WARNING

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87 (8) Prohibition re identifying child — 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.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — 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.

142 (3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20210224 Docket: C68485

Fairburn A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Gillese JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services Applicant (Respondent)

and

K.R. and P.N.R. Respondents (Appellants)

Counsel: K.R., acting in person P.N.R., acting in person David J. Elliott, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: February 23, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the order of Justice John S. Fregeau of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 15, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellants are the parents of two children. In 2018, a justice of the Ontario Court of Justice (Family Court) found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11.

[2] The appellants appealed from this decision to the Superior Court of Justice. During the course of the appeal process, the appellants brought several motions, one of which was a motion for further disclosure. In a decision dated 15 June 2020, Fregeau J. granted the relief sought in part and denied other disclosure requests as being irrelevant.

[3] As a preliminary issue, the respondent contends that the appellants have brought their appeal in the wrong court; they should be in the Divisional Court.

[4] Section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, requires that a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice be appealed to the Court of Appeal. Section 19(1)(b) requires that an interlocutory order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave. If the order is interlocutory, s. 38(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, requires the appeal and the leave motion to be heard at the same time.

[5] We agree with the respondent. Justice Fregeau’s decision relating to disclosure is interlocutory: see Higgins v. Higgins, 2007 ONCA 663, at para. 19.

[6] The appeal is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”