CITATION: M.C. v. L.P., 2022 ONSC 3374
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/2670 DATE: 20220601
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 Ramsay JJ.
BETWEEN:
M.C.
M.C., acting in person
Appellant
– and –
L. P.
Douglas Johnson, for the Respondent L.P.
Respondent
Family & Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville
B. Fisher, for the Respondent Family & Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville
Respondent
HEARD at Ottawa (by videoconference): June 1, 2022
R.S.J. Ellies (Orally)
[1] M. C. seeks leave to appeal, and if leave is granted, appeals the temporary order of Johnston J. dated October 29, 2021. In that order, which was made under s. 94 (2)(d) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the daughter of the appellant’s partner was temporarily placed into the care of the Society, with supervised access to the appellant and the child’s mother.
[2] On May 12, 2022, after a temporary care and custody hearing, Robertson J. made a further temporary order under s. 94 of the Act that replaced Johnston J.’s order. Under s. 94(9) of the Act, a temporary order can be varied at any time, with or without a material change in circumstances. Under the order of Robertson J. the child is placed with her mother under supervision of the Society with access to the appellant on terms. Today, the appellant tells us that he intends to appeal that order as well.
[3] The appellant submits that he should be allowed to challenge the finding that the child is in need of protection. Johnston J. did not make that finding.
[4] The effect of Robertson J.’s May 12 order was to remove the controversy that existed at the time of Johnston J.’s order about where the child would be placed. Thus, following Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, the appeal is legally moot.
[5] While the Court has a discretion to hear an appeal that is moot, we decline to do so. This is not a case that involves a matter of general public importance and it is in the interests of judicial economy not to hear this matter, given the lack of a live controversy.
[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Ellies R.S. J.
I agree
Swinton J.
I agree
J. Ramsay J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 1, 2022
Date of Written Release: June 8, 2022
CITATION: M.C. v. L.P., 2022 ONSC 3374
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 21/2670 DATE: 20220601
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Ellies R.S.J., Swinton and Ramsay JJ.
BETWEEN:
M.C.
Appellant
– and –
L. P.
Respondent
Family & Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds & Grenville
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Ellies R.S.J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: June 1, 2022
Date of Written Release: June 8, 2022