W A R N I N G
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
AND IS SUBJECT TO S. 45 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES:
- (7)The court may make an order,
(a) excluding a particular media representative from all or part of a hearing;
(b) excluding all media representatives from all or a part of a hearing; or
(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 the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, 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)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)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.
CITATION: K.S. v. C.B., 2008 ONCA 462
DATE: 20080612
DOCKET: C48405
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
FELDMAN, LANG and EPSTEIN JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
K.S.
Appellant
And
C.B.
Respondent
And
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO
Applicant (Respondent)
K.S. in Person
Jeffrey W. Boich for the Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo
Annemarie Carere for the children, Office of the Children’s Lawyer
Heard: June 6, 2008
On appeal from the order of Justice James Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 14, 2007.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] We see no error in the decision of the M.J. Epstein J. upheld by Ramsay J. on the two issues under appeal to this court: (1) the finding that the children were in need of protection; and (2) their placement under CAS supervision with the father. In any event, these two issues will be reviewed at the mandatory status review scheduled to be held in August, 2008.
[2] While the issue of the mother’s access was not the appellant’s focus on this appeal, we further note that that issue will also be fully considered in light of the best interests of the children at the status review hearing in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 as amended.
[3] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“S. E. Lang J.A.”
“G. Epstein J.A.”