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.
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk v. L.A.P., 2012 ONCA 15
DATE: 20120111
DOCKET: C54706
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Laskin, Sharpe and Juriansz JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk
Applicant (Respondent)
and
L.A.P., and R.J.P.
Respondents (Appellant)
Paul J. Osier, for the appellant
Wayne B. Herter, for the respondent
Linda Feldman, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
Heard: January 9, 2012
On appeal from the order of Justice James A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 29, 2011.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We agree with the reasons of Ramsay J.
[2] We also agree with counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer that Ms. P. did not put forward, either before Edward J. or Ramsay J., any evidence to show a realistic possibility that contact with J. would be meaningful and beneficial and in J.’s best interests.
[3] The fresh evidence tendered before us is of limited assistance because of the differences in age between M. and J., and the extensive role Ms. P. has had in M.’s life, as contrasted with her very limited role in J.’s life.
[4] Thus, we conclude, as did Ramsay J., that Crown wardship without access is the only outcome that promotes J.’s best interests.
[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.