Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.

The court held that the appellant did not demonstrate a s.7 violation because the Family Law Rules permit hearsay on summary judgment, the appellant (represented by counsel) did not object or seek cross-examination below so no procedural unfairness was established, and the admissible evidence and admissions justified the motion judge's disposition; therefore there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2013 ONCA 472
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto; Respondent (appellant): N.B.; Respondent (appellant): A.F.; Respondent (appellant): D.B.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Family — Child and Family Services Act Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion for Summary Judgment (judgment April 2, 2013)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Hearsay, Procedural Fairness, Charter S.7, Crown Wardship, Business Records, Opinion Evidence
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Protection Evidence Constitutional Law Summary Judgment Hearsay Procedural Fairness Charter S.7 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Applicant (respondent)

N.B.

Respondent (appellant)

A.F.

Respondent (appellant)

D.B.

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Family — Child and Family Services Act Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion for Summary Judgment (judgment April 2, 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improper admission of hearsay, opinion and business records evidence on a summary judgment motion violated s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether hearsay evidence is permissible on a summary judgment motion under the Family Law Rules or whether its use causes procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the mother's plan for care

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant did not demonstrate a s.7 violation because the Family Law Rules permit hearsay on summary judgment, the appellant (represented by counsel) did not object or seek cross-examination below so no procedural unfairness was established, and the admissible evidence and admissions justified the motion judge's disposition; therefore there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.