WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
AND IS SUBJECT TO S. 45 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES:
45(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.
45(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.
45(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: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.B., 2014 ONCA 609
DATE: 20140826
DOCKET: C58766
Blair, Pepall and Hourigan JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
and
J.B.
Respondent (Appellant)
Nancy Charbonneau, for the appellant
Rachel Buhler, for the respondent
Heard: August 21, 2014
On appeal from the judgment of Justice J. Patrick Moore of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 11, 2014, dismissing an appeal from the order of Justice C. Curtis of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated July 5, 2013.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant mother appeals the order of a Superior Court judge dismissing her appeal from an order of an Ontario Court judge making the child, A.B., a Crown ward without any access by the appellant.
[2] The child is currently four years old. During his lifetime, he has been in the appellant’s custody for a total of approximately six months. The appellant has not seen the child since August 14, 2013.
[3] Prior to the five-day trial of the action, the child had been in care for 29 months, double the statutory time prescribed for a child of his age. The appellant consented to a protection finding under s. 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.C.11. The only issue at trial was disposition.
[4] Before this court, the appellant submits that the trial judge made numerous palpable and overriding errors. These errors included the trial judge’s findings on the child’s behavioural problems; the appellant’s parenting abilities, mental health and judgment; and the child’s dietary needs. She states that the trial judge ignored material evidence that supported the appellant’s position, particularly that of Ms. Ihnat, an infant mental health counsellor. The appellant further submits that for his part, the appeal judge erred in failing to find material error in the trial decision.
[5] We do not agree.
[6] The trial judge gave extensive and considered reasons for decision. She recognized that the appellant had made impressive changes in her life but ultimately concluded that the best interests of the child were served by an order of Crown wardship.
[7] While we accept that the trial judge may have overstated some of the evidence and misidentified the source, we do not consider the errors to have been palpable and overriding. We are also not persuaded that the trial judge ignored material evidence. For instance, she clearly considered the evidence of Ms. Ihnat. As she is entitled to do, the trial judge chose to give greater weight to the evidence of others. The appeals before this court and the Superior Court are not hearings de novo.
[8] It follows that the appeal judge did not err in principle by failing to identify a material error in the trial decision. A deferential standard of review is applicable in family law cases in the context of a child welfare proceeding: C. (G.C.) v. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) [1988] 1 S.C.R. No. 1073 and Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S. [2012] ONCA 783.
[9] The appeal judge was satisfied that the trial judge had considered the child’s best interests and had made no palpable and overriding errors. We see no basis on which to interfere.
[10] The appeal is dismissed.
“R.A. Blair J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”