Background
M.M., a self-represented parent, challenged a child protection order originally made in the Ontario Court of Justice. On a first-level appeal, Justice Kenneth G. Hood of the Superior Court of Justice dismissed that challenge on December 17, 2025. Justice Hood rejected M.M.’s arguments that the federal Conflict of Interest Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 2, applied to the proceedings, that there was a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias, and that a delay in releasing the Ontario Court of Justice’s decision warranted setting the order aside.
M.M. then appealed to the Court of Appeal, again appearing in person. Before the Court of Appeal, M.M. advanced renewed arguments on the merits of the original child protection order and sought to introduce fresh evidence. The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, represented by counsel, opposed the appeal.
The matter was heard and decided orally on June 16, 2026, by a panel of Justices Paciocco, Sossin, and Wilson. The decision is subject to a publication ban under s. 87(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the fresh evidence application and the appeal. The panel adopted Justice Hood’s reasons in their entirety, finding no error in his analysis of the three grounds advanced on the first-level appeal: the Conflict of Interest Act had no application to the child protection proceedings; there was no reasonable apprehension of bias; and the delay in releasing the trial decision did not justify setting it aside.
The Court further held that M.M.’s merits-based arguments regarding the original child protection order were not properly before it. Because this was an appeal of Justice Hood’s decision — not a direct appeal of the Ontario Court of Justice order — and because those merits issues had not been pursued before Justice Hood, they fell outside the Court of Appeal’s proper scope of review. Consequently, the fresh evidence M.M. tendered, which went to those same merits, was inadmissible and could not be entertained. No costs were ordered, as none were requested by any party.
Key Takeaways
- A second-level appellate court is confined to reviewing the decision actually under appeal; arguments not raised before the intermediate appeal court cannot be introduced at the next level.
- Fresh evidence that relates solely to issues outside the proper scope of the appeal will be ruled inadmissible.
- The federal Conflict of Interest Act does not apply to provincial child protection proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice.
- Delay in releasing a trial decision is not, on its own, a ground for setting aside a child protection order.
Why It Matters
This brief oral decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional boundaries of appellate review in Ontario child protection cases. Self-represented litigants — and counsel — must appreciate that a second appeal is limited to errors made by the intermediate appellate court; it is not a second opportunity to relitigate the trial on the merits or to raise issues that were abandoned below.
The case also illustrates that procedural arguments invoking federal legislation (here, the Conflict of Interest Act) will not succeed where that legislation is plainly inapplicable to provincial family-law proceedings, and that neither judicial bias nor decision-release delay will lightly displace a child protection order without a proper evidentiary and legal foundation.