M.E. v. R.

M.E. v. R. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-06-26 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 429 Docket numbers C67498 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; Hourigan, C. William; Fairburn, J. Michal Subject Civil Decision Content WARNING This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 87(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. WARNING THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO: 110(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply (a) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received an adult sentence; (b) in a case where the information relates to a young person who has received a youth sentence for a violent offence and the youth justice court has ordered a lifting of the publication ban under subsection 75(2); and (c) in a case where the publication of the information is made in the course of the administration of justice, if it is not the purpose of the publication to make the information known in the community. (3) A young person referred to in subsection (1) may, after he or she attains the age of eighteen years, publish or cause to be published information that would identify him or her as having been dealt with under this Act or the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, provided that he or she is not in custody pursuant to either Act at the time of the publication. 111(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person. 138(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. The court released its judgment in this matter to counsel and the appellant only, on May 8, 2020, after an in camera hearing. Following submissions from counsel who reviewed the unredacted judgment, the court released a redacted version of the reasons to the public. The full reasons along with the rest of the Court of Appeal file remain under seal. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: M.E. v. R., 2020 ONCA 429 DATE: 20200629 DOCKET: C67498 Lauwers, Hourigan and Fairburn JJ.A. BETWEEN M.E. Plaintiffs (Appellant) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario , Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Durham Children’s Aid Society Defendants (Respondents) M.E., acting in person Domenico Polla, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Scott C. Hutchison, for the respondents Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Giovanna Asaro and Ada Lee (contempt appeal) Giovanna Asaro, for the respondent Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (summary judgment appeal) Heard: February 28, 2020 On appeal from the orders of Justice Paul B. Schabas of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 23, 2019, with reasons reported at 2019 ONSC 5138 and 2019 ONSC 5141. COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] We previously dismissed the appeal of the contempt order, allowed the appeal on one issue on the summary judgment appeal, and dismissed the balance of the summary judgment appeal. This endorsement addresses the effect of our order on the costs awarded by the motion judge and the costs of the appeals. [2] On the summary judgment motion, Ontario and the Children’s Aid Society sought their partial indemnity costs for the action, which totalled $60,000. The appellant did not provide costs submissions. The motion judge ordered all-inclusive costs of $35,000, to be paid by the appellant to the respondents if demanded. The Children’s Aid Society also sought costs for the contempt motion, and the motion judge awarded partial indemnity all-inclusive costs of $7,500. [3] Given that the case is now continuing, Ontario and the Children’s Aid Society are not entitled to their costs of the action. Further, due to the appellant’s partial success on the summary judgment appeal, a reduction in the costs awarded on that motion is appropriate. We reduce the costs awarded on the summary judgment motion to the all-inclusive amount of $10,000, to be paid in total to all respondents. There is no basis to interfere with the costs awarded on the contempt motion as the appeal of that order was dismissed and the costs ordered are fair and reasonable. [4] Regarding the costs of the appeal, the appellant and Ontario agreed to an order of no costs. The Children’s Aid Society seeks costs of the contempt appeal of $11,097 in substantial indemnity costs or, in the alternative, partial indemnity costs of $7,085. It also seeks partial indemnity costs, reduced by one-third, plus disbursements and HST (about $5,511.63 total), for the summary judgment appeal, which it submits is a reduced figure to reflect the appellant’s partial success on appeal. The appellant seeks costs for both appeals against the Children’s Aid Society but did not stipulate a figure. [5] As the successful party on the appeal of the contempt order, the Children’s Aid Society is entitled to its costs on a partial indemnity basis, which we fix in the all-inclusive amount of $3,500. Regarding the summary judgment appeal, there was mixed success, but the Children’s Aid Society was the more successful party, succeeding on three of four issues. Therefore, we order the appellant to pay to the Children’s Aid Society costs on a partial indemnity basis for that appeal, which we fix in the all-inclusive amount of $1,500. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.” “Fairburn J.A.”