WARNING
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: V.C. v. Durham Children's Aid Society, 2010 ONCA 702
DATE: 20101022
DOCKET: M39277
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacFarland J.A. (In Chambers)
BETWEEN
V. C. and J. C.
Applicant
and
Durham Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
V. C., in person
Andrea Smart, Office of the Children’s Lawyer Bobbi Olsen, on own behalf Nadia Laeeque, for the Attorney General of Ontario
Heard: October 14, 2010
ENDORSEMENT
[1] In this matter Ms. C. appeared in person, Ms. Smart on behalf of the Children’s Lawyer who represented the interests of the children, Ms. Olsen, Ms. C.’s former solicitor and Nadia Laeeque from Crown Law Office Civil. No one appeared on behalf of Durham Children’s Aid Society (DCAS).
[2] Ms. C. seeks an extension of time to appeal the judgment of Hughes J. dated April 12, 2010. The applicant’s materials are incomplete and difficult to follow. Neither the judgment nor the reasons of Hughes J. were filed by the applicant. Fortunately, one of the other parties present had a copy of the reasons.
[3] Ms. C. and her former solicitor Ms. Bobbi Olsen have had a falling out and Ms. Olsen no longer represents Ms. C. Ms. C. is now self-represented. Ms. Olsen says she ought not to have been served with the within application. She is not a party to the proceeding and since her retainer with Ms. C. has been terminated, she has no interest in these proceedings. Similarly, the materials were served on Crown Law Office – Civil who have no involvement in these proceedings.
[4] The proceedings which are the subject of Ms. C.’s request began with a motion by the DCAS for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. The motion sought a final order without trial on a protection application dated May 30, 2008 in relation to the applicant’s two children, S. C. (DOB […] November 1994) and P. C. (DOB […] July 1997). The DCAS sought a finding that the children are in need of protection under s. 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (CFSA).
[5] The father, J. C., had applied for custody under s. 57.1 of the CFSA and the DCAS supported the father’s plan with access by the mother (the applicant in this court), V. C., at the discretion of J. C., as arranged between themselves.
[6] By the judgment of Hughes J., which is the subject of the proposed appeal, she found the children were in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(g) of the CFSA on May 29, 2008, the date they were apprehended and that they continued to be in need of protection from their mother. The final order as requested by the Society was granted.
[7] After the judgment of Hughes J. and within the time for appeal, the applicant retained Ms. Olsen to consider an appeal of the judgment. Issues arose between the applicant and Ms. Olsen, which are not relevant to this application, such that Ms. Olsen’s retainer was terminated.
[8] By Notice of Motion filed July 20, 2010, the applicant sought leave to bring a motion to extend time for service of her Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judgment of Hughes J. dated April 12, 2010.
[9] This matter appears to have a long history and although the materials filed before me are anything but complete, everyone agrees there was an earlier order in 2008 whereby Hughes J. required that the applicant seek permission of the court before she could institute a motion. Although not a formal vexatious litigant order, it was an order in a similar vein.
[10] The motion for an extension of time to appeal the order of Hughes J. came before Mullins J. on August 11, 2010. From her reasons it appears she granted permission to Ms. C. to bring her motion to extend the time for appeal but then dismissed the motion on the merits.
[11] In this court Ms. C. seeks similar relief. She seeks to appeal the order of Hughes J. of April 12, 2010, and because she is out of time she must seek an extension of time within which to file her Notice of Appeal.
[12] The Children’s Lawyer submits that this court is without jurisdiction to hear the within appeal. The DCAS motion was brought under s. 37(2)(g) of the CFSA and any appeal from such an order lies to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 21.9.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
[13] That section provides:
21.9.1 Certain Appeals – A statutory provision referred to in the Schedule to section 21.8 or in section 21.12 that provides for appeals from decisions of the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice shall be deemed to provide for appeals from decisions of the Family Court to the Divisional Court.
[14] The Schedule to s. 21.8 includes proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act, Parts III, VI and VII and s. 37(2)(g) falls under Part III of that Act and s. 69 of that Act provides that appeals lie to the Superior Court of Justice.
[15] I agree with the submissions of the Children’s Lawyer. In my view, this court has no jurisdiction to hear the within appeal.
[16] The motion is dismissed.
“J. MacFarland J.A.”