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. L.M., 2013 ONCA 335
DATE: 20130523
DOCKET: C56474
BEFORE: Goudge, Gillese and Pepall JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Applicant (Respondent)
and
L.M.
Respondent (Appellant)
COUNSEL:
Brigitte Gratl, for the appellant
Catherine Bellinger, for the children
Jeff Boich, for the respondent
J. Stanley Jenkins, for Legal Aid Ontario
HEARD: May 22, 2013
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Gerald E. Taylor of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 30, 2012.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] As the legislature has made clear and this court has underlined repeatedly the best interests of the children require that child protection matters proceed expeditiously. To now permit this appeal to proceed would push off final resolution of the situation of these children well into the future contrary to the policy imperative.
[2] Moreover, it appears to us that this appeal has very little merit and carries little chance of success.
[3] In light of these important considerations, we can see no basis to interfere with the judgment appealed from.
[4] The appeal is dismissed. No costs ordered.