WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO S. 45 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES:
45(7) The court may make an order,
(a) excluding a particular media representative from all or part of a hearing;
(b) excluding all media representatives from all or a part of a hearing; or
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing,
where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.
45(8) No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.
45(9) The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
Court Information
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judges: Sharpe, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
Parties
Between
A.B.S., Appellant
and
S.A.S., Respondent
Counsel
A.B.S., acting in person
Jennifer P. Ryan, for the respondent
Hearing
Heard: February 27, 2017
On appeal from: the order of Justice J. Patrick Moore of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 27, 2016.
Endorsement
Endorsement
1We see no error on the part of the trial judge in awarding sole custody to the mother with access to the father.
2The trial judge gave thorough reasons explaining why he accepted the evidence indicating that it was in the best interest of this child to award sole custody to the mother. That finding is entitled to deference on appeal.
3The father did not seek joint custody at trial and there is no basis upon which we could impose that order now. The conflict between these parties and their inability to communicate regarding this child was evident to the OCL, the CAS and the trial judge and joint custody was not a viable option.
4As for support, it was open to the trial judge to impute minimum wage as income, and we are not persuaded that there was any legal error or misapprehension of the evidence that would permit us to interfere. Spousal support was time limited. Nor did the trial judge error in rejecting a deduction for business expenses from the appellant's employment income. Finally, in our view, the section 7 expenses were reasonable.
Disposition
5Appeal dismissed.
Costs
6Costs to the respondent fixed at $3,584.86.