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: The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. A.C., 2016 ONCA 512
DATE: 20160628
DOCKET: M46329 (M46276)
Rouleau, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.
BETWEEN
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant/
Respondent on Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Respondent)
and
A.C., S.I., R.M.
Respondents/
Applicants for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Moving parties)
Glenn P. Bogue, for the moving parties
Pasquale Santini, for the respondent Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Andrew McKenna, for the respondent Dr. David McLean
Domenico Polla, for the Attorney General of Ontario on behalf of The Honourable Justice Mark P. Shelston
Heard: June 21, 2016
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving parties seek to review the order of Simmons J.A., dated April 1, 2016, dismissing their motion to expedite the hearing of two leave to appeal motions that were before this court. Those leave to appeal motions related to the following:
a pending appeal before the Divisional Court of an order for Crown wardship with no access made by Shelston J. in October 2015; and
two orders by Beaudoin J. quashing summonses to witness served on Shelston J. and Dr. McLean, arising out of a Habeas Corpus application purportedly launched by the moving parties in the Divisional Court in relation to the Crown wardship order.
[2] In oral submissions, counsel for the moving parties candidly acknowledged that what they were seeking was a broad based order from this court on many of the moving parties’ concerns. Specifically, the moving parties maintain that, as Aboriginal people, pursuant to Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, they have a right to have matters of concern to them brought forward in a court of equity. The proceedings they have brought, or are involved in, are being heard in courts that are applying the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, whereas they should be heard by a chancellor sitting in a court of equity in which common law and statutes do not apply.
[3] In the moving parties’ submission, this ability to be heard in a court of equity before a yet to be appointed chancellor would respect the rights of the Aboriginals who could then rely on and apply Aboriginal law. In their submission, Aboriginal law has equal value to any laws passed by the province of Ontario.
[4] Applied to the proceedings to which their motion relates, the moving parties maintain that the Children’s Aid Society and the province of Ontario had no authority to apprehend children of Aboriginal or Métis origin, including the children related to the moving parties, and this court should enjoin the Children’s Aid Society from carrying out apprehensions and declare the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, inoperative as regards such children.
[5] To assist in bringing about an expeditious determination of the various proceedings in which they are involved, the moving parties seek an order consolidating a series of matters now pending before various courts, including claims and child protection matters, into one hearing in this court.
[6] As to the merits of the review motion, the moving parties maintain that Simmons J.A. erred in not recognizing that the court had no power to make rules on Aboriginal people and had no jurisdiction over their children as they are a sovereign people.
[7] We see no basis to interfere with Simmons J.A.’s order. As we explained to the moving parties, the only issue properly before the panel was a review of Simmons J.A.’s procedural ruling. She properly determined that none of the matters in the leave to appeal motions that underlay the moving parties’ motion were properly before this court. We agree with her determination that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Delgamuukw does not stand for the broad proposition advanced by the moving parties.
[8] Accordingly, the motion to review the order of Justice Simmons is dismissed.
[9] The respondents, being successful on the motion, are entitled to their costs. Costs are awarded inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, fixed in the amounts of $4,500 to the Children’s Aid Society, $1,200 to Dr. McLean, and $1,200 to Justice Shelston.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”
“M.L. Benotto J.A.”