W A R N I N G 87

[39] Section 87(4) of the CYFSA sets out that a hearing shall be held in the absence of the public, subject to subsection (5), unless the court orders that the hearing be held in public after considering both the wishes and interests of the parties; and whether the presence of the public would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of. [...] In its factum, the OCL groups these issues into four categories: (1) The appeal judge erred in affirming the motion judge’s decision that she had jurisdiction to make a disclosure order to the Minister, a non-party to the child protection proceeding; (2) The appeal judge erred in prioritizing the Minister’s interest in disclosure over the interests of the children, contrary to the CYFSA, the Chart. [...] Page: 16 (1) The motion judge had jurisdiction to make the disclosure order [52] The first ground of appeal is that the motion judge had no jurisdiction to order the disclosure of confidential documents from the child protection proceeding to the Minister, and the appeal judge erred in upholding the motion judge’s finding of jurisdiction. [...] (2) The motion judge did not prioritize the interests of the Minister over the interests of the family subject to the child protection proceedings [63] The second ground of appeal is that, even in the face of jurisdiction to make a disclosure order, the appeal judge erred in upholding the motion judge’s exercise of that jurisdiction. [...] 50(a) of the IRPA, to the extent that she found the nature of the Minister's legitimate interest is the basis for determining the content of the required "opportunity to make submissions".