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.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.G., 2013 ONCA 260
DATE: 20130425
DOCKET: C56254
Blair, Juriansz and Tulloch JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
and
C.G.
Respondent (Appellant)
and
R.R.
Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)
and
M.S. and D.S.
Respondents (Respondent in Appeal)
Counsel:
Brigitte Gratl, for the appellant C.G.
J. Boich, for the respondent Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo
Heard and released orally: April 8, 2013
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Stephen Glithero of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 26, 2012.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This child protection matter was scheduled to proceed in camera. The parties agreed it was not necessary to proceed in camera if an order banning publication of information that would identify the child were made. It is so ordered.
[2] The appellant mother seeks to set aside the order of Glithero J. dated October 26, 2012, dismissing for delay her appeal from a summary judgment granted by McSorley J. of the Ontario Court of Justice. McSorley J. found her child in need of protection after concluding that the various plans of care she put forward did not disclose a genuine issue for trial.
[3] Glithero J.’s order was made at a status court hearing. The appellant has four other children. All have previously been made Crown wards with no access to the appellant.
[4] The legislature has ordained that child protection matters proceed expeditiously. Unfortunately, there has been delay in this case. Much of the delay is not attributable to the appellant. The appellant though did not comply with rule 38(22). Rule 38(22) requires the appeal record and factum in appeals under the Child and Family Services Act to be served and filed within 14 days of the filing of the notice of the appeal. Upon being served with the Notice of Appeal on July 26, 2012, the CAS reminded the appellant of this requirement by letter dated July 31, 2012. The appeal was not perfected when the matter came before the status court on October 26, 2012.
[5] We accept that part of the delay is attributable to the processing of the appellant’s legal aid application. The primary cause of the delay however, was the appellant’s mistaken view that the transcript of the submissions made at the summary judgment hearing was required. The rules apply to the “transcript of evidence” not to a transcript of submissions. Here there was no transcript of evidence. The appellant’s appeal book and factum had to be filed within 14 days of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.
[6] As the status hearing judge recognized, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. The Ontario Court had yet to determine the placement of the child and issues of access. The trial dates for the continuation of the proceeding were fast approaching. It was in the best interests of the child that the issues of placement and access be determined as early as possible. We are not persuaded that by dismissing the appeal for failure to perfect as mandated by the rules, the trial judge committed any error in principle that warrants interference.
[7] The appeal is dismissed.
“R.A. Blair J.A.”
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“M.H. Tulloch J.A.”