COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
JANETTE LAURIN (Applicant (Respondent in Appeal))
– and –
JOHN MARTIN (Respondent (Appellant in Appeal))
BEFORE:
CATZMAN, MACFARLAND AND ROULEAU JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Leonard Levencrown
for the appellant
Peter F. Burnet
for the respondent
HEARD:
October 18, 2005
RELEASED:
October 21, 2005
On appeal from the order of Justice V. Jennifer Mackinnon of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 30, 2005.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1Assuming without deciding that this court has jurisdiction to re-open the hearing of this appeal, we are not persuaded that this is an appropriate case in which to do so.
2The principal ground advanced for re-opening the hearing of this appeal relates to the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer. The record discloses that the appellant’s cross-motion before Mackinnon J. in relation to this request was dismissed.
3In the eighteen grounds of appeal listed in the Notice of Appeal not one alleges any error on the part of the motions judge for failure to accede to the appellant’s request for the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer.
4The record discloses that the court on two prior occasions ordered and received reports from the Children’s Lawyer. The Children’s Lawyer never provided legal representation for the child in accordance with the terms of the statute.
5Before this court the appellant did not at any time prior to the motion to re-open request the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer. All of the remaining issues discussed in the appellant’s affidavit were argued on his behalf at the hearing of this appeal. To the extent that the appellant argues that the original order under appeal no longer remains appropriate because there have been changes in circumstance, this is more properly the subject of a new application to vary if so advised.
6The issue relating to the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer could have been raised at the hearing of this appeal where the appellant was represented by counsel. It was not and is not an appropriate basis to order a re-hearing in this case.
7The motion to re-open is dismissed. Costs to the responding party fixed in the sum of $1,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.
"M. A. Catzman J.A."
"J. MacFarland J.A."
"Paul Rouleau J.A."