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
CITATION: M.E. v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 718
DATE: 20211014
DOCKET: M52619 (M52555)
Hourigan, Huscroft and Coroza JJ.A.
BETWEEN
M.E.
Appellant
and
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Durham Children’s Aid Society
Respondents
M.E., self-represented
Scott Hutchison, David Postel and Sheldon Inkol, for the respondents
Heard: October 7, 2021 by videoconference
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This matter has a long procedural history. For present purposes, it is sufficient to focus on the motion brought by M.E. on October 9, 2020, wherein she sought to add additional causes of action and new parties to the action. The motion judge dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under r. 2.1.01: Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. M.E. then sought leave to appeal the motion judge’s order to the Divisional Court. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed that motion.
[2] On May 17, 2021, M.E. applied to this court for leave to appeal the Divisional Court’s order. The Registrar has repeatedly informed her that her materials do not comply with the Rules and practice directions. On July 5, 2021, M.E. filed the underlying” Notice of Motion for Non-Compliance.” Simmons J.A. heard the motion on July 27, 2021. She adjourned the matter to a full panel, noting that while the Divisional Court’s order was final, the motion judge’s order concerned a motion to add causes of action, which may not be interlocutory. As a single judge, Simmons J.A. could not determine this issue.
[3] We conclude that M.E. was seeking to add new causes of action. An order refusing leave to amend pleadings to plead a new cause of action is final: Atlas Construction Inc. v. Brownstones Ltd. (1996), 46 C.P.C. (3d) 67 (Ont. Gen. Div.). So is an order dismissing a motion to add a party, which M.E. also appears to have been trying to do: Bryson v. Kerr (1976), 1976 867 (ON SC), 13 O.R. (2d) 672 (Ont. Div. Ct.). Accordingly, leave to appeal is not required and an appeal lies as of right to the Court of Appeal: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6(1)(b).
[4] We order that the appeal of the motion judge’s order of October 9, 2020 may proceed in this court. Costs of this motion are reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”