Her participation would not enhance the children's welfare: court
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia denied a grandmother’s request for party status in a child protection case, finding her participation unnecessary for the children’s welfare and citing privacy concerns and potential family conflict.
The maternal grandmother, identified as LMS in court documents, sought party status to participate fully in the proceedings and gain access to disclosure from the Minister of Community Services. She also filed separate applications under the Parenting and Support Act (PSA) seeking custody—now termed primary care and decision-making responsibility—of all four children. The minister’s proposed disposition plan allocates care of one child to LMS and the remaining three to the paternal grandparents.
The court examined LMS’s application under s. 36 of the Children and Family Services Act (CFSA) and relevant rules under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically CPR 35, which allows individuals to request party status in such proceedings. The decision also considered case law, including a three-part test from MS v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services), 2016 NSCA 4. The test requires applicants to demonstrate three key factors: a direct interest in the proceeding's subject matter, a familial or significant relationship with the children, and a reasonable possibility that granting the applicant standing will enhance the children’s welfare.
The minister and the children’s parents opposed LMS’s application, arguing that she could present evidence as a witness without obtaining party status. They raised concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of sensitive information contained in the minister’s filings. They also pointed to a history of conflict between LMS and one of the parents, SC, suggesting that granting LMS access to disclosure could exacerbate tensions, contrary to the children’s best interests.
LMS and her daughter, SW, who supports the application, argued that party status was necessary for LMS to fully understand and respond to the minister’s concerns, particularly if she were to become the primary caregiver.
The Supreme Court determined that LMS met the first two parts of the MS test, acknowledging her direct interest in the case and her familial relationship with the children. However, it found that she did not satisfy the third criterion. The court concluded that granting LMS party status would not enhance the children’s welfare, as her evidence could be heard without full disclosure. Additionally, the court held that providing LMS with access to the minister’s sensitive filings could intensify the existing conflict between her and SC, ultimately harming the children’s best interests.
The court noted that LMS was already pursuing her PSA application, which offered a reasonable alternative process for her to seek custody of the children. It also found that LMS had sufficient awareness of the case’s facts and risks without requiring full disclosure.
Ultimately, the court dismissed LMS’s motion, emphasizing that its priority remains the welfare of the children.
