The Director of Child and Family Date:, 2019 MBCA 90

Citation: The Director of Child and Family Date: 20190826 Services v GMH, 2019 MBCA 90 Docket: AH18-30-09066; AH19-30-09226 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Lori T. Spivak BETWEEN : THE DIRECTOR OF CHILD AND FAMILY ) SERVICES ) ) G. M. H. (Petitioner) Respondent ) on his own behalf ) - and - ) S. L. Ennis ) for R.E.M. G. M. H. ) ) T. L. Grant (Respondent) Appellant ) for the Respondent ) - and - ) Appeals heard and ) Decision pronounced: R. E.

M. ) August 26, 2019 ) (Respondent) ) NOTICE OF RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION: No press, radio or television report shall disclose the name or any information likely to identify any person involved in the proceedings as a party or a witness (see section 75(2) of The Child and Family Services Act , CCSM c C80 ).

On appeal from Director (CFS) v REM et al , 2018 MBQB 192 BURNETT JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] The respondent G.M.H. (the respondent) appeals an order of a motion judge dated May 5, 2017, dismissing his motion seeking a declaration that the petitioner did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the respondent’s child, S.H., was in need of protection on August 30, 2016 (the first appeal). [ 2 ] The respondent also appeals the subsequent order of a trial judge pronounced on December 7, 2018, who found S.H. to be in need of protection and ordered that the petitioner be appointed her temporary guardian for a period not exceeding six months (the second appeal). [ 3 ] The petitioner previously moved for an order dismissing the first appeal, and that motion was adjourned to be heard at the same time as the two appeals. [ 4 ] While there would appear to be a reasonable basis for the petitioner’s motion, it is not necessary to decide it. [ 5 ] Both decisions are entitled to deference absent reversible error of fact or law, or an indication that the decision is so clearly wrong as to amount to an injustice. [ 6 ] We are all of the view that there is no basis for appellate intervention.

[ 7 ] With respect to the first appeal, the motion judge applied the correct standard of proof and made no error when he determined that there were reasonable and probable grounds to justify the apprehension of S.H. [ 8 ] As to the second appeal, it is also our view that the trial judge made no error, procedurally or otherwise, when he found that S.H. was in need of protection and when he made a six-month temporary order of guardianship in favour of the petitioner. [ 9 ] The two appeals are therefore dismissed, and the respondent shall pay costs in relation to each appeal. JA JA JA