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: 2017-09-12
Docket: C63877
Judges: Strathy C.J.O., van Rensburg and Trotter JJ.A.
Between
S.C. Appellant (Plaintiff)
and
York Children's Aid Society Respondent (Defendant)
Counsel
Giovanna Asaro and Lisa Bruni, for the respondent
S.C., acting in person
Hearing
Heard: September 8, 2017
On appeal from: the order of Justice Kenneth G. Hood of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 26, 2017.
Appeal Book Endorsement
[1] The appellant asserts that the child protection proceedings involving her daughter resulted in significant losses and damages and that she ought to have been permitted to continue the action she commenced against the respondent and to call a number of witnesses at a trial.
[2] The issue before this court is whether the motion judge erred in dismissing this action when he found that certain claims disclose no cause of action and that others were not supported by the evidence.
[3] We see no error in his analysis and conclusions and we dismiss the appeal. In our view, in all the circumstances, this is not a case for costs.