2011 QCCA 2353, 2011 QCCA 2353

Unofficial English Translation Adoption — 11356 2011 QCCA 2353 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No.: 500-08-000343-105 (705-43-000902-084) DATE: May 22, 2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A.

A APPELLANT – applicant and DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION SERVICES FOR THE A YOUTH CENTRES IMPLEADED PARTY – Impleaded party and X IMPLEADED PARTY – Child and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC IMPLEADED PARTY – Intervener RECTIFICATORY JUDGMENT [ 1 ] A clerical error was inadvertently made in the judgment rendered in this case by the Court on December 20, 2011, with respect to the child's name in paragraph [7] of the judgment and in the style of cause. [ 2 ] The child's full name, X, should have appeared.

In fact, some of the proceedings in the appellate and trial records refer to it, including the Haitian adoption order of October 12, 2006. [ 3 ] Counsel for the impleaded parties, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Director of Youth Protection Services for the A Youth Centres and the child, have all confirmed that they do not object to a rectificatory judgment being rendered respecting the impleaded child's name. [ 4 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 5 ] CORRECTS the style of cause of the judgment rendered on December 20, 2011, to correctly indicate the child's name as being X; [ 6 ] CORRECTS paragraph [7] of the judgment and REPLACES it with the following paragraph: [7] DECLARES that said adoption judgment concerning X, born on ... 1990 in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, has the same effects as an adoption judgment rendered in Quebec, as of October 12, 2006; [ 7 ] THE WHOLE without costs; NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q.

JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A.

Unofficial English Translation RICHARD WAGNER, J.A. A For Herself regarding the application to vary Mtre Sylvie Lavallée Royal, Lavallée & Associates For the Director of Youth Protection Services for the A Youth Centres Mtre Manon Deschênes Roux Thiffault & Associates Counsel for X (the child) Mtre Nathalie Fiset Bernard, Roy (Justice Quebec) For the Attorney General of Quebec Adoption — 11356 2011 QCCA 2353 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF ... No.: 500-08-000343-105 (705-43-000902-084) DATE: December 20, 2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A.

RICHARD WAGNER, J.A.

A APPELLANT – Petitioner and DIRECTION DE LA PROTECTION DE LA JEUNESSE DES CENTRES JEUNESSE A IMPLEADED PARTY – Impleaded party and X IMPLEADED PARTY – Child And ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC IMPLEADED PARTY – Intervener JUDGMENT [1] THE COURT ; - Ruling on the appeal from a judgment rendered on March 16, 2010, by the Court of Quebec, Youth Division, District A (the Honourable Judge Normand Bonin), which dismissed the application for recognition of the adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec; [2] For the reasons of Dufresne J.A., with which Duval Hesler C.J.Q. and Wagner J.A. agree; [3] ALLOWS the appeal, without costs; [4] SETS ASIDE the judgment of the Court of Quebec rendered on March 16, 2010; [5] ALLOWS , without costs, the application for recognition of the adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec;

[6] RECOGNIZES the adoption judgment rendered by the trial court of Port-de-Paix, Haiti, on October 12, 2006; [7] DECLARES that said adoption judgment concerning X, born on ... 1990 in city A, Haiti, has the same effects as an adoption judgment rendered in Quebec, as of October 12, 2006; [ 8 ] ORDERS the clerk of the Court of Quebec to notify the Registrar of Civil Status of the adoption judgment and of this judgment and to provide the Registrar with all the necessary information to enable the Registrar to make a new birth certificate, as prescribed by

article 129 of the Civil Code of Quebec ; [ 9 ] ORDERS the Registrar of Civil Status to comply with the legislative provisions; NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. JACQUES DUFRESNE, J.A. RICHARD WAGNER, J.A. Mtre Claude Ducharme For A Mtre Sylvie Lavallée (absent) Royal, Lavallée & Associés For the Director of Youth Protection) Mtre Manon Deschênes (absent) Roux Thiffault & Associés For X (the child) Mtre Nathalie Fiset Bernard, Roy (Justice-Québec) For the Attorney General of Quebec Hearing date: August 2, 2011 REASONS OF DUFRESNE, J.A. [ 10 ] In Quebec, the law recognizes only the full adoption model.

Unlike simple adoption, full adoption permanently dissolves the pre-existing bond of filiation. [ 11 ] This appeal raises a question that arises precisely because of this difference: can an adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec be recognized when simple adoption is the legal adoption system applicable in the country concerned? [ 12 ] The trial judge answered this question in the negative.

He concluded that it is impossible to convert a simple adoption into a full adoption when recognition of the foreign judgment involves, as in the present case, a country that is not a signatory of the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption [1] (hereinafter the “ Convention ”). With respect, I am of the contrary opinion. CONTEXT [ 13 ] The factual background is very simple. On November 5, 2004, by notarial deed, the biological mother agreed to the adoption of her son born in 1990.

It was an intra-family type of adoption, because the appellant is the child’s paternal aunt. [ 14 ] On July 20, 2005, the appellant started adoption procedures with the Secrétariat à l’adoption internationale (hereinafter the “Secretariat”). A few months later, a psychological report recommended her adoption plan.

On November 1, 2005, the Secretariat informed the competent authority in Haiti that the appellant was fit to adopt a child and that, consequently, Quebec was allowing her to adopt a child domiciled outside Quebec. [ 15 ] On June 5, 2006, the biological mother once again signed a document consenting to adoption in favour of the appellant. [ 16 ] On October 12, 2006, the trial court in Port-de-Paix in the Republic of Haiti homologated the transcript of the consent to adoption of June 5, 2006. The adoption deed is dated October 12, 2006.

[ 17 ] On November 11, 2008, the appellant filed an application for recognition of an adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec, to which was attached a certificate from the Secretariat confirming that the appellant was authorized by the Minister of Health and Social Services to proceed with her adoption arrangements commenced without a certified body before February 1, 2006. [ 18 ] On September 7, 2009, the biological mother once again signed a consent form, this time the General consent to the adoption of a child domiciled outside Quebec by a person domiciled in Quebec .

This consent is specific and unequivocal: the biological mother gives her consent to an adoption that will permanently dissolve the bond of filiation that exists between the child and the child’s biological family. [ 19 ] On March 16, 2010, the application for recognition of the adoption judgment rendered on October 12, 2006, in Haiti was dismissed, hence the appeal. TRIAL JUDGMENT [ 20 ] The judge explained in his reasons, which were elaborate be it said in passing, that with the amendment of

article 574 C.C.Q. , which came into force on February 1, 2006, the legislature confirmed the need for the Court to verify that the consent giving rise to the adoption judgment was given for the purposes of a full adoption.

He found that this was not the case, since the legal system in force in Haiti is that of simple adoption. [ 21 ] In addition, [TRANSLATION] “international comity dictates not adding, before the Court pronouncing recognition, evidence that would affect the finality of the initial judgment” . [2] The judge summarized as follows the reasons for his refusal to recognize the adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec in a country where the legal system is one of simple adoption: [TRANSLATION] [115] All things considered, with great respect for the contrary opinion, the Court is of the opinion that the adoption order made in Haiti is, pursuant to the laws of that country, a simple adoption.

In accordance with the laws of Quebec, despite the principles of international comity, which the Court readily recognizes, but also because of them, the Court is of the opinion that it cannot recognize the adoption order made in Haiti in this case because it cannot be reconciled with the current principles on which adoption in Quebec is based, i.e., a complete dissolution of the original bond of filiation. In addition, the law does not provide a conversion mechanism, and there is an absence of agreement with Haiti to authorize such a conversion.

Consequently, recognition of this judgment would place the child in a constant conflict of law between two jurisdictions, that of Haiti, where the child’s original bonds of filiation would still exist, with all the legal consequences, and that of Quebec, where the original bond of filiation would be dissolved, with all the legal consequences. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific agreement with the child's country of origin, converting the simple adoption into a full adoption would not be compatible with the principles of judicial comity, order, and fairness.

While judicial comity asks one jurisdiction to recognize the judgment of another so that it may produce its effects therein, it also requires that the finality not be changed, precisely to avoid conflicts between two jurisdictions with respect to the enforcement of judgments. [116] According to the evidence, there is no specific agreement between Canada and Haiti, nor between Quebec and Haiti, with respect to adoption [citation omitted], and the laws of Quebec do not authorize the conversion of a simple adoption into a full adoption for countries that have not signed the Convention. [3] HISTORICAL BACKGROUND [ 22 ] Before deciding the issue, I believe a brief historical review of the legislation and lines of authority on the recognition of adoption judgments rendered outside Quebec would be useful here. [ 23 ] Before 1987, only a foreign judgment that [TRANSLATION] “ creates a bond of filiation that meets Quebec standards ” [4] could be recognized.

The author Goldstein explains that, in practice however, the Secretariat went much further and [TRANSLATION] “ categorically opposed any adoption in a country where it did not sever all ties with the family of origin ” . [5] [ 24 ] This requirement was abolished in 1987. [6] To recognize a foreign adoption judgment, the court would henceforth ensure that the rules respecting consent and eligibility for adoption had been observed.

Case law remained divided on the possibility of recognizing a simple adoption judgment that did not dissolve the pre-existing bond of filiation. [ 25 ] In Protection de la jeunesse – 898 , [7] the Court of Quebec refused to recognize a simple adoption judgment rendered in Benin, because [TRANSLATION] “conferring on any simple adoption pronounced abroad the effects of adoption in Quebec would be to disregard the consent to adoption which the court must ensure is in compliance with the rules (arts. 574 and 3092 C.C.Q. ) ” . [8] [ 26 ] However, in Droit de la famille – 2954 [9] rendered the following year, in 1998, d'Amours J.C.Q. recognized an adoption judgment rendered in Cameroon, since the biological parents had been informed of the effects of adoption in Quebec . [ 27 ] That decision was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Droit de la famille – 3403 . [10] In that case, it was a question of recognizing a kafala judgment, the adoption system in force in Muslim countries but which is often considered to be more a form of tutorship, because no new bond of filiation is created between the child and the “adopters”.

This adoption system is very similar to our own, noted Forget J.A. of the Court, with one exception however: the bond of filiation with the biological parents is not dissolved.

Despite this singularity, which some might find determinative, the Court referred the adoption file back to the court below so that it could follow its course. [11] [ 28 ] More recently, the Court also ordered the placement of a child for the purposes of adoption. [12] The Moroccan child was the subject of a judgment confirming his guardianship ( kafala ) in his country of origin. [ 29 ] Furthermore, on June 20, 2003, the legislature tabled Bill 11 [13] in order to, among other things, integrate the Convention into Quebec law.

It should be noted that Canada signed the Convention on April 12, 1994, and ratified it on December 19, 1996.

[ 30 ] On April 22, 2004, Quebec passed the Act to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and to amend various legislative provisions in relation to adoption [14] (hereinafter the “Act”) and signed the Convention on October 28, 2005. Some provisions of the Act came into force on September 1, 2004, but others, including the ones that concern us more particularly here, came into force on February 1, 2006. [ 31 ] The first paragraph of

article 568 C.C.Q. was then amended by adding the words “ for the purposes of an adoption resulting in the dissolution of the pre-existing bond of filiation between the child and the child's family of origin ” , so that the

article has been worded as follows since then: 568. Before granting an order of placement, the court ascertains that the conditions for adoption have been complied with and, particularly, that the prescribed consents have been validly given for the purposes of an adoption resulting in the dissolution of the pre- existing bond of filiation between the child and the child's family of origin. [Emphasis added] [ 32 ] Two changes were also made to the first paragraph of

article 574 C.C.Q. First, the words “an adoption judgment rendered” were replaced by the words “a decision granting an adoption made” . With this change, “[t]he possibility for the court to recognize decisions granting adoptions made outside Québec is extended to all such decisions, whether judicial or not … ”. [15] [ 33 ] The first paragraph of

article 574 C.C.Q. was further amended by requiring that the court ascertain not only that the rules respecting consent to adoption and eligibility for adoption had been observed, but also that consents had been given for the purposes of full adoption : 574. The court, where called upon to recognize a decision granting an adoption made outside Quebec, ascertains that the rules respecting consent to adoption and eligibility for adoption have been observed and that the consents have been given for the purposes of an adoption resulting in the dissolution of the pre-existing bond of filiation between the child and the child's family of origin. [Emphasis added] [ 34 ]

Article 574 C.C.Q. , so worded, has been in force since February 1, 2006. [16] ANALYSIS [ 35 ] The adopted child is of adult age today, but the question, which is also one of principle, is still of interest. It may be useful to restate it here: can an adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec be recognized when simple adoption is the only legal adoption system applicable in the country of origin and when that country is not a signatory of the Convention, as is the case with Haiti? With respect for the contrary opinion, I believe the answer to this question is affirmative.

Let us consider the reasons why. [ 36 ] A decision granted abroad must be judicially recognized in Quebec, unless the adoption has been certified by the competent authority of the State where it took place as having been made in accordance with the Convention (article 565 C.C.Q. ;

article 23 of the Convention). [ 37 ] This exception does not apply here, because Haiti, the child’s country of origin, is not a signatory of the Convention. For the same reason, the conversion mechanism of

article 27 of the Convention is not available either in this case. This mechanism allows for the conversion of a simple adoption into a full adoption. The conversion requirements are defined in

article 27, specifically with respect to verification by the State of origin of the requisite consents and the quality of these consents. The strict conditions of this provision of the Convention are due to the fact that a decision granted in a foreign country will be recognized by operation of law in signatory countries (articles 23 and 27 of the Convention;

article 565 C.C.Q. ). [ 38 ] The adoption judgment rendered in Haiti on October 12, 2006, is therefore subject to judicial recognition in Quebec. [ 39 ] Recognition of an adoption decision granted outside Quebec requires that the competent Quebec court, in this case the Court of Quebec, ascertain that the rules respecting consent to adoption and eligibility for adoption have been observed. These rules are those of the adopted child’s country, as expressly set forth in the first paragraph of

article 3092 C.C.Q. : 3092. The rules respecting consent to the adoption and the eligibility of the child for adoption are those provided by the law of his domicile. ... [ 40 ] Since the amendments to the Civil Code , which came into force on February 1, 2006, the first paragraph of

article 574 C.C.Q. has required that the court also ascertain that the consents have been given for the purposes of an adoption resulting in the dissolution of the bond of filiation between the child and the child's family of origin . [ 41 ] Before this amendment, the first paragraph of

article 574 C.C.Q. required only that the judge ascertain that “… the rules respecting consent to adoption and eligibility for adoption have been observed ”. [ 42 ] Counsel for the Attorney General is of the opinion that the second consent, that of 2009, was not necessarily required for the court to recognize the adoption judgment. She says that deciding otherwise [TRANSLATION] “could cause problems”. Obtaining such a consent could create difficulties for files that were opened at the Secretariat before the coming into force of the legislative amendments.

She believes that the provisions in force prior to February 1, 2006, should be applied in this case. [ 43 ] The first steps toward adoption pre-date the coming into force of the relevant legislative amendments, but the judicial procedures, both in Haiti and in Quebec, took place after these amendments came into force. For example, the initial consent to adoption

given by the biological mother is dated November 5, 2004, and the letter from the Secretariat confirming that the appellant is fit to adopt dates back to November 1, 2005. The transcript recording the consent to adoption, however, is dated June 5, 2006, and the adoption judgment was rendered by the Haitian court on October 12, 2006. The adopter’s application for judicial recognition of the adoption judgment was also filed after February 1, 2006. [ 44 ] Almost two years elapsed between the date when the Act was assented to and the date when

article 574 C.C.Q. , which is at the heart of this analysis, came into force. The latter date is determinative to knowing whether this provision applies to a judicial procedure. Professor Pierre-André Côté writes as follows about the enforceability of a text of law: [TRANSLATION] 347. A text of law comes into existence as soon as it is enacted by Parliament. Since the Sovereign is the last component of Parliament to assent to a bill, it is the assent to the bill by the Sovereign’s representative, the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor, that marks the beginning of the existence of a text of law. 348.

However, the text is not necessarily enforceable as soon as it is assented to: assent and bringing into force can often coincide in time, but these are two conceptually distinct concepts. The text of the act assented to must, in principle, come into force to produce its effects [citation omitted]. [17] [ 45 ] What is the situation in this case? Is it the preliminary administrative steps ( inter alia , the confirmation by the Adoption Secretariat of the adopter’s suitability) or the filing of judicial proceedings in Haiti or in Quebec that determines whether the 2006 amendment to

article 574 C.C.Q. applies here? [ 46 ] The discussion is somewhat theoretical here in that, in this case, the biological mother signed, on September 7, 2009, an unequivocal consent to adoption that will result in the dissolution of the bond of filiation, a consent which, in my opinion, must be considered. As pending files may exist where this question of law would be relevant, or even determinative, I will refrain from making a final determination in the abstract without having had the benefit of hearing the representations of the other parties.

The child’s status could hang in the balance. [ 47 ] In any case, with respect for the trial judge’s contrary opinion, the appellant’s application for judicial recognition satisfies both aspects of

article 574 C.C.Q. , as worded since 2006. We will now discuss the reasons underlying this finding. [ 48 ] The judge who rendered the adoption judgment on October 12, 2006, in Haiti, knew the adopter’s origin and the plan she had for the adopted child, i.e., to live in Quebec. Indeed, in the first paragraph of the adoption judgment, it is expressly stated that the appellant, a [ TRANSLATION] “naturalized” Canadian citizen, who was visiting Haiti at the time, resided and was domiciled in Quebec.

This judgment also attests to the fact that the judge verified the mother’s consent to the adoption of her child. [ 49 ] These observations suffice to conclude that the domestic rules of the country of origin respecting consent to adoption and eligibility of the child for adoption were observed, which satisfies the first requirement of

article 574 C.C.Q. The Quebec court need not take further steps to verify that the consent is in compliance with the laws of the child’s country of origin, as long as it can ascertain that the exercise was duly performed by the adoption judge. [ 50 ] In addition, there is no doubt here about the biological mother’s free and informed consent to the adoption of her child.

She first expressed it in writing, on June 5, 2006, before the adoption judgment was rendered by the Haiti court on October 12, 2006; she then expressed it a second time, on September 7, 2009, on the form for this purpose entitled General consent to the adoption of a child domiciled outside Quebec by a person domiciled in Quebec.

The rules respecting consent and eligibility of the child for adoption were observed in this case, as evidenced by the judgment rendered in Haiti and by both of the consents. [ 51 ] The biological mother’s consent of September 7, 2009, to an adoption that will permanently dissolve the bond of filiation could not be excluded by the trial judge. First, the free and informed nature of the consent is not called into question here. Furthermore, the absence of a deadline for withdrawal of the consent is without consequence.

In the absence of a specific date, it can be inferred that the person who signed the consent had to exercise the withdrawal option within a reasonable time. [ 52 ] In addition, the interest of the child militates in favour of a short period to exercise this option, failing specific provisions in the consent itself. When the trial judgment under appeal was rendered, on March 16, 2010, there was nothing to suggest that the mother intended to withdraw her consent or that she had second thoughts about it. This is in fact still the case today.

With the simple passage of time, the withdrawal option has expired. [ 53 ] The trial judge found an ambiguity in the second consent. He considered whether the absence of a deadline for withdrawing the consent (the signatory not having completed the space on the form for this purpose) could [TRANSLATION] “ constitute a serious ground for revocation by the court of the child’s country of origin”.

The judge explained his thoughts more fully on the scope of this consent given after the adoption judgment in the country of origin: [TRANSLATION] [87] Lastly, it appears to the Court that the purpose of articles 568 and 574 C.C.Q. [citation omitted] is to ascertain not only that the parents’ initial consent was free and informed but also that it was in compliance with the laws of the adopted child’s country of origin.

The Quebec court’s duty to verify the consent does not allow it to subsequently change the conditions for admissibility of the parent’s consent where they were duly verified by the court in the child’s country of origin. [88] The Court is of the opinion that the purpose of articles 568 and 574 C.C.Q. [citation omitted] is to ascertain that the consents are in compliance with the laws of the country of origin, as accepted by the court that pronounced the adoption in the country of origin, and not to verify a second, post-adoption consent.

If the Quebec legislature had been concerned with a post-adoption consent, it would have clearly said so. [18]

[ 54 ] With respect, I do not share the opinion of the trial judge or his concerns related to the child’s hypothetical return to his country of origin. [ 55 ] As for the concerns expressed by the judge in the event that the child might return to his country of origin, in a way, they set the effects of the adoption judgment rendered in Haiti as against the effects of the judicial recognition ruling rendered in Quebec. Taking these concerns into consideration exceeds the scope of the Quebec court’s mission in matters of judicial recognition of an adoption judgment rendered abroad.

In fact, they are essentially speculative in that, in this case, the mother signed a consent to adoption that will result in the permanent dissolution of the bond of filiation. This consent is not without legal effects. [ 56 ] The Quebec court’s mission in judicial recognition cases is defined by

article 574 C.C.Q. In Droit de la famille – 3403 , Forget J.A., with whose reasons Mailhot and Deschamps JJ.A. agreed, explained that a court considering an application for judicial recognition of an adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec must ensure that the domestic rules of the child's country of origin respecting consent and eligibility for adoption have been observed (article 574 C.C.Q. ), but that it need not ensure that the effects of the adoption are similar: [TRANSLATION] [61] In its factum, the respondent claims that [TRANSLATION] “the protection system favoured by the Moroccan authorities is very similar to tutorship as defined in

article 177 and following of our Civil Code ”. With respect, the evidence on the record as it stands shows rather that this system is closer to our adoption laws, with one exception: the bond of filiation with the biological parents [citation omitted] is not dissolved. For the rest, we note that children are entrusted to the [TRANSLATION] “adoptive parents” permanently, with all the attributes of parental authority. It is interesting to note that in the document of January 16, 1992, concerning the child N.

Ch., the responsibilities of the [TRANSLATION] “adoptive parents” are described as follows: [TRANSLATION] “so that they can raise, support and care for the child as if the child were their own”. It should be noted as well that translators, in all official Moroccan documents, use the word [TRANSLATION] “adoption” (paragraph 5: adoption application; paragraph 9: adopted, adoptive parents; paragraph 23: with a view to their adoption).

We are, therefore, far from tutorship as we know it and much closer to our adoption system. [62] A judge hearing applications for placement for the purposes of adoption had to ascertain that the rules respecting consent to adoption and eligibility for adoption had been observed (article 574 C.C.Q. ). These rules are those of domestic Moroccan law. However, the judge did not have to be concerned with the Moroccan effects of the adoption decision. In such cases, the legislature, in the second paragraph of

article 3092 C.C.Q. , opted for an inverse conflict-of-law rule: The effects of adoption are subject to the law of the domicile of the adopter [citation omitted]. [63] Once again, d'Amours J.C.Q. correctly summarized the legal situation: [translation] In other words, in considering an application for recognition of an adoption judgment, the Court need not ensure that the effects of both laws are similar to recognize the adoption judgment, because in such matters, the legislature did not state that both laws apply, but rather gave precedence to the law of the domicile of the adopters.

I would humbly submit that tying recognition of an adoption judgment rendered outside Quebec to the fact that it has the same effects as an adoption judgment rendered in Quebec would create an obligation for the Court that the legislature did not express. We must therefore conclude that the Court need not assess this element, because recognition is the result of the effects as provided in our law.

The current rules are therefore that the Court ensures that it is indeed an adoption decision, that the decision has been judicially rendered, that the rules respecting consent and the child’s eligibility for adoption have been observed according to the law of the child’s domicile, that the application for recognition of the judgment is in the child’s interest and, lastly, that the adoption conditions and steps in respect of the adopter have been observed [ Droit de la famille – 2954 , [1998] R.J.Q. 1317 at 1324 ]. [19] [Emphasis added] [ 57 ] The principles in that judgment are still relevant, despite the subsequent amendment to

article 574 C.C.Q. In Adoption – 11117 [20] rendered in 2011, the Court, per Vézina J.A., relied on the judgment rendered 11 years earlier by the Court in Droit de la famille – 3403 . These are two adoption cases involving the Moroccan institution of kafala .

In these two cases, the Court intervened to allow the placement of the children concerned for the purposes of their adoption. [ 58 ] It is interesting to note that the problem in Adoption – 11117 overlaps the central issue in this appeal: [TRANSLATION] [15] The problem arises from the fact that in Quebec adoption is plenary, meaning it dissolves the existing bond of filiation.

In Morocco the procedure does not have this effect and it is referred to as simple adoption. . [21] [ 59 ] While the rules respecting eligibility for adoption are those of the country of origin, the effects of a judgment recognizing a foreign adoption judgment are, as specified in the second paragraph of

article 3092 C.C.Q. , subject to the law of the domicile of the adopter. This provision is clear: 3092. ... The effects of adoption are subject to the law of the domicile of the adopter . [ 60 ] The dissolution of the bond of filiation is one of the effects of adoption, as stated in

article 577 C.C.Q. :

577. Adoption confers on the adopted person a filiation which replaces his or her original filiation. The adopted person ceases to belong to his or her original family, subject to any impediments to marriage or a civil union. [ 61 ] The first paragraph of

article 581 C.C.Q. defines the scope of a judgment recognizing an international adoption: 581. The recognition of a decision granting an adoption produces the same effects as an adoption judgment rendered in Québec from the time the decision granting the adoption was pronounced outside Québec. [ 62 ] The trial judge did not have to concern himself with the effects of the Haitian judgment. [22] Furthermore, even if, in this case, it had been necessary to apply

article 574 C.C.Q. , as worded today, and to determine whether the second part of this provision, which is to ascertain “… that the consents have been given for the purposes of an adoption resulting in the dissolution of the pre-existing bond of filiation between the child and the child's family of origin ”, had been satisfied, it is clear that a consent meeting this requirement was signed by the biological mother on September 7, 2009. [ 63 ] In short, as the requirements of

article 574 C.C.Q. have been met, judicial recognition of the adoption judgment rendered in Haiti on October 12, 2006, is in order. The Court’s intervention is justified. The application for judicial recognition must be allowed, without costs, as all the parties argue in favour of allowing the appeal and reversing the trial judgment. JACQUES DUFRESNE J.A. [13] Bill 11, Act to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption and to amend various legislative provisions in relation to adoption , 1 st sess., 37 th leg., Quebec, 2004 (assented to on April 22, 2004), S.Q. 2004, c. 3.