COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
KENORA-PATRICIA CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES (Applicant/Respondent) – and – A.M. and M.M. (Respondents/Appellants) – and – H.M., A.M.2 and L.M. (Respondents/Respondent) – and – THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO (Intervener/Respondent)
BEFORE:
WEILER, ROSENBERG and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
J. Sebastian Winny
for the appellants A.M. and M.M.
Gary J. McCallum
for the respondent Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services
Shaun Nakatsuru
for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario
Shane Pearce and Caterina E. Tempesta
for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
HEARD:
May 20, 2004
On appeal from the order of Justice Helen M. Pierce of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 19, 2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1We are satisfied that Justice Pierce did not err in finding that Justice Little judicially exercised her discretion. Nor did Justice Pierce err in making a trial management order.
2We do not interpret s. 37(2)(l)’s reference to “the child is brought before the court” as requiring that the child must be physically present in the courtroom.
3Contrary to the appellant’s argument, ss. 47(1), 50(2), 52 and 57(1) of the Act do contemplate a bifurcated hearing, which need not be a continuous hearing.
4We would not make an order as to costs.