|
Family - Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL). Walsh v. Tober
In Walsh v. Tober (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered the role of the 'Office of the Children’s Lawyer' (“OCL”):[49] As the child’s counsel notes in her submissions, Mr. Tober’s submissions reflect in part a misunderstanding of the OCL’s role in these proceedings. As previously noted, the OCL became involved at the court’s request as set out in Gregson J.’s endorsement dated March 8, 2021. Once such a request is made, it is open to the OCL to determine whether or to what extent it becomes involved in the proceedings, in the allocation of its scarce resources to carry out its statutory obligations. It is open to the OCL to become involved as legal representative of a non-party child: CJA, s. 89(3.1). It is also open to the OCL under s. 112 of the CJA to cause an investigation to be made with respect to any matter concerning decision-making, parenting time or contact with the child and, if so, to provide a written report that would form part of the evidence before the court.
[50] As the child’s counsel notes in her submissions, the OCL became involved in this matter under s. 89(3.1) as legal representative of the child. In order to take a position on behalf of the child, the OCL lawyer together with the clinician met with the child and communicated his views and preferences to the parties and the court. However, as is its prerogative, the OCL did not cause an investigation to be made nor to provide a report under s. 112 of the CJA.
[51] On the record before the motion judge and this court, the OCL has diligently and properly carried out its role as the child’s legal representative in these proceedings. The OCL lawyer and clinician met with the child on several occasions and communicated the child’s views and preferences to the parties and the court. The motion judge considered those views and preferences in reaching her conclusions, as previously outlined. In these circumstances, I see no credible evidence that the OCL has failed to perform its duties or demonstrated bias against him, as Mr. Tober alleges. As well, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the motion judge required expert evidence relating to parental alienation in order to reach her decision.
|
