WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
AND IS SUBJECT TO S. 45 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES:
45. (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.
45. (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.
45. (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.
L.H. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2011 ONCA 385
DATE: 20110518
DOCKET: C52682
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Armstrong, Juriansz and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN
L.H.
Respondent(Appellant)
and
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant(Respondent)
and
M.H.
Respondent(Respondent)
L.H., acting in person
Carolyn Leach, for the Office of the Children’s lawyer
Chris Andrikakis, for the respondent Catholic Children’s Aid Society
M.H., acting in person
Heard: March 22, 2011
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nancy J. Spies of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 26, 2010.
Juriansz J.A.:
Introduction
[1] L.H. appeals from the decision of Spies J. dated August 26, 2010 that dismissed her appeal from the order of Brownstone J. of the Ontario Court of Justice dated February 1, 2010.
[2] Justice Brownstone, on the application of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, (the “Society”) made an order that the appellant’s two children should remain in the custody of their father for six months, under the Society’s supervision, and that the appellant should have supervised therapeutic access to the children in the presence of a mutually agreed upon psychologist. That order was set to expire in July 2010 but this appeal has kept it in force.
[3] The principal ground of appeal is that Brownstone J.’s order was made on the Society’s motion for summary judgment rather than after a viva voce trial. The appellant claims she was entitled to a trial with viva voce evidence by virtue of this court’s decision, made on August 21, 2009, relating to the original protection order made by Zuker J. on July 10, 2008. The order of Zuker J. was made after a trial of some 18 days. Zuker J. heard a number of witnesses, including, notably, Dr. Amin, who had conducted parenting capacity assessments and assessments of the children under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11. Dr. Amin’s testimony was extremely adverse to the appellant. He diagnosed