W A R N I N G
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.
Jewish Family and Child Service v. R. K., 2009 ONCA 903
DATE: 20091217
DOCKET: C50940
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacFarland, Rouleau and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Jewish Family and Child Service
Applicant (Respondent)
and
R. K.
Respondent (Appellant in this appeal)
Linda Choi, for the respondent (appellant in this appeal)
Lorne Glass and Haley Gaber-Katz, for the applicant (respondent)
Heard and endorsed: December 16, 2009
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Thea P. Herman of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 29, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] This court’s role is limited. Absent legal errors, palpable, overriding errors of fact or misapprehension of the evidence, there is no ability for this court to intervene.
[2] The sole ground of appeal raised is that JFCS did not provide sufficient services to assist her and enable her to keep her child.
[3] At para. 113 of his reasons Sherr J. set out the services provided to the appellant both before and after apprehension including the expectations of Rachel. The difficulty was that Rachel did not avail herself of the services that were provided and at para. 129 the details of her non-compliance and resistance to the various forms of assistance offered are set out. Herman J. similarly reviewed the issue of services at paragraphs 24 through 36 and reached a similar conclusion.
[4] We are not persuaded there were any legal or factual errors or any misapprehension of evidence. Neither party seeks costs. Appeal is dismissed.