Sheena Scott

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order that the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) had custody or control of the Children's Lawyer's litigation records relating to child clients, and therefore such records were subject to freedom of information access requests under FIPPA.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Children's Lawyer operates independently from MAG with respect to her core functions of representing children, and therefore MAG does not have custody or control of child client records.

The court emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the Children's Lawyer-child relationship to the proper functioning of the legal system and the best interests of children.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

The complainants, family members of deceased involuntary psychiatric patients, alleged that s. 10 of the Coroners Act discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by making inquests discretionary for involuntary patients but mandatory for inmates in penal institutions.

The Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination and ordered inquests and damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a coroner's inquest is a 'service' under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, the differential treatment under the Coroners Act does not amount to discrimination.

The distinction is based on the different vulnerable circumstances and levels of public oversight in penal institutions versus psychiatric facilities, not on disability.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding they sexually harassed an employee and retaliated against her and her stepfather for making a human rights complaint.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of liability, concluding that the admission of similar fact evidence was reasonable and the Tribunal's reasons, though sparse, met the minimum standard to support the findings of discrimination.

However, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons inadequate to support the compensation and public interest remedies ordered.

The Court substituted its own awards, reducing the special damages and mental anguish awards for both complainants, and set aside the public interest orders.