Blauzdziunas v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto

Blauzdziunas v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-07-11 Docket numbers C43234 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Moldaver, Michael James; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Family Decision Content DATE: 20050711 DOCKET: C43234 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: DIANA BLAUZDZIUNAS –And- CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO –and- JOZO KRALJEVIC BEFORE: WEILER, MOLDAVER and LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Lenard Kotylo for the appellant Fatima Husain for the respondent Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Roselyn Zisman For the respondent Jozo Kraljevic HEARD & ENDORSED: July 7, 2005 On appeal from the order of Backhouse J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 17, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In refusing the appellant’s motion to extend the time to appeal and dismissing the appellant’s appeal, it is common ground that Backhouse J. considered the proper factors: the appellant’s intention to appeal; the length of the delay and any explanation for that delay; any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the appeal. [2] While the appellant professed an intention to appeal, there was a lengthy delay from the child protection order of August 2003 until the ordering of transcripts in December 2004. The motion judge concluded that there was no reasonable explanation for the delay, particularly the delay in the four months preceding the ordering of the transcripts. While the appellant may have had an intention to appeal, delay is of particular concern in child protection proceedings where an expeditious resolution and permanent placement are in the child’s best interests. [3] Even if the motion judge erred in holding there was unexplained delay, that error did not affect the core of her reasons that there was no merit to the appeal. Despite the valiant efforts and submissions of the appellant’s counsel, we are not persuaded that the motion judge erred in concluding that there was no merit to the appeal. This was a fact-driven appeal and the motion judge gave comprehensive reasons that considered all the matters raised before us in argument. [4] Further, the father has been prejudiced since in the meantime he has been required to be under the supervision of the CCAS for the past two years and he has been unable to proceed to disposition of the outstanding domestic custody proceedings before the Ontario Court. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. [6] Costs are awarded to the successful respondents in the amount of $3,000 to the C.C.A.S. and $1,750 to the father Kraljevic, both inclusive of GST and disbursements.