Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. P. A.H-F., 2020 ONCJ 476

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 , (being

Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017 , S.O. 2017, c. 14 ), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 87.—

(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order, . . . (

c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(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.

(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. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. P. A.H-F., 2020 ONCJ 476 DATE: October 5, 2020 COURT FILE No.: C30707-19 BETWEEN: Catholic Children’s Aid Society Applicant, — AND — P. A.H-F. (mother) J.P. (father of K. V.H-F.) S.H-F. (father of S.S.H-F. and S.A.H-F.) J.M. (father of K.A. M-

V) Respondents

Before Justice Roselyn Zisman Heard in Chambers Decision released on October 5, 2020 Fatima Hussain.............................................................. counsel for the applicant society No one responding on behalf of Respondents Julia Tremain....................................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer on behalf of the children S.S.H-F. and S.A.H-F. legal representative for the children Heather Hanen..................................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer on behalf of the child K.V.P.V. legal representative for the children Before Justice Roselyn Zisman In chambers [ 1 ] The society filed a 14B motion to adjourn a Status Review Application that had been issued on September 23, 2020 and was returnable before the court on September 29 th.

The society sought the adjournment to allow for a meeting to take place to discuss permanency planning for the child K.V.P.V. This child just turned 17 years old and is in the care of the society. [ 2 ] Upon review of the file, the court noted that on March 11 th the society filed a Statement of Agreed Facts. Based on the Statement of Agreed Facts the court made a finding the children in need of protection and placing the children S and S with their mother for 6 months with terms of supervision and placing the child K in the temporary care of the society.

At that time the outstanding service issues on all of the Respondents were dealt with and the order was granted on an unopposed basis. [ 3 ] A previously scheduled date of July 23 rd was vacated and the endorsement states that counsel for the society should obtain a Status Review date from the trial co-ordinator. [ 4 ] A date of September 29, 2020 was obtained.

However, as the court advised society counsel this date exceeds the 6 month supervision order by 3 weeks. [ 5 ] Counsel for the society has now filed a further 14B seeking an order to permit the suspension of the running of the time of the 6 month orders made on March 11 th , 2020 for 3 weeks. The 14B was served on all Respondents and no response has been received. [ 6 ]

Section 2 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 made under subsection 7.1 (2) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act , provides that any provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding in Ontario, including any intended proceeding, shall, subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision-maker responsible for the proceeding, be suspended, and the suspension shall be retroactive to Monday, March 16, 2020. [ 7 ] Ontario Reg. 106/20 as amended, set out that this suspension would be in effect until September 11, 2020. [ 8 ]

Section 6 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 provides as follows: End of temporary suspension For greater certainty, any limitation period or period of time within which a step must be taken in a proceeding that is temporarily suspended under this Regulation resumes running on the date on which the temporary suspension ends and the temporary suspension period shall not be counted. [ 9 ] Ontario Regulation 73/20 was revoked on September 14, 2020 by Ontario Regulation 457/20,

section 1.

[ 10 ] The suspension of the time limits is “subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision maker-responsible for the proceeding”. [ 11 ] In this case, it is unclear if the court staff provided the Status Review Application date to the society as a result of the limited dates available to the court for hearings or if the society inadvertently chose this date due to an administrative error. [ 12 ] I see no reason why the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Ac, should not apply to proceedings pursuant to the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act or apply to protect the rights of all parties including a child protection agency and the children before the court. [ 13 ] In this case, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that the society not lose jurisdiction due to what appears to be an administrative error and that the Status Review Application be heard on its merits. [ 14 ] As the suspension of time limits was revoked on September 14 th , the society’s request to permit an extension of 3 weeks to file its Status Review Application namely, to the hearing date imposed by the court of September 29 th is granted. [ 15 ] Order as follows: 1.

The Status Review Application is effective as of September 29, 2020. 2. The matter is adjourned until December 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. for a case conference to be heard by telephone conference. Released: October 5, 2020 Signed: Justice Roselyn Zisman