Manjusha Pawagi

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that overturned an Ontario Court of Justice placement order returning her twin boys to her care.

The children had suffered severe physical abuse by their father shortly after birth.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal judge erred by conducting a de novo review and substituting his own factual findings without identifying a palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court of Appeal also found that the original placement judge failed to consider critical evidence regarding the mother's awareness of the abuse and failed to assess the risk of future harm.

The appeal was allowed, but a new placement hearing was ordered.

The motions judge ordered the Children's Lawyer to provide reasons for declining to prepare a further report in a custody and access dispute, and to show cause why it should not be found in contempt.

The Children's Lawyer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Courts of Justice Act, the Children's Lawyer has absolute discretion to decide whether to participate or provide a report.

Applying the Baker factors, the Court found no statutory or common law duty for the Children's Lawyer to provide reasons for its decision.

The Children's Lawyer appealed an order directing it to prepare an update of an earlier report.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by directing rather than requesting the report in accordance with s. 112(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The order was varied to delete the reference to the report, leaving open the question of whether a judge has jurisdiction to direct a report if a request is declined.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding his three children in need of protection.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering his 1986 young offender record for sexual assault, claiming it was barred by s. 45(4) of the Young Offenders Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence came from the Children's Aid Society's own investigation rather than a formal record, and the appellant had admitted to the disposition.

The court also noted that child protection proceedings are distinct from subsequent criminal proceedings.