CITATION: J.L. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2021 ONSC 1452
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-20-2614
DATE: 20210301
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and subject to s. 87(8) of this legislation. This subsection and s. 142(3) of the Act, 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.
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.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Ellies R.S.J., Swinton and McCarthy JJ.
BETWEEN:
J.L.
Cedric Nahum, for the Appellant
Appellant
– and –
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, TP and MC, and AC
Brian Fisher, for the Respondent Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Annemarie Roodal, for the Respondent TP
Respondents
HEARD at Ottawa (by videoconference): February 25, 2021
THE COURT
[1] The Appellant, mother of the infant A, seeks to appeal a temporary order of Audet J. dated October 4, 2020 that added two parties to this child protection proceeding, TP and MC, the child’s aunt and uncle with whom she was residing for a lengthy time. The order limits their participation in this proceeding, including the upcoming trial, to making a claim for access to A. The order also continued access visits between the child and TP and MC, permitting it on a twice weekly basis.
[2] The Respondents on this appeal, TP and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, argued in their factums that the orders were interlocutory, and accordingly leave to appeal was required.
[3] At the oral hearing, the Court ruled that leave to appeal the orders was required, as the orders are interlocutory. After submissions were heard, leave was denied for reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
[4] The Appellant argued that the orders are final in nature, and so leave was not required. In particular, counsel submitted that the order granting limited party status was final because it would allow an ongoing role for TP and MC in the upcoming trial and any further proceedings between the Society and the parents.
[5] In our view, the orders are interlocutory in nature. The access order is clearly temporary, and the Court of Appeal held in Shoukralla v. Shoukralla, 2016 ONCA 128 that the addition of a party - there in a matrimonial proceeding - is interlocutory (see para. 15). Accordingly, the Appellant requires leave to appeal in accordance with s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43.
[6] Pursuant to Rule 38(3) of the Family Law Rules, leave in respect of the appeal of a temporary order made under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, Sched. 1 shall be heard with the appeal. While the Appellant did not seek leave to appeal in her initial materials nor make written submissions on the test for leave in her factum, the Court permitted her counsel to address the test for leave at the hearing.
[7] In order to obtain leave, the Appellant must meet the test in Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Appellant has not shown that there is a conflicting decision. Nor is there good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders. The Appellant has not shown that the motions judge erred in adding TP and MC as parties for the limited purpose of addressing access to A. As the motions judge found, that order, as well as the order for continued access between A and her kin, is in the best interests of the infant child. Moreover, given the limited role that TP and MC will be allowed to play in the trial (scheduled for April 2021), their participation is not likely to delay or prolong the proceeding.
[8] In addition, the Appellant has not met the second part of the test for leave, as she has not shown that the proposed appeal raises any issue of general importance that goes beyond the interests of the immediate parties.
[9] Accordingly, leave to appeal is denied. Without such leave, the appeal cannot proceed.
[10] No party seeks costs.
___________________________ Ellies R.S.J.
Swinton J.
McCarthy J.
Date of Release: March 1, 2021
CITATION: J.L. v. Children’s Aid Society for Ottawa, 2021 ONSC 1452
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-20-2614
DATE: 202100301
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Ellies R.S.J., Swinton and McCarthy JJ.
BETWEEN:
J.L.
Appellant
– and –
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, TP and MC, and AC
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Court
Date of Release: March 1, 2021