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
2014 ONCA 11
DATE: 20140109
DOCKET: C57777
Juriansz, Hourigan and Benotto JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children Aid Society of the Region of Halton
Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)
and
E.M.
Applicant (Appellant on Appeal)
and
M. K.
Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)
E.M., acting in person
Laura R. Goldfarb, for the respondent Children’s Aid Society
No one appearing for the respondent M.K.
Heard and released orally: December 13, 2013
On appeal from the judgment of Justice John R. Sproat of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 16, 2013, dismissing the appeal from the order of Justice Roselyn Zisman of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated April 25, 2013.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant is the biological mother of a 14-year old child. She appeals the order of Sproat J. which dismissed the appeal from an order of Zisman J. denying the appellant leave to bring a Status Review Application.
[2] The child has been in the continuous care of the Children’s Aid Society since February 2008. She was made a Crown ward in August 2010. There was no appeal from that order which included detailed reasons. The child has now been placed for adoption with a couple who share her religious faith.
[3] In March 2013, the appellant brought an application for leave to bring a Status Review Application. Zisman J. dismissed the motion, thereby denying leave. The appellant appealed this order to the Superior Court. The order of Sproat J. dismissing that appeal is before this court.
[4] We are not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the wrong test was applied by the appeal judge. An order for leave to bring a Status Review Application is discretionary and includes a consideration of the best interests of the child.
[5] The appellant argues that the motion judge and the appeal judge both failed to review the evidence, did not consider the positive changes that she had made in her life and failed to consider the fact that the child is no longer in need of protection. In addition, she argues that the appeal judge did not consider the child’s best interests.
[6] While the positive changes in the mother’s life were not contested, the appeal judge considered the best interests of the child in a broader context.
[7] He said the following:
We are dealing with a child who is approaching her 14th birthday. There is no possible basis upon which the clock can be turned back and any thought could be given to, essentially, placing a child of this age with a mother with whom she has had very limited contact for so many years. That clearly could not be at all tenable or at all in the best interest of the child.
We now have a situation, and this was the situation in front of Zisman J., where the child wants to see the adoption proceed, but she does want to maintain some ability, if she sees fit, to have communication with her mother. Her best interests are clearly served by the process continuing toward the adoptive home that’s been mentioned.
[8] We agree.
[9] The appeal judge made his decision mindful of the evidence and the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. There was no legal error in the decision dismissing the appeal from the order of Zisman J.
[10] The appeal is dismissed.
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“W. Hourigan J.A.”
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”