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: 2017-10-25

Docket: C63662

Judges: Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A.

Between

A.M. Appellant

and

Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell, S-M.N., S.G. and C.P. Respondent

Counsel

Julie Bergeron, for the appellant

Anaïs Paré-Chouinard, for the respondents

Heard: June 19, 2017

On Appeal

On appeal from the judgment of the Divisional Court (Swinton, Whitten and McCarthy JJ.), dated November 18, 2016, allowing an appeal from the order of Justice Kane of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 26, 2016.

Costs Endorsement

[1] We allowed the appeal and reinstated the motion judge's order granting the appellant foster-to-adopt mother (the "F-A mother") status in the proceedings about the child.

[2] We have since received and reviewed the parties' submissions as to costs.

[3] The F-A mother seeks costs against the respondent child protection agency, Valoris Pour Enfants et Adultes de Prescott-Russell (the "Society"), of both the appeal before this court and the appeal below before the Divisional Court.

[4] The F-A mother acknowledges that r. 24(2) of the Family Law Rules provides that the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs of an appeal does not apply in a child protection case or to a party that is a government agency and that costs are only awarded in child protection proceedings in exceptional circumstances.

[5] However, she argues that this is an exceptional situation. In her view, the Society acted unfairly towards her by appealing the motion judge's decision granting her status in the proceedings about the child to the Divisional Court. And the Society's successful appeal to the Divisional Court, in turn, necessitated this appeal.

[6] We are not persuaded that costs should be awarded against the Society. This court clarified the relevant factors in determining whether a person should be added as a party in child protection proceedings. Counsel for the F-A mother herself characterized the court's decision as "giving guidance". The Society's decision to appeal the motion judge's decision does not warrant the costs award the F-A mother seeks.

[7] There shall be no costs of the appeal.

"Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O."

"K.M. van Rensburg J.A."

"L.B. Roberts J.A."