K.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
There was no procedural unfairness, the appeal judge correctly granted summary judgment, and the proposed fresh evidence would not affect the outcome; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 781
- Parties
- Appellant: K.S.; Respondent: Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; Respondent: C.B.; Respondent: Children's Lawyer
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Child and Family Services Act / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Procedural Fairness, Fresh Evidence, Publication Restrictions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
K.S.
Appellant
Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
C.B.
Respondent
Children's Lawyer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Child and Family Services Act / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Society’s motion for summary judgment
- 2 Whether the appeal judge erred in granting summary judgment
- 3 Whether proposed fresh evidence would have changed the outcome
Ratio Decidendi
There was no procedural unfairness, the appeal judge correctly granted summary judgment, and the proposed fresh evidence would not affect the outcome; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Order granting summary judgment upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
K.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-12-12 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 781 Docket numbers C54238 Judges O’Connor, Dennis; Laskin, John Ivan; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Family Decision Content WARNING THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO S. 45 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES: 45. (7) The court may make an order, (a) excluding a particular media representative from all or part of a hearing; (b) excluding all media representatives from all or a part of a hearing; or (c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing, 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. 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. 45. (9) 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. CITATION: K.S. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2011 ONCA 781 DATE: 20111212 DOCKET: C54238 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO O’Connor A.C.J.O., Laskin and Cronk JJ.A. BETWEEN K.S. Respondent/Applicant (Appellant) and The CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Applicant (Respondent in appeal) and C.B. Respondent and Children’s Lawyer, Henry Shields Respondent Application under the Child and Family Services Act s. 64(2)(b), s. 64(4)(b) and the Family Law Rules, Rule 8 K.S., appearing in person Danika Brown, for the CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Shelley McIntyre and Henry Shields, for the Children’s Lawyer No one appearing for C.B. Heard: December 12, 2011 On appeal from the order of Justice D.J. Taliano of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 4, 2011. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] There was no procedural unfairness in respect of the Society’s motion for summary judgment. K.S. had adequate notice. [2] We see no error in the appeal judge’s order granting summary judgment. [3] The proposed fresh evidence would not affect our conclusion. [4] The appeal is dismissed.