WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
- – (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. – The court may make an order,
(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 … publication of the report, …, 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) Prohibition: Identifying child. – 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.
45(9) Idem: order re adult. – 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.
- – (3) Idem. – A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
ONCA 342
DATE: 20140501
DOCKET: C58255
Laskin, Watt and Hourigan JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Halton
Applicant
Respondent on Appeal
and
E. M.
Respondent
Appellant on Appeal
and
M. K.
Respondent on Appeal
E. M., acting in person
Laura R. Goldfarb, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: April 16, 2014
On appeal from the order of Justice Douglas K. Gray of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 8, 2014.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals the order of Justice Gray dismissing her motion to extend the time to appeal a Crown wardship order made with respect to her daughter.
[2] The appellant submits that she has a valid appeal and that she has made significant strides to address the issues that led to the Crown wardship order. She further asserts that is in the best interests of the child that she be permitted to proceed with her appeal.
[3] While we commend the appellant’s efforts to address the issues which led to CAS involvement, we see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s order.
[4] The appellant has not explained her lengthy delay in commencing her appeal nor established an intention to appeal within the relevant period.
[5] We are also not satisfied that the appeal has any merit given that the same arguments have been considered and rejected in her motion for leave to bring a status review.
[6] Finally, we do not find that it is in the interests of justice to grant leave. The appellant’s daughter is 14 years old, has been placed for adoption and there is an openness order in place. We do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the child to upset her current arrangements.
[7] Given our findings above, it is unnecessary to consider the respondent’s argument that the court does not have jurisdiction to grant leave to extend the time for appeal because the child has been placed for adoption.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“David Watt J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”