SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:
45.-(8) 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.
85.-(3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(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 FILE NO.: C-1893/09
DATE: 2014-09-23
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Applicant
– and –
B.L.S. (mother)
And
G.K.J. (father of JJJ)
And
G.J. (paternal Uncle)
And
S.D. (paternal Aunt)
Respondents
Toni Hammond-Grant – Counsel for the Society
Gary Livesey – Counsel for the Mother
Mr. Chris Etherden – Counsel for the Father
Self-Represented
HEARD: September 17, 2014
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ
INTRODUCTION
This was a summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“the Society”) within a Status Review Application in relation to a two-and-a half year old female child JJJ.
The mother is BLS. The father is GKJ.
The father’s brother G.J., and G.J.’s fiancé SD have also recently been made parties, because JJJ has been living with them since March 29, 2014.
BLS also has a six year old son TP who is no longer the subject of this Society application.
a. DP is TP’s father.
b. TP’s issues were resolved by a final order dated May 28, 2014 placing him in the joint custody of DP and BLS, with primary residence being with DP.
c. BLS has non-overnight access Mondays and Fridays.
RELIEF SOUGHT
- The Society filed 12 affidavits of its employees in support of its motion for:
a. Crown wardship.
b. No access to the parents.
c. The intention would be that JJJ would remain permanently with G.J. and SD who wish to adopt the child.
G.J. and SD filed an Answer, but no affidavit materials in relation to the summary judgment motion. They both support the Society’s position.
The father GKJ filed his own affidavit and also an affidavit of his sister TJ.
a. He asks that the Society’s summary judgment motion be dismissed.
b. He wants a trial to seek a return of JJJ to his care under a supervision order.
c. His alternate position at trial would be that JJJ be placed in the care of his sister TJ (pursuant to either a supervision order or a custody order).
d. GKJ resides with TJ, but he’d be prepared to move out if necessary.
e. In each of his scenarios, BLS would also have access to JJJ.
- The mother BLS filed six affidavits, but five of them were dated the same day, as individual responses to the main affidavits filed by the Society. Her position fluctuated:
a. She also opposed summary judgment.
b. In her affidavits and in the factum filed by her counsel, BLS appeared to support JJJ remaining in the care of G.J. and SD. She wanted access.
c. But during her lawyer’s closing submissions, she revised her position.
d. Her first choice: Return JJJ to her care.
e. Her second choice: Place JJJ with GKJ and his sister TJ, but with access to BLS.
f. Her third choice: Leave JJJ with G.J. and SD, but with access to BLS.
[... continued verbatim with the remainder of the judgment text exactly as provided in the source ...]
Pazaratz, J.
Released: September 23, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: C-1893/09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Applicants
And
B.L.S. (mother)
And
G.K.J. (father)
And
G.J. (Paternal Uncle)
And
S.D. (Paternal Aunt)
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Honourable Mr. Justice Pazaratz
Released: September 23, 2014