COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20051026

DOCKET: C43420

RE:

SUSAN LYNNE BUBOVICH (Plaintiff/Respondent in Appeal) v. PAUL ALEX BUBOVICH (Defendant/Respondent in Appeal) v. THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER (Appellant)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, FELDMAN and LANG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Manjusha Pawagi

for the appellant

No one appearing

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

October 24, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice N. Borkovich of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 10,2004.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The motion judge erred in making an order directing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to prepare an “update” of an earlier report. The motion judge should have “requested” a report in accordance with s. 112(2) of the Courts of Justice Act. That language is reflected in the order typically used in these cases. The record offers no insight as to why the order was in the form of a direction rather than a request.

[2] The appeal is allowed, para. 5 of the order is set aside and para. 1 is varied to delete any reference to the Report of the Children’s Lawyer.

[3] We leave for another day the question of the jurisdiction, if any, of a judge to direct the Office to prepare a report (or update of an earlier report) where the Office declines a request for a report under s. 112(2). No costs.