Background
This case arises from a child protection dispute in Ontario’s Niagara Region. Following a trial, Justice Theresa Maddalena of the Superior Court of Justice — Family Branch issued a final order on September 8, 2025, placing children in the care and custody of their maternal aunts pursuant to s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017, c. 14 (CYFSA).
The children’s father, H.E-S., acting in person, sought to appeal that order to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CAS) moved to quash the appeal, arguing that appeals from final orders of the Superior Court — Family Branch made under the CYFSA lie with the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal, per s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
H.E-S. contended that the Court of Appeal nonetheless had jurisdiction because he intended to raise constitutional, cross-border, and broader questions on the appeal. The matter was heard and decided orally on June 15, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
A three-judge panel (Sossin, Monahan, and Wilson JJ.A.) granted the CAS’s motion to quash the appeal. The court held that the underlying statutory order and the grounds of appeal clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, and that no basis existed for the Court of Appeal to exercise jurisdiction.
The court rejected H.E-S.’s argument that his intention to raise constitutional, cross-border, or broader questions on appeal was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal. The statutory routing provision in s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act governs appeals from final CYFSA orders at the Superior Court level, and that provision directs such appeals to the Divisional Court regardless of the nature of the arguments an appellant wishes to advance.
Key Takeaways
- Final orders of the Superior Court of Justice — Family Branch made under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act must be appealed to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal for Ontario, pursuant to s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
- A party’s stated intention to raise constitutional or other broad questions on appeal does not, by itself, shift appellate jurisdiction from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal.
- The statutory routing of appeals from CYFSA orders is determined by the nature of the underlying order, not by the characterization of the grounds of appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the jurisdictional boundary between Ontario’s Court of Appeal and Divisional Court in child protection matters. Litigants — particularly self-represented parties — sometimes seek to invoke the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction by framing their grounds of appeal in constitutional or otherwise expansive terms. The court’s ruling makes clear that the statutory appeal route prescribed by the Courts of Justice Act cannot be circumvented through that approach.
For family law practitioners, the case is a reminder to carefully identify the correct appellate forum before filing. An appeal filed in the wrong court will be quashed for want of jurisdiction, potentially causing significant delay in matters involving children’s welfare and placement.