Further to previous notices, the Provincial Court is notifying the profession that in communities where the court has not resumed sitting, the child protection dockets will continue to sit in the court centres for the month of October.
This includes the communities of; Steinbach, Beausejour, Pine Falls, Peguis First Nation, Emerson, Portage la Prairie, Dauphin, Bloodvein, Cross Lake, Norway House and Little Grand Rapids. Details of dockets that will be sitting in Winnipeg, and The Pas are provided.
The notice also gives instructions for when a party may be in custody and requires transportation to the courtroom. It also asks that whenever possible, for persons in custody they appear by video to avoid the need to quarantine, to reduce delays.
Given the interconnectedness of the individuals involved in
child protection cases, most often it is better to strive for resolution rather
than litigation. This year’s program will focus on the need for counsel to
adopt a modern, collaborative approach to child protection matters.
Topics will include: -Drug Testing and Reading -Lessons from Dauphin Provincial Court -Intake Court and How to Prepare an Effective Brief -Resources Available to Families Throughout the Province -Mama Mawi Wi Chi Itata – Family Group Conferencing
Presenters Include: From Other Professions Dr. Ginette Poulin, Addictions Foundation of Manitoba Bruce Harper, Absolute Testing Inc. Jackie Anderson, Mama Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre
From the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench The Honourable Madam Justice Gwen B. Hatch (Family Division) The Honourable Madam Justice Kaye E. Dunlop (Family Division) Senior Master Rick Lee
From Manitoba Provincial Court The Honourable Judge Christine Harapiak The Honourable Judge Alain Huberdeau
Counsel Lynda Grimes, Overall, Grimes Kris Janovcik, Tapper Cuddy LLP David Joycey, Barrister & Solicitor Darryl Buxton, Myers LLP Michael Clark, Myers LLP Karen Webb, Burgess Law Office Desiree Dorion, Dawson & Bretecher Meredith Mitchell, Legal Aid Manitoba – Agassiz Law Office Terrance DeLaronde, Cochrane Saxberg, Barristers & Solicitors Spencer Weisensel, Legal Aid Manitoba – Northlands Community Law Centre
Eligibility For CPD Hours: This program may be reported for up to 6 hours of eligible CPD activity, including 1 hours of EPPM.
On December 21, 2017, then Families Minister announced a formal review of Manitoba’s child welfare legislation. As community leaders, we were very pleased to be asked to lead this important initiative. Following our appointment, we spent the next four months holding meetings and reviewing written submissions and online survey responses. In addition to hearing formal presentations in Winnipeg, we met with key stakeholders in Thompson, Dauphin and Brandon. It is remarkable that over 1,540 individuals provided input in such a short frame of time.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal recently ruled on the right of a child protection agency to request the personal information associated with a subscriber to an IP address.
Child and Family All Nations Coordinated Response Network (ANCR) was contacted by the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS) in February, 2016 who were in turn, informed by Interpol that a convicted sex offender in the United Kingdom may have had contact with someone they believed to be a child in 2012. ANCR asked Shaw Communications to identify the owner of the IP address. Shaw refused without a court order.
The application was first taken up with a Master, who did not have jurisdiction to hear an application as opposed to a motion, and then it went to a judge, who dismissed it, concluding that she did not have the jurisdiction to make the order either.
This decision is significant for its analysis of the interpretation of a statute.
 ANCR brought its application pursuant to the QB Rules for a determination of rights based upon the interpretation of the CFS Act and regulations. Rule 14.05(2)(c)(iv) of the QB Rules allows for the determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of any document referred to in the rule, in this case, a statute. The rule does not create jurisdiction, but provides a means to determine the nature and extent, if any,
of jurisdiction that already exists.
Steel, J.A. dismissed the application based on the documentation and evidence, while noting that the child protection agency did indeed have the jurisdiction to make such a request. Also of significance are Beard, J.A.’s concurring reasons.