S. (A.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services)

S. (A.) v. British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services)

The Supreme Court held that a parent who consented to a Continuing Custody Order under s.60 remains a party entitled to seek permission under s.54(1)-(2) to apply for cancellation; consent does not automatically bar a s.54 application, consent is only one factor at the permission and substantive stages, and cancellation under s.54(4) requires satisfaction that the circumstances that caused the Order have changed significantly and that cancellation is in the child's best interests.

Citation
2002 BCSC 718
Parties
Appellant/parent: A.S.; Respondent/director: The Director of Child, Family and Community Services
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia / Appeal From Provincial Court Decision Refusing Leave to Review Continuing Custody Order (permission Under S.54 Sought)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Continuing Custody Order, Consent Orders, Jurisdiction, Cancellation of Orders, Reunification, Permission to Apply (s.54), Appeal Rights (s.81)
Source Language
English
Child Protection Family Law Administrative Law Continuing Custody Order Consent Orders Jurisdiction Cancellation of Orders Reunification +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.S.

Appellant/parent

The Director of Child, Family and Community Services

Respondent/director

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of British Columbia / Appeal From Provincial Court Decision Refusing Leave to Review Continuing Custody Order (permission Under S.54 Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a parent who consented to a Continuing Custody Order under s.60 may apply for permission under s.54(1)-(2) to seek cancellation of that Order
  2. 2 Whether consent to a Continuing Custody Order bars a s.54 application or instead is a factor to be considered
  3. 3 The proper test at the permission stage under s.54(2) and the substantive test under s.54(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a parent who consented to a Continuing Custody Order under s.60 remains a party entitled to seek permission under s.54(1)-(2) to apply for cancellation; consent does not automatically bar a s.54 application, consent is only one factor at the permission and substantive stages, and cancellation under s.54(4) requires satisfaction that the circumstances that caused the Order have changed significantly and that cancellation is in the child's best interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellant A.S. is granted liberty to apply in Provincial Court Action No. 10560 (Fort St. John Registry) for permission under s.54(2) to apply for cancellation of the Continuing Custody Order
  • Both the s.54(2) application and, if permission is granted, the s.54(4) application for cancellation are to be heard before August 1, 2002