Press one of the expand buttons to see the full text of an article. Later press collapse to revert to the original form. The buttons below expand or collapse all articles.
Father Chained and Muzzled
October 4, 2012 permalink
In family law, fathers get less respect than a chained and muzzled dog. Enclosed below is a decision reported in an Ontario family court case involving the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto and two parents named only as NB and AL. The decision has been edited to show only the parts giving orders to the father. This father cannot publicly mention his name, or the names of his wife and children, and is forbidden to see his children as long as any of those names can be associated with his children through a Google search.
COURT FILE No.: Toronto C4767/09
Citation: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.B.-R., 2012 ONCJ 439
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto,
— AND —
Before Justice E. B. Murray
Reasons for Judgment released on June 25, 2012
 I made the following order.
- The access order of April 3 , 2012 is suspended until Father removes from the internet any information or images posted by him or at his direction or under his control that do or have the effect of identifying the children K. or N.L or K., directly or indirectly, as children in this case. Father shall advise the Society forthwith when he has done this, so the Society can confirm.
- The court will issue a further order identifying the information and images referred to above. The Society and Ms. Roskies may make submissions on this issue by June 8, 2012; Father shall have until June 15, 2012 to answer; and any reply shall be served and filed by June 20, 2012.
- Upon Father complying with the above provision, the access set out in the order of April 3, 2012 shall resume, on the following conditions:
- Father may not bring any electronic or recording device into the visits, including any computer, iphone, cell phone, or camera.
- If Father misses a visit and the Society does not agree that he was justified in so doing, then access is further suspended until further order of this court.
 I have reviewed Ms. Slinger’s affidavit containing descriptions of the 22 videoblogs. Based on those descriptions, I find that the following videos contain identifying information:
- July 7, 2010
- October 5, 2010
- October 6, 2010
- October 8, 2010
- October 16, 2010
- October 18, 2010
- October 19,2010
- October 26, 2010
- November4, 2010
- December 13, 2010
- December 16, 2010
- December21, 2010
- January 17, 2011
- January 18, 2011
- January 19, 2011
- January 20, 2011
- February 18, 2011
- March 29, 2011
- November 12, 2011
 I order that Father remove these videoblogs from the internet.
 I further order that Father remove from the internet any posting of any type made by him that would result in a “hit” if any of the children’s names was entered in Google that would result in information of any type – including “tags” on screen – that would identify the children, directly or indirectly, as being connected to a protection case. For Father’s guidance, I state that I would consider a link to a protection case would be established by any posting that discusses Father’s experiences or views with respect to family court proceedings or that mentions a children’s aid society or worker.
 When Father has complied with this order, he shall advise the Society in writing. If the Society agrees that there is compliance, Father’s access may resume. If there is disagreement, then the issue may be spoken to before me.
 With respect to any future postings on the internet by Father, I order that he make no posting that violates s. 45(8) of the Act. Father should be aware that that section, aside from prohibiting the publishing of information that has the effect of identifying the children as connected to a protection proceeding, also prohibits such publication of the names of himself and Mother in that regard. Pursuant to s. 85(3) of the Act, a person who contravenes s. 45(8) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of up to $10,000 or to imprisonment for not more than three years, or to both.
Released: June 25, 2012
Signed: “Justice E. B. Murray”
When the law against publication of names was enacted, publication meant printing in a newspaper or broadcasting on radio or television. The legislators voting for the law never intended to outlaw a parent mentioning the names of members of his own family, that's why they made the restriction only for publication. But technology has advanced and the judge in this case has applied a law in a way never envisioned at its passage.
Technical note: Fixcas has a few times responded to requests to remove material that has become embarrassing to the families involved. Eradicating a name to the point that it will no longer appear in a Google search is a difficult process even for a computer professional. Unless this father is a skilled professional, it is unlikely that he will be able to comply with the order of the court even with his best efforts to do so.