Justin Ellery

Following dismissal of an appeal from an interim child protection order of the Ontario Court of Justice, the court addressed costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rule 24, the court noted the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The court found the appellant’s conduct unreasonable, including pursuing an unnecessary appeal of an interim procedural order, filing extensive irrelevant materials, and causing delay in the underlying child protection proceedings.

Considering the importance of child placement issues and the need to discourage litigation conduct that interferes with timely resolution, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent child protection agency.

The appellant mother appealed an interim interim order made by the Ontario Court of Justice in a child protection proceeding.

The child had been apprehended by the agency and placed with her father under supervision.

The appellant was not present at the initial hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no appealable error in the lower court's decision to adjourn the matter and make a temporary order for the child's care and custody while ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

A self-represented parent brought multiple motions within a child protection appeal seeking certiorari, a stay of an interim custody order, disclosure orders against the child protection agency, access relief, and removal of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to issue the interim order placing the child with the father under agency supervision and found no breach of natural justice sufficient to justify certiorari.

Applying the stay test under the Child and Family Services Act, the court found the appellant failed to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm, or that a stay would be in the child’s best interests.

Additional requests concerning disclosure, access, and removal of the child’s counsel were denied due to insufficient evidence and the paramountcy of the child’s best interests.