THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT 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.
Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. R.C., 2009 ONCA 840
DATE: 20091130
DOCKET: C50222
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, Simmons and LaForme JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
and
R.C.
Respondent (Appellant in Appeal)
Counsel:
Michael David Lannan, for the appellant
Jeffrey W. Boich, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: November 27, 2009
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Patrick Flynn of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 14, 2008.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The children of the appellant were declared children in need of protection pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act. Subsequent child protection proceedings resulted in the children being placed under Crown wardship without access. The appellant’s appeal to the Superior Court was dismissed. She now appeals to this court. The appellant’s entire argument is that the judge hearing the matter intervened improperly in the proceedings and that the judge on the appeal erred in not finding that the judicial intervention was improper. She points to the fact that 22 pages of the transcript are taken up with the judge’s questioning of the appellant, and close to 45 pages with questioning of three other witnesses. We disagree.
[2] The paramount consideration in child protection proceedings is always the best interests of the child. Thus, the court owes a special duty to ensure that the safety and well being of children are protected. In this context and faced with testimony that was unclear, unusual, and which demanded further inquiry, the hearing judge was justified in seeking further information from the witnesses. The hearing itself took 12 days and resulted in a transcript of some 1200 pages. While the tone of the hearing judge’s questioning of certain witnesses might be viewed as confrontational, we do not find that it reaches the level of showing a reasonable apprehension of bias, nor did she inject herself into the evidence. The contents of the questions, in the circumstances of this case, was entirely reasonable and the appeal judge was not in error in dismissing the appeal. Furthermore, we note that there were no objections made during the hearing.
[3] Finally, this court’s decision in Farrar v. Farrar (2003), 2003 CanLII 15943 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 141, does not assist the appellant. In Farrar, the objectionable judicial interference was an order requiring a party’s expert witness to produce a new pension valuation based on different assumptions and premises. That is not this case. The appeal is dismissed.
"J.C. MacPherson J.A."
"Janet Simmons J.A."
"H.S. LaForme J.A."