WARNING
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.
K.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2011 ONCA 781
Date: 2011-12-12
Docket: C54238
Court of Appeal for Ontario
O’Connor A.C.J.O., Laskin and Cronk JJ.A.
BETWEEN
K.S.
Respondent/Applicant (Appellant)
and
The CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Applicant (Respondent in appeal)
and
C.B.
Respondent
and
Children’s Lawyer, Henry Shields
Respondent
Application under the Child and Family Services Act s. 64(2)(b), s. 64(4)(b) and the Family Law Rules, Rule 8
Counsel:
K.S., appearing in person
Danika Brown, for the CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Shelley McIntyre and Henry Shields, for the Children’s Lawyer
No one appearing for C.B.
Heard: December 12, 2011
On appeal from the order of Justice D.J. Taliano of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 4, 2011.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] There was no procedural unfairness in respect of the Society’s motion for summary judgment. K.S. had adequate notice.
[2] We see no error in the appeal judge’s order granting summary judgment.
[3] The proposed fresh evidence would not affect our conclusion.
[4] The appeal is dismissed.