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.

87 (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: 20220614 Docket: C70391

Benotto, Zarnett and Sossin JJ.A.

BETWEEN

A.L.B. Appellant (Appellant)

and

Durham Children’s Aid Society and E.B. Respondents (Respondents)

Counsel: A.L.B., acting in person Cory Deyarmond, for the respondent Durham Children’s Aid Society Jane Long and Robert J.M. Snell, for the respondent Office of the Children’s Lawyer

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Freya Kristjanson, Lise Favreau and Sandra Nishikawa), dated December 9, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Following the direction of the case management judge, the Registrar issued a notice to the parties pursuant to r. 2.1.01 that the court was considering dismissing the appeal because it appears on its face to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Submissions have been received in accordance with the notice.

[2] The matter involves twin boys soon to be 18 years old. In November 2020, they were found in need of protection by Jarvis J. of the Superior Court of Justice, Family Branch. The boys were placed in the custody of their mother with access to their father (the appellant) in accordance with their wishes.

[3] The father appealed to the Divisional Court and added allegations against the Durham Children’s Aid Society and a host of others. The appeal was dismissed: ALB v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2021 ONSC 8041. The court’s reasons included the following, at paras. 3-4:

But this appeal doesn’t really seem to be about the children and their best interests. ALB puts forward 16 grounds of appeal, alleging that various judges, CAS workers, CAS and OCL lawyers, and the mother have violated a panoply of statutes including the Conflict of Interest Act, the CYFSA and the Criminal Code. He refers to judicial council complaints against several judges, complaints made to the Law Society of Ontario about lawyers, and complaints about the other professionals.

The motion judge referred to ALB’s conduct preceding the summary judgment motion as “what may be described as a campaign of accusations, threats and vilification of virtually anyone involved in these proceedings with whose views he disagreed”: para. 17. ALB’s written and oral arguments on appeal continue that pattern of behaviour.

[4] The father’s appeal to this court repeats similar allegations and includes claims of obstruction of justice against the three judges of the Divisional Court panel.

[5] In Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, at para. 9, this court said:

We fully endorse that case law and the guidance that has been provided by the motion judge in the interpretation and operation of r. 2.1. This approach is summarized in Raji, at paras. 8-9, as follows:

[R]ule 2.1 is not for close calls. Its availability is predicated on the abusive nature of the proceeding being apparent on the face of the pleadings themselves. No evidence is submitted on the motion…. [T]here are two conditions generally required for rule 2.1 to be applied. First, the frivolous, vexatious, or abusive nature of the proceeding should be apparent on the face of the pleading as required by the rule. Second, there should generally be a basis in the pleadings to support the resort to the attenuated process of rule 2.1.

[6] This is not a close call. The 31-page Notice of Appeal to this court bears all the hallmarks of a frivolous, vexatious matter and an abuse of process: Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720. The appellant is litigating issues already decided, he has not paid costs, and he has included a variety of additional targets in his complaints.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

"M.L. Benotto J.A."

"B. Zarnett J.A."

"L. Sossin J.A."