Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 645/04 DATE: 2005-04-14
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BEFORE: O’DRISCOLL, LANE AND MOLLOY JJ.
B E T W E E N:
A.I. AND C.I. Applicants
- and -
THEODORE G. GIESBRECHT, (an appointed Director pursuant to section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act), Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (Minister of Children’s Services), THE HALTON CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY and GREGORY DARNLEY and BRONWYN DARNLEY Respondents
COUNSEL: Jeffrey Wilson, for the Applicants Marvin Kurz, for the Respondent, Halton Children’s Aid Society Catherine Bellinger, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer Michael Fleishman, for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario Charlotte Murray, for the Respondents Gregory Darnley and Bronwyn Darnley
HEARD: April 14, 2005
Oral Reasons for Judgment
O’DRISCOLL J.: (Orally)
1The applicants, formerly the foster parents, have filed several affidavits on this judicial review application, now seek an order to have those affidavits admitted on the judicial review application. This, of course, brought on responding affidavits and that again spawned so called “reply” affidavit evidence.
2It may well be that all of the affidavits filed on this judicial review application offend what was said by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Re Keeprite Workers’ Independent Union et al. and Keeprite Products Ltd. (1980), 29 O.R. (2d) 513.
3Whatever else comes out of this motion, we do not wish to be taken as placing any “good-housekeeping” seal of approval on what we see as indiscriminate filing of affidavits on this judicial review application.
4We are faced with a dilemma. The affidavit evidence is so inextricably woven throughout all the material, we see no way of going through the material and deciding paragraph by paragraph what should come out and what should stay in. We have concluded that it would not be feasible to parse these affidavits. We propose to let into evidence any and all affidavits filed.
5We are trial judges with some experience in being able to spot inadmissible evidence, hearsay evidence, advocacy under the guise of expert opinion, etc. etc. We will separate the wheat from the chaff when the time comes.
6We propose to admit all of the affidavits, except what counsel for the Applicants has agreed to be stricken from the record: that is, the affidavit of Dr. Barry Cook, (Book “J”, Tab “I”), from and including paragraph 15 to the end of that affidavit.
7Counsel for the Halton Children’s Aid Society has filed affidavits which were sealed. We have opened that envelope and read through the enclosed booklet. We are content that those affidavits of Meagan Pallett, Roy Walsh, Lisa Potts and Nancy MacGilvray, all sworn April 1, 2005, be admitted with the other affidavits.
8The costs for this motion are reserved.
9Counsel for the Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion for an order striking the affidavits of A.I., sworn March 1, 2005 and the affidavit of Amanda Taenk, sworn March 4, 2003. Counsel for the Attorney General advised us that he was not proceeding with the motion because counsel for the Applicants undertook not to refer to the contents of either affidavit during argument on the judicial review application.
O’DRISCOLL J.
LANE J.
MOLLOY J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 14, 2005 Date of Release: April 29, 2005
COURT FILE NO.: 645/04 DATE: 20050414
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT O’DRISCOLL, LANE AND MOLLOY JJ.
B E T W E E N:
A.I. AND C.I. Applicants
- and -
THEODORE G. GIESBRECHT, (an appointed Director pursuant to section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act), Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (Minister of Children’s Services) THE HALTON CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY and GREGORY DARNLEY and BRONWYN DARNLEY Respondents Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
O’DRISCOLL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 14, 2005 Date of Release: April 29, 2005