“As I said earlier, the Ontario CFSA governs every aspect of child protection proceedings in Ontario. The Act specifies the procedure to be followed, the evidentiary requirements under this process and, most of all, spells out the objectives of the legislation in s. 1, of which the first and “paramount” objective of the Act is to promote “the best interests, protection and well-being of children”.
In attempting to fulfil this objective, the Act carefully seeks to balance the rights of parents and, to that end, the need to restrict state intervention, with the rights of children to protection and well-being. The Ontario legislation, when compared to the legislation of other provinces, has been recognized as one of the least interventionist regimes. (See Richard F. Barnhorst, “Child Protection Legislation: Recent Canadian Reform”, in Barbara Landau, ed., Children’s Rights in the Practice of Family Law, p. 255.) This non-interventionist approach is premised not with a view to strengthen parental rights but, rather, in the recognition of the importance of keeping a family unit together as a means of fostering the best interests of children. Thus, the value of maintaining a family unit intact is evaluated in contemplation of what is best for the child, rather than for the parent. In order to respect the wording as well as the spirit of the Act, it is crucial that this child-centred focus not be lost, even at the stage of an inquiry under the status review provisions. As well, such an approach is in line with modern principles of statutory interpretation as expressed in Elmer A. Dreidger, Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983), in this often-quoted passage at p. 87:
Today, there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
The procedural steps and safeguards which govern the entire process under the Act, including the status review hearing, must always be construed in light of the clear purposes of s.1.”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC) at 24-25