A judge in a provincial court heard an application by the Child and Family Agency (CFA) for the release of a background report relating to a family whose children were subject to care order applications. A consultant psychologist had been engaged to carry out a risk assessment and the CFA sought to lift the in-camera rule to pass on the report to assist in the assessment. The mother and father were separately represented and each objected to the release of the report without knowing what was going to be passed on. The guardian ad litem (GAL) supported the CFA, saying the release of the information was relevant and necessary. The judge directed that the CFA provide a grounding affidavit within three weeks to explain the rationale for their application.
The CFA lawyer explained to the judge that she was making an application under section 47 for the release of the report to a consultant psychologist outlining the chronology of events related to the children. The psychologist was due to carry out a risk-assessment and it was necessary for him to have access to the background details of the children. The CFA lawyer added that she had already made 99 per cent of the redactions to take out the names of the children and the mother from the report and that she had circulated it to the parties. She now requested that the in-camera rule be lifted in order to allow for the release of the report.
The father’s lawyer told the court that she had explained the application to him but that he had indicated that he was not consenting to the lifting of the in-camera rule. She pointed out that the father was not consenting because he said the report related to different children, who were siblings of the children who were the subject matter of the care order application, and that the report related to a different mother. The father’s lawyer stated that it was imperative that a grounding affidavit be provided by the CFA, which should set out clearly the information intended to be passed on, the reasons why it was necessary to pass on that information and the legal basis for doing so.
The mother’s lawyer informed the court that she had consulted the mother about the passing on of the report. The mother said she was not happy with the plan to pass the information. She stated that the provision of an explanatory grounding affidavit would be of great assistance.
The lawyer for the GAL stated that she supported the application made by the CFA to release the report to the consultant psychologist. She stressed that the contents of the report were highly relevant. If the report was blocked or delayed, such delay would have a negative knock-on effect on progress and the psychologist had already confirmed a starting date for his assessment. The father’s lawyer admitted the report may be relevant but that it was still imperative that correct procedures be followed.
The judge agreed that there was merit in the submissions made by the father’s lawyer. She stated that there was a necessity for the provision of a grounding affidavit. This would need to be provided to all the parties and sufficient time be given so that instructions could be taken subsequently. She said that she appreciated that this would indeed take time but it was the correct approach.
The judge said she would allow three weeks for the provision and consideration of the explanatory grounding affidavit and she listed the matter for a date three weeks later.