Bhajan v. Bhajan et al., (2010) 268 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 17, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2010), 268 O.A.C. 82 (CA);2010 ONCA 560

Bhajan v. Bhajan (2010), 268 O.A.C. 82 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. SE.021

Daveanand Bhajan (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Sandora Bhajan (respondent/respondent in appeal) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant in appeal)

(C52167; C51316; M39100; M39098; M39099)

Vathany Vaseekaran (applicant/respondent) v. Manickam Vaseekaran (respondent/respondent) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant/respondent on motion)

(C51316; M39098)

Djeane MacDonald (applicant/respondent) v. Brian MacDonald (respondent/respondent) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant/respondent on motion)

(C51832)

Ana Crisina Bonadonna (applicant/respondent) v. Roy Bonadonna (respondent/respondent) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant/respondent on motion)

(C52167; M39099)

Seng Hock Goh (applicant/respondent) v. Chao-Hsia Linda Wen (respondent/respondent) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant/respondent on motion)

(C52133; M39100)

Wendy Feldman (applicant/respondent in appeal) v. Jean-Pierre Boue (respondent/respondent in appeal) and The Children's Lawyer (appellant in appeal)

(C52169; 2010 ONCA 560)

Indexed As: Bhajan v. Bhajan et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, J.A.

August 20, 2010.

Summary:

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was ordered on the basis of exigent circumstances to represent certain children whose parents were engaged in matrimonial litigation. The Children's Lawyer filed a number of appeals. No responding material to the appeals was filed. Justice for Children and Youth sought leave under rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene in the appeals as a friend of the court.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Weiler, J.A., granted the motion.

Practice - Topic 685

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - On appeal - The Office of the Children's Lawyer was ordered on the basis of exigent circumstances to represent certain children whose parents were engaged in matrimonial litigation - The Children's Lawyer filed a number of appeals - No responding material to the appeals was filed - Justice for Children and Youth (JCY) sought leave under rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene in the appeals as a friend of the court - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Weiler, J.A., granted the motion - As no one had responded to the appeals, the children whose interests were affected would have no voice unless an amicus curiae was appointed - JCY could provide assistance to the court on several issues, including how the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child impacted the issues and whether the court, in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction was entitled to appoint the Children's Lawyer or an individual lawyer to act - These issues involved broad public considerations.

Practice - Topic 687

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Intervenors - Amicus curiae - [See Practice - Topic 685 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Childs v. Desormeaux et al. (2003), 177 O.A.C. 183; 67 O.R.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Larivière (D.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1013; 280 N.R. 225, refd to. [para. 8].

Novoa v. Molero, [2007] O.J. No. 4591 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Martha Mackinnon and Andrea Gatti, for Justice for Children and Youth;

Martha Heder, for The Children's Lawyer.

This motion was heard in chambers on August 17, 2010, by Weiler, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on August 20, 2010.