J.S. v. Children’s Aid Society for the District of Thunder Bay et al., 2000 ONCA 29741

Case Summary

In a child protection matter, the appellant father sought to appeal an order concerning interim care and custody after the Superior Court had dismissed his earlier appeal. The Court of Appeal held that both the original order and the intervening appeal were interlocutory because they dealt only temporarily with custody of the child. As a result, the proper appeal route was, with leave, to the Divisional Court rather than directly to the Court of Appeal. The motion to quash was granted and no costs were awarded.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 2000·XII·18

DOCKET Nos.: CA C34805, M26692

Carthy, Charron and Sharpe, JJ.A.

B E T W E E N :

J.S.,

Appellant

— and —

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY FOR THE DISTRICT OF THUNDER BAY, THE OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER and V.D.

Elaine Freedman, Q.C. counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child

[No other lawyers named]

Respondents

Released: 18 December 2000

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, as amended, a motion judge of the Ontario Court of Justice made an interim care and custody order under clause 51(2)(c) granting the child’s mother interim custody, subject to supervision by the local children’s aid society. The father appealed to the Ontario Superior Court, which dismissed his appeal. When he appealed further to the Ontario Court of Appeal, the children’s aid society made a motion for an order quashing his appeal on the grounds that the original order and the appeal were interlocutory in nature and that the appeal lay, with permission, to Divisional Court, not Court of Appeal: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, as amended, clause 19(1)(b).

For previous proceedings, see Children’s Aid Society of Thunder Bay et al. v. J.S. and P.A., 2000 29694, 98 A.C.W.S. (3d) 843, [2000] W.D.F.L. 618, [2000] O.J. No. 2831, 2000 CarswellOnt 2708 (Ont. S.C.), per Justice Lawrence C. Kozak.

[1] APPEAL JUSTICE J.J. CARTHY (endorsement): It is our view that the original order and that an appeal were interlocutory in the sense that they temporarily dealt will custody of the child. Therefore, the motion to quash is granted. Costs were not asked for and are therefore not granted.

J.S. v. Children’s Aid Society for the District of Thunder Bay et al., 2000 ONCA 29741

Case Summary

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues