2015 QCCQ 19889, 2015 QCCQ 19889

Protection de la jeunesse — 158047 2015 QCCQ 19889 JG1900 COURT OF QUÉBEC Youth Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] LOCALITY OF [...] No. 555-41-000071-149 DATE: August 12, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE LINE GOSSELIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ [INTERVENER 1] Petitioner and X Child and A B (deceased, June 2015) In their capacity as parents and Director of Youth Protection Respondent ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] [intervener 1], in accordance with

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act , seized the Court of a motion to intervene in the record of X, born on [...], 2011. [ 2 ] [intervener 1] is X's paternal grandmother. [ 3 ] She seeks authorization to intervene at the proof and hearing of the motion for review and extension concerning her granddaughter, to take

part in discussions, to present evidence and to obtain any evidence submitted by the other parties. The hearing on the motion was scheduled for today, before the undersigned. [ 4 ] Through their respective attorneys, the Director of Youth Protection and the mother admitted the alleged facts and consented to the conclusions. [ 5 ] X's attorney, Maître Amélie Samson, acted under a legal mandate. The facts [ 6 ] From the evidence submitted, I note primarily that the paternal grandmother has been involved with X for several years.

The child's father, who worked in a different province and lived at the home of [intervener 1] when he came home, delegated his parental authority to Ms. [intervener 1] during his prolonged absences. [ 7 ] In fact, since the Director of Youth Protection's intervention in August 2013, Ms. [intervener 1] has been identified as the person who took care of the child and saw to her needs when the father did not live in Québec. [ 8 ] With the father's death on June 7, 2015, this Court entrusted X to [intervener 1]. Today, the Director asks that X be kept with

her for the coming months. The law [ 9 ] Since July 9, 2007,

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act reads as follows: The tribunal shall hear the persons concerned and the advocates representing them The child, the child's parents and the director are parties to the hearing. For the requirements of the proof and hearing, the tribunal may grant any other person the status of party to the hearing if it considers it expedient to do so in the interest of the child. The status of party remains valid until withdrawn by a decision or order of the tribunal.

A person who has information likely to enlighten the tribunal in the interest of the child may, on request, be heard by the tribunal and be assisted by an advocate. [ 10 ] As set out in the above section, two reasons justify granting a person the status of party to the hearing: 1. if the Court considers it to be in the child's interest ; 2. where that status is dictated by the requirements of the proof and hearing . [ 11 ] A person granted the status of party to the hearing has the right to be heard, to take

part in the hearing, to have access to the evidence and to the record of the child(ren) concerned, to call witnesses, to cross-examine the witnesses of the other parties and to submit expert reports. [ 12 ] In Protection de la jeunesse - 073275 of December 19, 2007, the Honourable Michel Dubois J. clarified the meaning of the word [TRANSLATION] "expedient" as follows, given that it is not defined in the legislation: [TRANSLATION] . . . the definition of the word [TRANSLATION] "expedient" given by most dictionaries corresponds to the current understanding of the word in the everyday life of most litigants . . . It is thus reasonable to interpret the word [TRANSLATION] "expedient" in

section 81 of the Youth Protection Act as meaning [TRANSLATION] " fitting, suitable, beneficial, favourable, fitting, useful, opportune . . . [1] [ 13 ] He ended his analysis by specifying that, from then on, the court would have [TRANSLATION] "broader discretionary leeway". [2] I agree with that observation.

Application [ 14 ] Applying the above to the case at hand, the Court considers that, given her involvement and cooperation with the child's caseworkers since 2013, and her relevant and enlightening observations, the petitioner will be able to supplement the evidence in the interest of the child X. [ 15 ] For this Court, her genuine and significant links with the child, and her wish to ensure the child's healthy development, underscore the importance of allowing her to act as a party to the hearing, as she sets aside her personal interests. [ 16 ] In short, [intervener 1]'s participation in the proof and hearing of the motion for review and extension will go far beyond contributing a mere point of view. [ 17 ] All in all, as resumed above, the evidence presented more than preponderantly established that it is expedient, in the interest of X and for the purposes of the hearing, that [intervener 1] be granted the status of party to the hearing in the record of X.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 18 ] ALLOWS the motion; [ 19 ] GRANTS the petitioner, [intervener 1], the status of party for the purposes of the proof and hearing of the motion for the review and extension in the record of X bearing number 555-41-000071-149.

__________________________________ Line Gosselin J.C.Q. Mtre. Ariane Beaulieu, for the Director of Youth Protection Mtre. Amélie Samson, for the child Mtre. André Nault, for the petitioner Mtre. Vendelin Weber, for the mother Date of hearing: August 12, 2015