Just for reference, here's the 1995 case:
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto
(Whether the Child Welfare Act allows the state to override parental rights and religious freedoms in certain circumstances. Answer: Yes, as long as due process is followed.)

And the 1999 case:
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.)
(Whether parents are required to be afforded gov-paid cousel during Child Welfare Act cases involving a hearing. Answer: Yes.)

In both cases, Sec 7 was ruled to allow the parents a hearing in a custody case.

Child, Family and Community Service Act

This will be an interesting case, as the Child, Family and Community Service Act of BC allows a Director to seize a child without court order (sec 30), and authorize medical treatment, if he/she believes the child's life is in immediate danger. But the act also says the Director needs to apply to a court with the opinions of two doctors, and hold a hearing in which the parents must be allowed to attend, if the child is to be seized for medical treatments that the parents refuse (sec 29).

I'm guessing the judge interpreted this to mean that if the child's life was in immediate danger, he could skip the hearing until after the treatment (sec 29 of the act allows this as well, sec 29 does not overrule section 30...) At that point the province dropped the custody order, and so the hearing became moot (until the appeal to the BC Supreme Court that is, they are allowed to consider the custody order as still in effect when they proceed to rule).

Anyway, since the parental rights of religion are not supported already (the 1995 case), it will boil down to whether the inclusion of the "no-hearing seizure" part of the Act is considered constitutional. I suspect that Section 1 (reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified) will be the judgement line for this case.