Treatment of the Statement of Agreed Facts: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
{{Citation:  
{{Citation:  
| categories = [Legal Principles]
| categories = [Legal Principles]
| shortlink =  
| shortlink = 4o
}}
}}


==C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII)<ref name="C.A.S"/>==
==C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII)<ref name="C.A.S"/>==


[51] On a status review, the task of the court is to assess what, if anything, has changed since the making of the prior final order. A status review hearing is not a re-hearing of the original protection application. C.C.A.S. of Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), 1994 CarswellOnt 376 (S.C.C.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 37 at paragraphs 35 – 37. Issues related to the original hearing are res judicata.
[51] On a status review, the task of the court is to assess what, if anything, has changed since the making of the prior final order. A status review hearing is not a re-hearing of the original protection application. <i>C.C.A.S. of Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), 1994 CarswellOnt 376 (S.C.C.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 37 at paragraphs 35 – 37.</i><ref name="M. (C.)"/> Issues related to the original hearing are res judicata.


[52] A consent order that ends an action is of the same effect as a judgment of a court following a trial or hearing, for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata.  C.A.S. of London and Middlesex v. B.(C.C.), [2007] CanLII 66699 at para. 48.
[52] A consent order that ends an action is of the same effect as a judgment of a court following a trial or hearing, for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata.  C.A.S. of London and Middlesex v. B.(C.C.), [2007] CanLII 66699 at para. 48.


[53] Prior court orders, reasons for decision, and statements of agreed facts are admissible in subsequent court proceedings. A court can take judicial notice of other court orders. Attorney General of B.C. v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18, 2011 CarswellBC 923 at para. 38; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.H., 2017 ONCJ 760 at para. 35 - 58. Statements of agreed facts are admissions, which are an exception to the hearsay rule.
<b><u>[53] Prior court orders, reasons for decision, and statements of agreed facts are admissible in subsequent court proceedings.</b></u> A court can take judicial notice of other court orders. Attorney General of <i>B.C. v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18, 2011 CarswellBC 923 at para. 38</i><ref name="Malik"/>; <i>Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.H., 2017 ONCJ 760 at para. 35 - 58.</i><ref name="I.H"/> <b><u>Statements of agreed facts are admissions, which are an exception to the hearsay rule.</b></u>


[54] The mother argues that, on the motion for summary judgment, the court should not have relied upon the statement of agreed facts dated November 1, 2016 because the order was made in her absence and the statement was not signed by her. In her factum, she says that she attended court later that day but was told by society counsel that it was too late.  
[54] The mother argues that, on the motion for summary judgment, the court should not have relied upon the statement of agreed facts dated November 1, 2016 because the order was made in her absence and the statement was not signed by her. In her factum, she says that she attended court later that day but was told by society counsel that it was too late.  
Line 23: Line 23:


<ref name="C.A.S">C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j61x2>, retrieved on 2021-11-17</ref>
<ref name="C.A.S">C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j61x2>, retrieved on 2021-11-17</ref>
<ref name="M. (C.)">Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 165, <https://canlii.ca/t/1frt7>, retrieved on 2021-11-17</ref>
<ref name="Malik">British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 657, <https://canlii.ca/t/fl3z6>, retrieved on 2021-11-17</ref>
<ref name="I.H">Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.H., 2017 ONCJ 760 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hnl6c>, retrieved on 2021-11-17</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 20:23, 17 November 2021


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 1812
Page Categories: [Legal Principles]
Citation: Treatment of the Statement of Agreed Facts, CLNP 1812, <4o>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2021/11/17

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII)[1]

[51] On a status review, the task of the court is to assess what, if anything, has changed since the making of the prior final order. A status review hearing is not a re-hearing of the original protection application. C.C.A.S. of Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), 1994 CarswellOnt 376 (S.C.C.), [1994] S.C.J. No. 37 at paragraphs 35 – 37.[2] Issues related to the original hearing are res judicata.

[52] A consent order that ends an action is of the same effect as a judgment of a court following a trial or hearing, for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata. C.A.S. of London and Middlesex v. B.(C.C.), [2007] CanLII 66699 at para. 48.

[53] Prior court orders, reasons for decision, and statements of agreed facts are admissible in subsequent court proceedings. A court can take judicial notice of other court orders. Attorney General of B.C. v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18, 2011 CarswellBC 923 at para. 38[3]; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.H., 2017 ONCJ 760 at para. 35 - 58.[4] Statements of agreed facts are admissions, which are an exception to the hearsay rule.

[54] The mother argues that, on the motion for summary judgment, the court should not have relied upon the statement of agreed facts dated November 1, 2016 because the order was made in her absence and the statement was not signed by her. In her factum, she says that she attended court later that day but was told by society counsel that it was too late.

[55] The mother’s affidavit materials are not consistent on this issue. In one paragraph of an affidavit she states that she attended court at 11:00 a.m. on November 1, 2016; in another, she states that she attended at 2:00 p.m. that day. She also states elsewhere that she moved her residence that day.

[56] The mother had been personally ordered to attend court on November 1, 2016, having missed two prior court appearances, failing which her pleadings would be struck. When she did not attend, her pleadings were struck, and she was noted in default.

[57] Were the mother not in agreement with the final order made on November 1, 2016, finding the child in need of protection and placing the child in her father’s care for six-months under supervisions, she should have taken steps at that time. The mother did not bring a motion to set the order aside nor did she appeal it. The statement of agreed facts was signed by the society and the father. The motions judge made no error in relying on the facts set out in the statement of agreed facts in her decision on the motion for summary judgment.

[1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/j61x2>, retrieved on 2021-11-17
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 165, <https://canlii.ca/t/1frt7>, retrieved on 2021-11-17
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2011] 1 SCR 657, <https://canlii.ca/t/fl3z6>, retrieved on 2021-11-17
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. I.H., 2017 ONCJ 760 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hnl6c>, retrieved on 2021-11-17
Retrieved from "https://riverview.legal/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Treatment_of_the_Statement_of_Agreed_Facts&oldid=16503"