COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DATE: 20060331
DOCKET: C42593
RE: B.D., K.D., E.S., and J.D., S.D., and A.D., BY THEIR LITIGATION GUARDIAN E.S. (Appellants) -and- HALTON REGION CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY, BEING THE DIRECTORS DOES 1 THROUGH 10, BEING THE DIRECTORS OF THE, HALTON REGION CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY, SYL APPS SECURE TREATMENT CENTRE, RONALD COUPLAND, MARGARET MORRISON, LOU MORRIS, CORRIE GALLOWAY, SHERRY SLAUNWHITE, LINDA CUMMINS, DAVID MCKENZIE, MEGAN PALLET, NORMA HOUSTON, DR. ALINA LAZOR, DR. RICHARD MEEN and DOUGLAS BAPTISTE (Respondents)
BEFORE: LASKIN, SHARPE AND JURIANSZ JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Matthew Wilton for the appellants Stephen R. Moore for the respondents
HEARD: August 29, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Keith Hoilett of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 1, 2004 made at Toronto, Ontario.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] In a letter delivered after the release of our reasons, counsel for the respondent has asked that we address the argument set out in paras. 34 and 35 of his factum. In those paragraphs, he contends that many of the plaintiffs’ allegations should be struck out, because they concern alleged duties owed to R.D., who is not a party to this lawsuit.
[2] We agree that the majority decision did not address this argument. However, we decline to do so now, largely for the reasons put forward by counsel for the plaintiffs in his responding material.
[3] The motions judge was not asked, nor in oral argument were we asked to go through the statement of claim and strike out those allegations claiming a breach of duty owed only to R.D. In our view, we should not do so now. Both the focus of the motion and of the appeal was whether Syl Apps and Baptiste owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. That is the issue we addressed in our reasons.