COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
SUSAN LYNNE BUBOVICH (Plaintiff/Respondent in Appeal) v. PAUL ALEX BUBOVICH (Defendant/Respondent in Appeal) v. THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER (Appellant)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, FELDMAN and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Manjusha Pawagi
for the appellant
No one appearing
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 24, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice N. Borkovich of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 10,2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The motion judge erred in making an order directing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to prepare an “update” of an earlier report. The motion judge should have “requested” a report in accordance with s. 112(2) of the Courts of Justice Act. That language is reflected in the order typically used in these cases. The record offers no insight as to why the order was in the form of a direction rather than a request.
2The appeal is allowed, para. 5 of the order is set aside and para. 1 is varied to delete any reference to the Report of the Children’s Lawyer.
3We leave for another day the question of the jurisdiction, if any, of a judge to direct the Office to prepare a report (or update of an earlier report) where the Office declines a request for a report under s. 112(2). No costs.