WARNING

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT 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

Date: 2017-04-24 Docket: C63036

Judges: Blair, Juriansz and Miller JJ.A.

Between

K.R. Appellant (Appellant)

and

M.R. Respondent (Respondent)

and

Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society Friend of the Court

Counsel

Jo-Ann J. Avery, for the appellant

No one appearing for the respondent

Jack Sullens, for the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society

Heard and released orally: April 24, 2017

On appeal from: the judgment of Justice Kirk W. Munroe of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 2, 2016.

Endorsement

[1] This appeal is moot. The appellant recognizes that by observing, at the outset, that the appeal is "not about the return of the child". The appeal involves a question of law considered in the absence of a concrete dispute between the parties. While the appellant sincerely pressed the importance of that question of law, the decision of the appeal court below to refuse to entertain the appeal because it is moot is discretionary. An overriding and palpable error must be demonstrated before we can interfere with a discretionary decision. We are not persuaded that there was any such error. The judge below considered and applied the proper factors as set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342.

[2] The appeal must be dismissed.

"R.A. Blair J.A."

"R.G. Juriansz J.A."

"B.W. Miller J.A."