WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 45(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
45.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication
The court may make an order,
(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 . . . publication of the report, . . ., 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.
(8) Prohibition: identifying child
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.
(9) Idem: order re adult
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.
85.— (3) Idem
A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
Court Information
Date: May 15, 2017
Court File No.: C57964/12
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Katie Skinner, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
S.C. and I.K.
Respondents
Heard: In Chambers
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Endorsement
Heard in Chambers
Background
Both of the children in this case, R.K. and J.K. have been made crown wards without access.
The father, I.K., appealed the crown wardship decision concerning J.K. to the Superior Court of Justice and then to the Court of Appeal. Both appeals were dismissed.
The crown wardship decision concerning R.K. was not appealed.
The father brought a status review application regarding R.K. in this court. After a 4 day trial, Justice Paulseth dismissed the application in reasons for decision dated November 16, 2016. The father has appealed this decision to the Superior Court of Justice. The father has indicated in a motion form (Form 14B) that he intends to withdraw this appeal.
Shortly after the dismissal of his status review application regarding R.K., the father moved for leave to bring a status review application regarding J.K. On April 10, 2017, I released reasons for decision dismissing this motion.
The father subsequently filed a motion form (Form 14B), essentially asking the court again to hear a status review application regarding J.K. before a different judge. On April 19, 2017, I dismissed this motion indicating to the father that his leave motion has already been determined.
The father did not accept this decision and promptly filed two more motion forms (Form 14B), essentially seeking to have his case regarding J.K. scheduled and heard. He also served a notice of motion (Form 14) for access to J.K., with a return date of April 27, 2017.
On April 25, 2017, the court again dismissed these motions as the father's motion for leave to bring a status review application had already been dismissed. The court strongly recommended to the father that he obtain legal advice about the proper procedure if he wanted to challenge my decision dated April 10, 2017.
The court staff were directed not to schedule any appearances in this case or accept any further motions from the father without the court's permission.
The father continues to flood the trial coordinator's office with motion forms (Form 14Bs), sending them by facsimile transmission. He appears to be unwilling or unable to accept that the issues have been determined on a final basis by this court. His recourse is to appeal the decisions to the Superior Court of Justice.
The father sent in a motion form (Form 14B) dated April 25, 2017 asking for an order that he could ignore any further endorsement made by me.
The father sent in two motion forms (Form 14Bs) dated April 26, 2017. The first insisted that his motion be scheduled for April 27, 2017 to hear his case regarding J.K. The court staff, as per my endorsement did not schedule the motion. The second motion form sought an order for a declaration that the father's motion form, challenging my April 19, 2017 endorsement was unopposed.
The father next sent in a motion form (Form 14B), dated April 28, 2017, declaring that since his motion was unopposed on April 27, 2017, that J.K. should be delivered to him. He asked in his motion for an order that the court notify the public and taxpayers of Ontario that his motion passed unopposed.
The father then sent in a motion form (Form 14B) dated May 4, 2017, with a notice of motion attached (Form 14), having a return date of May 11, 2017. This motion asks for an order that following the termination and request for dismissal of his appeal pertaining to R.K. at the Superior Court of Justice, this court shall hear the cases regarding both R.K. and J.K. and accept the filing of his status review applications.
As per this court's previous endorsement, the motion date was not scheduled.
The father's next motion form (Form 14B) faxed to the trial coordinator's office is dated May 12, 2017. He asks for an order that the court notify the public that the father finally won his case unopposed and that the court rehear his status review applications regarding both children and grant full custody to him.
Abuse of Process
- The father's actions now amount to an abuse of the court process as he is misusing valuable court resources. He refuses to accept the court's orders. The court has an obligation to all its users to control its process to prevent such abuse. See: R. v. Felderhof.
Regarding R.K.
Justice Paulseth made a final decision dismissing the father's status review application. There is no basis or authority for the father to seek a rehearing of that matter in this court.
The father took the proper step to challenge that decision. He appealed it to the Superior Court of Justice. This court has not received any information about the outcome of that appeal.
Subsection 65.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act sets out when a party can and cannot bring another status review application before this court. This subsection reads as follows:
Six-month period
65.1(7) No application shall be made under subsection (4) within six months after the latest of,
(a) the day the order was made under subsection 57(1) or 65.2(1), whichever is applicable;
(b) the day the last application by a person under subsection (4) was disposed of; or
(c) the day any appeal from an order referred to in clause (a) or a disposition referred to in clause (b) was finally disposed of or abandoned. 2006, c. 5, s. 24.
- Subsection 65.1(7) clearly sets out that the father cannot bring another status review application in this court regarding R.K. within the 6 months period following the date his appeal is disposed of or abandoned, subject to the narrow exceptions set out in subsection 65.1(8), which do not apply here. To the best of this court's knowledge this time period has not even started yet. If the father abandoned his appeal today the earliest he could start another status review application for R.K. in this court would be November 15, 2017.
Regarding J.K.
On April 10, 2017 I made a final order dismissing the father's motion for leave to bring a status review application.
There is no jurisdiction for the father to request a rehearing in this court of his motion for leave.
If he wishes to challenge the court's decision not to grant him leave to bring a status review application, the father's remedy is to appeal the decision to the Superior Court of Justice.
If the father does not appeal the April 10, 2017 decision, the earliest date he can seek bring another leave application is October 10, 2017. If he appeals the decision, the earliest date he can bring another leave application will be 6 months after the date any appeal is disposed of or abandoned.
Control of Court Process
Subrule 14(21) of the Family Law Rules provides that if a party tries to delay the case or add to its costs or in any other way to abuse the court's process by making numerous motions without merit, the court may order the party not to make any other motions in the case without the court's permission.
This case certainly meets the threshold for an order to be made under subrule 14(21). The father's numerous repetitive motions are without merit and are an abuse of the court process.
Since the father cannot seek leave to bring a motion for leave to bring a status review application for J.K., or bring a status review application for R.K. prior to the 6 month statutory time frame set out in subsection 65.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, the court directs that the father shall not file or send any documents to the court seeking such permission prior to the expiration of the 6 month statutory time frame, as it applies to each child.
Orders
Orders shall go as follows:
The father shall not file or send any documents to the court seeking permission to bring a motion for leave to bring a status review application regarding J.K.; bring a status review application regarding R.K.; or bring any motion related to either child prior to the expiration of the 6 month statutory time frame set out in subsection 65.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, as it applies to each child.
If the father seeks permission to bring a motion for leave to bring a status review application for J.K. or bring a status review application for R.K. after the 6 month time frame, he is to file affidavit evidence setting out the date of this court's decision and if the decision was appealed, the date the appeal was disposed of or abandoned.
Court staff should not accept any status review application, motion forms (Form 14B), or notices of motion (Form 14) from the father, or schedule any court appearances regarding R.K. or J.K. prior to the expiry of the statutory 6 month period set out in subsection 65.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, as it applies to each child.
If the father serves the Children's Aid Society with any motion or status review application in contravention of this order, the society does not have to respond, unless otherwise directed by the court.
If the father continues to fax or otherwise send any motions to the court in contravention of this order they will not be considered.
Copies of this endorsement are to be sent to the father, his counsel of record and counsel for the Children's Aid Society.
All court staff are to be alerted to the directions given in this endorsement.
Justice Stanley B. Sherr
May 15, 2017