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: Children's Aid Society of Nipissing and Parry Sound v. L.M., 2008 ONCA 491
DATE: 20080620
DOCKET: C47414
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
WINKLER C.J.O., FELDMAN J.A. and LAX J. (ad hoc)
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF NIPISSING AND PARRY SOUND
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
and
L.M.
Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)
Edward Rae for the appellant
George D. Olah for the respondent
Catherine Bellinger for the children
Heard and released orally: June 18, 2008
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael R. Meehan of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 7, 2007.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant’s appeal is based on the position that the Family Court Judge did not accord her procedural safeguard standards in the hearing on September 6, 2006 when the children were made Crown wards without access. That hearing was the return date for a status review hearing under the Child and Family Services Act. The children had been found in need of protection on September 7, 2005 and the appellant, a family friend, had been granted twelve months custody of the children under a CAS supervision order.
[2] However, the children were apprehended from her custody in May 2006 following a police incident where crack cocaine trafficking was alleged to have been conducted at her home. A hearing was therefore held in May 2006 when the children were put in foster care, and the status review was adjourned to September 6, 2006. The appellant and her lawyer were in attendance that day. Her lawyer had brought a motion to get off the record to be heard that day. She was in default of providing the required information to the court and to CAS, and had relapsed into her previous drug problem at that time.
[3] The CAS asked the court at the status review hearing on September 6, 2006 for a date for a summary judgment motion. However, the judge determined that there was no triable issue for a summary judgment motion. The appellant was at that time not rehabilitated from her drug problem, and had not complied with previous court orders. Furthermore, her original plan of care was conditional on her being drug free and it is clear that she was not at that time. The appellant and her lawyer were present and participated in the hearing. No adjournment was requested but there was no basis for seeking one in any event. We are therefore satisfied that on this record there was no procedural unfairness at the hearing.
[4] We specifically do not decide the issue whether the appellant was at that date a parent under s. 57 of the Child and Family Services Act, given that the children had been apprehended from her care and therefore were no longer in her custody.
[5] The appellant acknowledged that on the merits of the issue of what was in the best interests of the children, the appellant is not in a position to argue against the disposition in this case. As this court and others have said on numerous occasions including in a decision of this court in Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. V.L., dated February 20, 2007: “Time is an important consideration in the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 and a child is not to be kept in limbo while a parent having difficulties attempts to straighten out her life”. That was the basis on which the Family Court Judge and the Appeal Court Judge proceeded in this matter. Both the Family Court Judge and the Appeal Court Judge made no error and their disposition is clearly in the best interests of the children.
[6] The appeal is therefore dismissed, in the circumstances without costs.
Signed: “Winkler C.J.O.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“J. Lax J. (ad hoc)”