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.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
2012 ONCA 912
DATE: 20121228
DOCKET: M41859/M41984 (C56167)
Cronk, Juriansz and Pepall JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF the Child and Family Services Act, as amended
AND IN THE MATTER OF: J.N.H. (D.O.B. December 15, 1998) and F.M.H. (D.O.B. July 18, 2001)
BETWEEN
DOCKET: M41859
Children and Family Services for York Region
Respondent (Applicant)
and
M.H.
Respondent (Respondent)
and
L.H.
Appellant (Respondent)
AND BETWEEN
DOCKET: M41984
Children and Family Services for York Region
Moving Party
and
L.H.
Respondent
and
M.H.
Respondent
L.H., in person
Anthony W. Snider, for Children and Family Services for York Region
Carolyn Leach, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
M.H., in person
Heard and released orally: December 19, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving party, L.H., has appealed the order of S. Healey J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 17, 2012, (the “Healey Order”) to this court. Her appeal is pending. She now moves for leave to appeal the order of S. Rogers J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 18, 2012, (the “Rogers Order”) and, if leave be granted, seeks an order that her appeal of the Rogers Order be heard together with her appeal of the Healey Order.
[2] The respondent, Children and Family Services for York Region (the “CFS”), brings a counter-motion for an order quashing L.H.’s appeal from the Healey Order on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The CFS also opposes L.H.’s motion for directions on the basis that this court also lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Rogers Order.
[3] For two reasons, we agree with the CFS submissions.
[4] First, both the Healey and Rogers Orders were made at a family court branch location in respect of child protection proceedings. Under s. 69(1) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “CFSA”), an appeal from a court’s order under Part III of the CFSA concerning child protection may be made to the Superior Court of Justice. However, s. 21.9.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43 (the “CJA”) provides that certain appeals from decisions of the family court lie to the Divisional Court. By the combined operation of s. 21.9.1 of the CJA and s. 69(1) of the CFSA, an appeal from an order under Part III of the CFSA made at a family court lies to the Divisional Court. Accordingly, any appeals from the Healey and Rogers Orders lie to the Divisional Court.
[5] Second, and in any event, both the Healey and Rogers Orders are interlocutory, rather than final, in nature. This court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order of a Superior Court judge.
[6] According, L.H.’s motion for directions is dismissed. The CFS counter-motion is granted and L.H.’s appeal from the Healey Order is transferred to the Divisional Court. We award no costs for today’s attendance.
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“R. Juriansz J.A.”
“S. Pepall J.A.”