody for the child's own safety or well-being.
The new legislation added, for example, the ability for the province to place a child in the care of relatives, to preserve family connections.
"The old act was more supporting the parents. The new act is more focused on the child," Mehan said at the committee session.
But in the case of the boy identified only as "B.," the three appeal court justices concluded the province wasn't living up to that.
WATCH | 'Absurd': Top court criticizes New Brunswick in guardianship case:
Province didn't live up to intent of new child protection act, court says
4 hours ago
Duration 1:55
The ruling said that B.'s father had "struggled to take care of him" and the province took over guardianship of the boy and placed him a group home.
There was still "a loving relationship," however, so the judge in the custody hearing gave B.'s father, C.G., the right to have regular contact with his son.
The province appealed that decision, arguing only the minister has that authority under a section of the act that says the minister has "the sole discretion" to grant a request from a parent for contact.
The appeal court upheld the granting of contact to the father, concluding that the wording of the law doesn't explicitly preclude it.
"To prevent courts from ordering contact, then wait for the minister to decide whether to grant contact, and possibly have to further wait for judicial review of the Minister's decision if the minister denies the former parent contact" was inconsistent with the act, she wrote.
Those delays "could, in some cases, work against the concept of the best interests of the child and these integral connections" with family members, she continued.
A spokesperson for the department would not comment on the ruling or say whether it will try to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"The department is still reviewing the decision," Kate Wright said in an email. "The department will respond in due time if necessary."
Green Party MLA Megan Mitton said Quigg's ruling raised an important issue.
"The act, I guess, isn't making a difference in every case that it should, because prioritizing kinship — prioritizing the well-being of child and youth in the system which is meant to serve them — was the whole idea, so if that's not happening, it's frustrating," she said.
The ruling pointed out that B. himself wanted to maintain contact with his father.
Mehan said last week at the committee session that a key feature of the new act was "the focus on the rights of the child … and ensuring the child is heard in that decision-making."
Quigg's ruling pointed out that nothing in the new act lets a child request contact, leaving it up to the parent, who may lack the resources or capacity to pursue it.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jury finds 2 men guilty of supplying the bomb used to kill Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia
Jury finds 2 men guilty of supplying the bomb used to kill Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia

CTV News

time6 hours ago

  • CTV News

Jury finds 2 men guilty of supplying the bomb used to kill Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia

Flowers and a candle lie in front of a portrait of slain investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia during a vigil outside the law courts in Valletta, Malta, Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2018. (AP Photo/Jonathan Borg, File) VALLETTA, Malta — A Maltese jury found two men guilty of complicity in the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, after a six-week long trial covering two homicides wrapped up late on Thursday. Jamie Vella and Robert Agius were accused of supplying the bomb that killed her. Both were found guilty of the charges. The journalist was murdered on Oct. 16, 2017, by a car bomb that was detonated while she was driving near her home. Caruana Galizia, 53, had written extensively about suspected corruption in political and business circles in Malta. Her murder shocked Europe and triggered angry protests in Malta. Caruana Galizia's investigative reports had targeted people in then-prime minister Joseph Muscat's inner circle whom she accused of having offshore companies in tax havens disclosed in the Panama Papers leak. She also targeted the opposition. When she was killed, she was facing more than 40 libel suits. The Caruana Galizia family said in a statement that Thursday's verdict brings them a step closer to justice. 'Yet, eight years after Daphne's brutal assassination, the institutional failures that enabled her murder remain unaddressed and unreformed,' the family added. Vella and Robert Agius, together with two other men – George Degiorgio and Adrian Agius – also faced charges related to the separate murder of a lawyer, Carmel Chircop, who was shot and killed in 2015. Vella, Degiorgio and Adrian Agius were found guilty of charges tied to the murder, while Robert Agius was found not guilty. The judge will decide on sentencing at a later date. George Degiorgio and his brother Alfred Degiorgio both pleaded guilty in 2022 to carrying out the murder of Caruana Galizia. They were each sentenced to 40 years in prison. A third man, Vincent Muscat, pleaded guilty in 2021 for his role in the Caruana Galizia murder, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He testified in the recent jury trial after being granted a presidential pardon for his role in the Chircop murder on the condition he tell the whole truth. Yorgen Fenech, a prominent Maltese businessman, is currently out of jail on bail awaiting trial on charges of alleged complicity in the Caruana Galizia murder. Kevin Schembri Orland, The Associated Press

Ministers say new border bill upholds rights while limiting asylum claims
Ministers say new border bill upholds rights while limiting asylum claims

Global News

time2 days ago

  • Global News

Ministers say new border bill upholds rights while limiting asylum claims

Safeguards have been written into the government's border bill to ensure civil rights and due process are upheld in proposed immigration regulations, Immigration Minister Lena Diab said Wednesday. Critics and advocacy groups are calling the wide-ranging border security legislation a threat to civil liberties in the immigration and asylum system. One proposed change in the legislation would prevent people from making asylum claims if they've been in Canada for more than a year. That change would not affect applications that have been submitted already but would be retroactive to June 3, assuming the bill becomes law. Diab said there would still be opportunities for asylum seekers who have been in Canada for more than a year to make their case through measures like pre-removal risk assessments. 'There's a lot of applications in the system and so this is will streamline it to ensure that those newcomers, or those people that really need our protection and use the asylum system, are processed faster,' she said. Story continues below advertisement Justice Minister Sean Fraser also pointed to the pre-removal risk assessment clause as a safeguard that helps ensure the bill upholds individual rights and freedoms. 'We went through the bill to make sure that we have the tools that are necessary to protect the integrity of the border, also to protect rights of Canadians and to be in compliance with the Charter,' Fraser said on his way into Wednesday's caucus meeting. 0:25 Anandasangaree introduces bill aimed at tightening border security, immigration system The 127-page bill, unveiled Tuesday, would give authorities new powers to search mail and expand the Canadian Coast Guard's role to include security activities. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy There are several other immigration measures are in the bill. They include giving authorities the power to cancel or suspend immigration documents for health or national security reasons, closing a loophole that allows people to make an asylum claim 14 days after crossing the U.S. land border, and allowing Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to share the personal information of immigrants and refugees with provincial and territorial governments. Story continues below advertisement Immigration lawyer Zool Suleman said the information-sharing proposal poses a threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. 'Everybody thinks they have nothing to hide. You'd be amazed at how much we do want to hide in terms of the personal lives that we lead in this country and that we have a right to lead in the country,' he said. 'The real issue is that the government should not be delving into your private life unless they have cause. And so what this bill is really doing is threatening the civil liberties of everybody in Canada.' Diab said the legislation includes a number of safeguards to protect personal information. She said the goal is to streamline information-sharing between branches of government that process immigration, citizenship and passport applications. 'These programs cannot share information together. So this at least will give us that ability to do that, but also share information with the provinces and territories where the need arises,' she said. Diab said information-sharing arrangements with provincial and territorial bodies would be outlined in agreements stating which information can be shared and when. 'Most Canadians probably think this is the sensible thing to do and in fact most probably think it exists already. Well, it does not,' Diab said. Story continues below advertisement Diab said the final decision on cancelling or suspending immigration documents in the event of a health or public safety emergency would be made by cabinet. 'I think people, Canadians, should feel safe that we are putting all these safeguards in. But again, as I said, it's all part of protecting our country and protecting our system,' Diab said. Suleman said he has worried about a government giving itself this kind of power since the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act became law. 'People had predicted that this is the direction in which the government would go when it was passing this framework legislation. And what we find more than two decades later is it's exactly where the government has gone,' he said. 'They've taken on more and more authority for themselves with less and less safeguards for refugees and immigrants.' 0:35 New border bill has elements 'that will strengthen' Canada-U.S. relationship: Anandasangaree The legislation says that some asylum cases — such as those of migrants crossing by land from the U.S. — will no longer be sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for review. Story continues below advertisement 'You will be subjected to a much lower level of review and much lower levels of safeguards. Essentially, what the government is trying to do for many, many refugee claimants is move to a paper review basis, not an oral review basis to determine their claims,' Suleman said. The government has been trying to cut the backlog in immigration and refugee applications and is reducing the number of permanent and temporary residents being admitted to Canada. Roxham Road in Quebec became a focal point for the immigration debate during the first Donald Trump presidency, with thousands of people claiming asylum after crossing the Canadian border onto the small rural road, about 50 kilometres south of Montreal. More recently, the government has reported an increase in the number of international students making asylum claims when their visas expire. Diab said the asylum system can't be used as a shortcut to immigration. 'If you want to immigrate to Canada, we have rules. We have processes. Please use them,' she said. — With files from Jim Bronskill

Minister says his comments on Indigenous consultation ‘eroded' trust
Minister says his comments on Indigenous consultation ‘eroded' trust

Global News

time2 days ago

  • Global News

Minister says his comments on Indigenous consultation ‘eroded' trust

Justice Minister Sean Fraser apologized Wednesday for comments he made about the government's duty to consult with Indigenous leaders on major projects. Fraser said Tuesday that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires consultation but does not amount to 'a blanket veto power' over projects. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Fraser said Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak called him Tuesday night to express her frustration with his comments, and he apologized. 'Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,' Fraser said. 'I've come into a position that I think is essential in the process of respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and I wanted to make sure that just not Chief Woodhouse but Indigenous leaders, Indigenous Peoples across this country know that my desire and the government of Canada's desire is to move forward on a relationship.' Story continues below advertisement 3:02 Carney calls for energy partnerships to make Canada a global superpower Woodhouse Nepinak said it's 'disheartening' when politicians make such comments and the government has made a series of missteps since her Thursday meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'When the prime minister's trying to start a relationship with First Nations in a good way, it's disheartening when comments are made later, twice now actually this week,' she said, citing Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Rebecca Alty saying that work to fill the First Nations infrastructure gap won't qualify for Ottawa's push to fast-track what it calls 'nation-building' projects. 'And then (Fraser's) comment came yesterday and I was taken aback. He called to apologize. He needs to apologize to First Nations for those comments.' The UN declaration, which Canada adopted, requires free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples on matters affecting their rights, lands, territories and resources. Story continues below advertisement Fraser said talking about the declaration in terms of veto power makes an assumption that the government and Indigenous people are working against each another. 'In my experience engaging with Indigenous leaders, their perspective is one of wanting to have their rights respected and wanting to share in the benefits of development,' Fraser said. 'So, as we go forward, whether it's on the major projects initiative we'll be working on or any issue that touches on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, I want to be absolutely clear that our desire is to work in partnership and at every stage of the process, from project selection to conditions that may be imposed. We're going to engage, properly consult and work in partnership to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store