Warning and Notice
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
(8) Prohibition re identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged. — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142.— (3) Offences re publication. — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
Case Information
DATE: April 11, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: FO-19-10595-04
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto
Esther Lee, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and –
F.B.
Duty Counsel, Ed Rice, for the RESPONDENT MOTHER
RESPONDENT MOTHER
- and –
D.C.
Duty Counsel, Ashleigh Phillips, for the RESPONDENT FATHER
RESPONDENT FATHER
HEARD: April 7, 2025
JUSTICE: J. Harris
Reasons for Decision
IN-PERSON
1This is a first appearance following the removal of the three subject Children to a place of safety on April 1, 2025.
2Native Child and Family Services (“NCFS”) filed a Notice of Motion, dated April 4, 2025, seeking the following orders, as stated in its Notice of Motion:
An order pursuant to Family Law Rules Rule 1(6)(8), Rule 3(5)(7), Rule 14(12), waiving any irregularities in the issuing, filing and service of the within Application and Motion, on the grounds of urgency and the best interests of the [Children].
An order, pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act Section 94 (2) and (8), placing the child T.C. (born XX, 2013) [sic], T.E.M.C. (born XX, 2020), and B.C. (born XX, 2023), in the temporary care and custody of NCFS.
The Children’s access to the Respondent Mother, F.B., shall be at the discretion of NCFS as to time, location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision. Such access shall give due weight to each child’s wishes and preferences based on their age and maturity.
The Children’s access to the Respondent Father, D.C, shall be at the discretion of NCFS as to time, location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision. Such access shall give due weight to each child’s wishes and preferences based on their age and maturity.
Should the Children be placed separately, best efforts shall be made by NCFS to facilitate at least one sibling access per week so all three Children can see each other. Such access shall give due weight to each Child’s wishes and preferences based on their age and maturity.
An order pursuant to Section 78, appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child, T.C. (born XX, 2013) [sic].
An order dispensing with the necessity of [Rule 25(4)] of Respondent approval of this temporary order.
3NCFS relies on two affidavits sworn by the NCFS Child and Family Wellbeing Service Team Supervisor, M.S., on April 3, 2025, and April 4, 2025.
Position of the Respondent Parents
4The parents were assisted by duty counsel.
5The parents do not consent, but do not oppose, the orders sought by NCFS, on a temporary without prejudice basis.
6Additionally, the parents are seeking a minimum two to three visits per week with the Children.
7Duty counsel assisted the parents today and indicated that they will qualify for a legal aid certificate. Each parent has reached out to legal aid counsel who may be able to represent them going forward.
8Duty counsel suggested that should parents’ counsel seek a temporary care and custody hearing on the next return date. They may file materials and request a temporary care and custody motion by 14B motion. This is agreeable to NCFS.
Summary of the Evidence Filed by NCFS
Historic Involvement
9The Father has child welfare history. He has an older child with a previous partner. This older child is not in the Father’s care and it is unknown whether the Father has any access to this older child.
10The Mother has child welfare history. She had her older children removed permanently by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto due to substance misuse concerns.
11First Report of a Child Suspected to be in Need of Protection. NCFS first became involved with this family on April 23, 2015, when the Mother was pregnant with the eldest Child for “pregnancy support purposes”; however, NCFS closed the file without contact as NCFS was unable to contact the Family.
12Second Report. In October 2019, the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) reported to NCFS that they were contacted by a neighbour who reported concerns about the parents’ ability to manage the eldest Child’s behaviours, who was aged 4. The eldest Child reported that his Father smacked him on his bum. NCFS did not verify protection concerns, offered parenting resource supports and closed the file.
13Third Report. Two months later, in December 2019, TPS reported after Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) were called to the family home. The eldest Child had ingested the Father’s marijuana “edible gummy” and was vomiting. EMS transported the eldest Child to Scarborough General Hospital. TPS noted that the home was dirty and animal food, prescription bottles, and garbage was on the floor of the home. NCFS did not verify any allegations. The file closed the next month in January 2020.
14The middle Child was born on XX, 2020.
15Fourth Report. Three months later, in April 2020, NCFS received an afterhours report from the Children's Aid Society of Toronto that the Father was asking for someone to come to his home to assess the eldest Child, who was still just four years old at the time. The Child could be heard crying in the background of the call. The Father refused to stay on the phone and hung up. The parents were reported to appear overwhelmed. The Mother reported the Child had a temper tantrum that night, had bitten her and head butted her in the mouth causing the Mother’s mouth to bleed. NCFS was sending the family weekly food hampers and speaking with the family weekly, but not providing face to face in-person services because of the “Covid restrictions”. The file closed the next month in May 2020.
16Fifth Report. Three months later, in August 2020, the Mother called the previous NCFS worker and asked that the eldest Child, five years old, be removed from her care because she could no longer manage his behaviours.
17Sixth Report. In September 2020, TPS reported for a third time to NCFS, indicating that the Mother was seen picking up the eldest Child by his arms to the point where the eldest Child could barely stand on his toes and the Father allegedly kicked the eldest Child in the hip which made an audible thumping sound which witnesses reportedly “heard and cringed at”. TPS spoke to the eldest Child who reported that he had tripped and fallen and did not disclose any injuries or fear of his parents. The file moved to ongoing services until it was determined that the Mother was engaging with services to minimize the risk to the eldest Child and five months later, in February 2021, the file closed.
18Seventh Report. A month later, in March 2021, NCFS was contacted by a concerned neighbour who reported seeing the Father dragging his pit bull by the collar and kneeing the dog, while the dog appeared to be having diarrhea. The neighbour reported the family’s unit had urine and feces on the floor and had a smell when they walk by it in the hallway. The neighbour also reported observing the Father smack the eldest Child’s head on a door frame the previous summer. A worker from NCFS attended the home but the family refused entry and only permitted the worker to see the Children in the hallway.
19Eighth Report. The following month in April 2021, TPS reported to NCFS for a fourth time, indicating that an incident of domestic violence had occurred between the parents. TPS reported that the eldest Child reportedly fell out of his bed and hit his head, bruising his head and he was taken to the hospital to have it looked at. The Children were observed by the NCFS worker to be “happy and healthy”. The eldest Child was lying on the couch. The parents were reportedly “engaging and receptive”.
20Ninth Report. Less than two weeks later, Animal Services Ontario reported to NCFS that they responded to a call about alleged abuse towards the family dog. The Father was reportedly verbally aggressive towards the Mother and the eldest Child. Specifically, the Father was swearing at the eldest Child to get back into the “fucking” apartment and refused to allow Animal Services Ontario entry to inspect the apartment. NCFS visited and determined the children were safe in the care of the parents and the eldest Child made no disclosure of discomfort or fear.
21Tenth Report. Two months later, on June 18, 2021, NCFS received a report from a neighbour that the parents had been hitting the eldest Child the previous day. TPS arrived and observed two bruises on the eldest Child’s left cheek as well as a bruise on his right abdomen. The eldest Child reported to TPS that his Mother had pushed her fingers into his face and hit him. The Mother denied this and stated that the eldest Child has behavioural issues and he was the aggressor trying to hurt his little sister. The family was directed to take the eldest Child to the Hospital for Sick Children (“SickKids”). The NCFS worker observed the Mother consistently telling the eldest Child he was bad. Additionally, the eldest Child disclosed that the Mother hit him and showed the marks on his face and right side. The paternal grandmother agreed to stay in the family home for the weekend for added support.
22Eleventh Report. Two weeks later, on June 30, 2021, NCFS received a report from EMS reporting that they had received a call from the parents. The parents reported that the eldest Child was playing with a lighter and suffered burns to his stomach and hand. When EMS arrived, the family was outside and the home interior was not observed. The eldest Child was taken to Michael Garron Hospital. The Mother reported to the NCFS worker that the Father was very upset with the Mother and the eldest Child, yelling at them after the incident. Neither parent was able to locate the lighter, which the eldest Child reportedly used to set his shirt on fire. The file was transferred to ongoing services with NCFS.
23Twelfth Report. Five months later, on December 1, 2021, NCFS received a fifth report from TPS indicating that the mother was arrested and charged with assault against the Father. The Mother allegedly bit the Father’s shoulder.
24Three months later, on March 10, 2022, the NCFS worker observed that the home was dirty and required immediate attention to ensure a safe living environment.
25Thirteenth Report. A month later, on April 26, 2022, NCFS received a report from the eldest Child’s school who reported that the eldest Child disclosed that his Mother would get mad at him, put him in cold water, lock him in his room and put his face in a pillow. Additionally, when the NCFS worker attended the school, the eldest Child’s teacher reported that the eldest Child arrived at school two weeks before with a black eye, but the eldest Child had reported that he hit his face on his dresser at home. The eldest Child disclosed to the NCFS worker that his Mother hit him all over his body but stated it’s not that hard. He reported his Father doesn’t hit him and tells his Mother to stop. The eldest Child also reported to the NCFS worker that he is put in a cold shower for hours and gets locked in his room all night. The eldest Child did not say he was fearful of his parents and when he was asked if he was scared to go home he stated he wasn’t. NCFS spoke with the parents and none of the allegations were verified by observation or conversation with the parents. However, the file was transferred to ongoing services with NCFS.
26Fourteenth Report. Four months later, on August 2, 2022, NCFS received a report from an anonymous source, who reported concern about the eldest Child’s medical needs. The eldest Child reportedly had burn marks on his stomach that did not appear to have healed well. The eldest Child had been observed holding the Father’s marijuana vape pen. The NCFS worker attended the home observed that the burn mark was old and appropriately healed and determined the Children were safe in the parents’ care.
27Fifteenth Report. A month later, on September 6, 2022, NCFS received a report from the maternal grandmother who had observed the Father kick the eldest Child in the head. When the eldest Child went to his room, the Father followed him and dragged him back into the living room. The maternal grandmother reported this was not the first time she had seen physical aggression towards the eldest Child. The maternal grandmother advised that she also reported to TPS. Six days later, the NCFS worker attended the home, but the Mother reported the Father and Children were sick and would not permit her to enter the home. The NCFS worker met with the Children in front of their building. The eldest Child had an observable bruise and the eldest Child explained he slipped in the dark on dog urine. The eldest Child did not appear to be fearful of either parent.
28Sixteenth Report. The next month, on October 28, 2022, NCFS received a second report from the eldest Child’s school. The eldest Child missed school the previous day but was present that day with bruising around the corner of his right eye and temple. The eldest Child reported that he hit his head on the wall and then reported that he hit his dresser. The eldest Child’s eye was observed to be bluish in colour, puffy and red. The NCFS worker determined that the injury occurred accidentally.
29On March 9, 2023, the Mother was reportedly pregnant with the youngest child. The Father indicated it was not his biological child, but he would be raising the Child. The file was closed.
30Seventeenth Report. Two months later, on June 14, 2023, NCFS received a report from a worker with Toronto Community Housing (“TCH”) who reported that the eldest Child was observed with a bruise on his eye. The eldest Child reported to the TCH worker that his Father had punched him and he was now outside because he was afraid to go home. The next day, the NCFS worker attended the home and observed a toonie sized bruise on the eldest Child’s face. The eldest Child stated he was playing basketball outside at school and another child hit him. The Mother walked in and out of the interview with the Child. NCFS was aware the Child had not attended school since around May 15, 2023, and therefore it was difficult to understand how the Child got a bruise from school. NCFS did not verify the allegations and the file closed on July 10, 2023.
31On XX, 2023, the youngest Child was born.
32Eighteenth Report. On June 12, 2024, NCFS received a third report from the eldest Child’s school who reported that the eldest Child did not attend school in March 2024 and was seen in the community unattended. The eldest Child was observed to be crying and wanting to attend school but because of the younger children in the home the parents are unable to get him to school. The NCFS worker attended the home on June 14, 2024, and observed it was dirty. The Father was apprehensive about the worker being there and indicated that all further appointments would take place in the hallway as he would not permit workers in the home anymore.
33Nineteenth Report. A few days later, on June 20, 2024, NCFS received a report from the daycare the middle Child attended. The middle Child complained about pain in her leg and the daycare worker observed two small bruises. The middle Child disclosed that her parents were fighting and the Mother pushed the Father and he fell, then hurt her. The daycare director shared that the Mother was observed to have an injury to her arm that morning. The file was closed on August 15, 2024.
34Twentieth Report. Two months later, on October 16, 2024, NCFS received a report from a neighbour concerning reports about the Father being verbally aggressive towards the Children. The Father was often heard yelling at the Children. The neighbour also disclosed that, one month before, they observed the Mother dragging the middle Child by her leg when the middle Child would not come into the apartment. No one had seen the Children attend school since they moved in. The parents were reported to be heavy smokers, to smoke in the unit, and the home was reported to be dirty and not appropriate for children to live in. The file was redirected to holistic services with NCFS.
Current Opening
35Twenty-First Report. On February 28, 2025, NCFS received a report from a nurse at the Hospital for SickKids who reported that the eldest Child’s back was burned and the Father’s explanation was inconsistent with the burn mark.
36The SickKids Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (“SCAN”) program was engaged. A report was made to the Child & Youth Advocacy Centre Detective.
37On March 4, 2025, the NCFS worker spoke again with the SickKids nurse who confirmed that the eldest Child suffered second degree burns on his back. Additionally, the nurse explained that the eldest Child had marks on his head. The NCFS worker observed the eldest Child at SickKids and observed his torso bandaged and several marks on his head. The eldest Child was interviewed and stated that he feels safe in the home and isn’t afraid of anyone. The eldest Child stated that his Father is “nice to him”.
38The SickKids charge nurse and burn unit social worker provided to NCFS photos of the eldest Child’s injuries (which were not part of the evidence) and described that the burn takes up approximately 75% of the eldest Child’s back. The social worker at the burn unit suggested that NCFS obtain the SickKids records from 2021 when the eldest Child was burned and reportedly bitten by the Mother.
39The NCFS worker was advised by SickKids that the eldest Child would need to remain in the hospital for the next month and that the eldest Child will need a skin graft and plastic surgery.
40On March 27, 2025, the NCFS worker had a meeting with the Mother who advised that the family was doing well and that the eldest Child had been discharged from the hospital.
41Twenty-Second Report. On March 31, 2025, NCFS received a report from a neighbour reporting that since the family moved in a year ago, they always hear the Father yelling, swearing and screaming at the Children and using profanity. The Father reportedly told one of the Children to “shut up” when the Child said they were hungry. The last time the caller heard the Father yelling at the children was about a half an hour ago.
42The next day, two NCFS workers attended the home. The Mother would not permit the workers to enter the home as the Father was reportedly throwing up. The workers insisted on seeing the apartment. The home was observed to be dirty and cluttered with stuff and garbage at least knee to hip high. The bathroom was filthy with piles of dirty diapers and a potty full of urine. The bedrooms were filthy and cluttered. The Father was very upset and began yelling at the workers. The Father stated that he was yelling at the eldest Child the previous night. The Father yelled at the workers to “get the fuck out”. As the workers left, they could hear the Father yelling at the eldest Child all the way down the hall.
43At this point, NCFS decided they would bring all three Children to a place of safety that day without a warrant.
44The youngest Child was removed from daycare.
45The middle Child was removed from her school and her principal told the NCFS workers that “she was glad that someone was finally listening to her”. The principal stated that she had made several reports to NCFS, and that the middle Child had just missed 15 consecutive days of school.
46An NCFS worker and four TPS officers attended at the family home to bring the eldest Child to a place of safety. The Mother reportedly dropped to the floor and began to wail while the Father was reportedly belligerent.
47NCFS has not explored any kin/kith/community placement options.
Updates at the Hearing
48The Children are currently placed together in foster care out of region.
49The Children have been seen by a doctor since coming into the care of NCFS, but the covering worker did not have any details about the doctor’s visit.
50The eldest Child and the middle Child have not yet been registered in school by NCFS.
51The youngest Child will likely be attending daycare, but this has not been confirmed.
52NCFS does not have the Children’s birth certificates, only their health cards.
53The Mother agreed to look for the Children’s birth certificates and provide those to the worker, if she finds them.
54The parents should also look for and provide to the NCFS worker the Children’s vaccination records.
55The parents consent to the worker obtaining the Children’s identification documents through Service Ontario, if the Children’s identification cannot be found.
First Nation
56The Paternal Grandmother may have an affiliation with a First Nation community, with no status. NCFS is in the process of confirming this information.
57NCFS is only in the initial stages of contacting the First Nation community, despite the years of involvement with this family.
58As a result, there has been no consultation with the First Nation and as the First Nation has not been confirmed it is therefore not been named as a party.
59The court was advised that at the in-take phase, the confirmation of Indigenous heritage is not robust, and self-identification is relied upon.
Corrections to the NCFS Materials
60The materials in this matter were prepared on an urgent basis.
61The Application requires corrections, specifically, the eldest Child’s date of birth is XX, 2015.
62The eldest child is only 9 years old, not 11 years old, as set out in the materials filed by NCFS.
63The Application also must be corrected at paragraphs 3 (the children have never been in the care of a Society under an out-of-court agreement) and 4 (the parents have been in a court case before relating to supervision, interim or extended society care).
64Counsel for NCFS submitted that NCFS was unaware that the parents had been before the court on other protection matters, involving another Children's Aid Society, prior to commencing this protection application.
Analysis
65The court recognizes that it does not have the benefit of responding materials from either of the parents, however, the NCFS’s evidence overwhelmingly supports the temporary without prejudice placement order sought.
66The evidence at the next court appearance may be different, and it is possible the court may arrive at a different outcome with respect to temporary care.
67Section 94(4) of the CYFSA sets out the criteria the court is to consider when making an order placing the children into the temporary care of a children’s aid society.
68The onus is on NCFS to establish, first, that there is credible and trustworthy evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is real possibility that, if the child is returned to the Respondents, it is more probable than not that the child will suffer harm. Second, NCFS must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.
69The court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child as required by subsection 1(2) of the CYFSA: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
70The degree of intrusiveness of the NCFS’s intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.O., 2012 ONCJ 269.
71No one argued that there should be a return of the Children to the parents today, either with or without conditions pursuant to section 94(2)(a) or (b) of the CYFSA. The court would not have made that order based on the evidence before the court at this first appearance.
72It was not in the evidence whether the Children had a family doctor or pediatrician and whether that doctor was ever contacted by NCFS.
73The affidavit evidence of the NCFS supervisor, M.S, satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe there is risk that if the Children are returned to their parent’s care, they are likely to suffer harm, based on the following:
- The protection concerns are long standing, and the family has been involved with NCFS for years.
- There have been over 20 reports of a child suspected to be in need of protection from professional and non-professional community members.
- Nearly every community contact this family appears to have made reports to NCFS concerning allegations of incidents of physical or emotional abuse against the Children, particularly with respect to the eldest Child and the middle Child.
- The eldest Child has suffered numerous physical injuries and previous burns, prior to this recent second-degree burn.
- The middle Child also reported injuries as a result of family violence between the parents.
- The Children have been exposed to family violence between the parents and perpetrated on their siblings.
- The home has repeatedly been in a state that is unhygienic and unsuitable for young children.
- The Father was belligerent with the workers and indicated his refusal to work cooperatively with the NCFS.
74The evidence further satisfies the court that the Children cannot be adequately protected by an interim supervision order,
- The protection concerns are very serious and ongoing, and a supervision order is not sufficient to mitigate risk.
- Years of voluntary services have not mitigated the risks.
- The parents have not developed the abilities to ensure the Children’s safety.
- The parents do not work cooperatively or transparently with NCFS.
- The parents, particularly the Father, has been aggressive with workers and both parents have denied workers entry into the home.
75The court finds that there is no less disruptive order than to place the children in the temporary care of NCFS, on a without prejudice basis, during the period of the adjournment.
76As there is no other family/kin plan before the court, section 94(2)(c) is not applicable.
77A temporary without prejudice order shall issue in accordance with the terms sought by NCFS in their Notice of Motion, dated April 4, 2025, except that NCFS shall have no discretion with respect to the level of supervision for the parents’ access to the Children.
78The Children’s access with their parents shall be fully supervised at all times by an NCFS worker.
79There shall be no minimum number of weekly visits; instead, the discretion of NCFS with respect to the frequency of access will be guided by the Children’s best interests and the Children’s needs for stability and safety during the adjournment period.
The Delay in Bringing this Matter to Court
80The court is very concerned about the weeks, months, and years of NCFS involvement and the failure by NCFS to bring this matter to court at any time prior to the Children’s warrantless removal.
81The court finds applicable to this matter and the Children, the concerns outlined in CFS for York Region v. JF and JE, 2023 ONSC 681 at paragraphs 13 to 19:
[13] I recognize that hindsight is 20/20 and that speculation is of limited utility. However, some of the incidents and issues that arose after July 30, 2022, may have been avoided if the matter had been brought before the Court. At that time a supervision order may have been an appropriate and useful tool to engage the parents (perhaps with the benefit of legal representation) and protect the children from harm.
[14] The paramount purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children (s.1(1)). The Society is required to carry out its role in the best interests of the children in accordance with various defined considerations (section 74(3)). The Act also requires that the Society use the least disruptive measures to protect the children (s. 1(2)).
[15] I decline to accept that a [Protection Application] is more disruptive to children than continuing to live in a home rife with conflict and trauma. A supervision order that stabilizes a family and avoids the need for children to come into the Society’s care is far superior to a crisis that results in a temporary care order.
[16] The Supreme Court of Canada recently confirmed that judicial oversight of actions taken by a child protection agency are, “not only permissible, they may in some circumstances be required on account of the court’s essential oversight role in child welfare matters and its parens patriae jurisdiction.”: B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24 at para. 63
[17] When the Society delays bringing (or does not bring) high risk matters such as this one to the court, there is delayed (or no) judicial oversight; an important check and balance on the child protection system can be lost.
[18] Legal counsel cannot advocate and support parents without being retained. As stated above, retainers through Legal Aid Ontario are only available when the Society commences a [Protection Application] or proposes terms for a [Voluntary Agreement]. Family courts, whose role is to ensure compliance with the paramount (and other) purposes of the Act, can only fulfill this role when cases that warrant judicial oversight are brought before the Court.
[19] The number of Protection Applications has fallen dramatically in the past several years for a variety of reasons. I worry that there are families and children falling through the cracks of the child protection system. Perhaps it is time to revisit when (and why) the Society opts to work informally with families rather than through the commencement of a [Protection Application] or the negotiation of terms of a Voluntary Agreement].
82In an earlier decision within the same case, CFS for York Region v. JF and JE, 2022 ONSC 5979, the court observed at paragraph 29:
[29] The fact that neither child has suffered physical harm is a function of good luck, not appropriate parenting nor appropriate oversight by the Society.
83The evidence indicates that the Children in this matter suffered harm repeatedly, including serious physical harm.
84Had this matter been brought to court earlier, that harm or risk of harm may have been mitigated.
85Additionally, the parents may have understood the severity of the child protection concerns and taken earlier steps to address those concerns, and to engage with services and support to develop greater supports and parenting abilities.
86If that was not possible, attempts at kinship placement and consultation with the First Nation, if applicable, would have been expected by the court.
87The Children’s academic needs and school transfer could have occurred with planning and without additional missed school days.
88Additionally, had the matter been brought to court the parents would have had access to legal representation, and the Children may have had access to legal representation through the Office of the Children's Lawyer.
89The Children appear to have suffered ongoing risk of harm and actual harm, in a nearly unmitigated fashion over years, despite the involvement of NCFS and numerous repeated reports from a variety of sources essentially reporting the same concerns.
90The eldest Child’s most recent serious injuries, requiring a lengthy hospital stay, did not even inspire the NCFS to enter into a voluntary agreement or commence a protection application for a supervision order. The eldest Child was discharged from SickKids and remained with the parents without any intervention.
91There is a disturbing pattern of physical injuries to the eldest Child and a failure by NCFS to take sufficient or appropriate action to protect these Children.
92Children should not suffer ongoing injuries, serious injuries, or risk death before those professionals responsible for their safety, protection and wellbeing take adequate steps to mitigate risk.
Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL)
93NCFS sought the appointment of the OCL for only the eldest Child.
94The court is appointing the OCL for all three Children to ensure that all three Children’s interests are represented.
Next Steps
95At the next appearance, NCFS may proceed with a motion if necessary for all the records from SickKids for all three Children from July 2015 to date, if NCFS is unable to receive those records without a court order.
96The Parents may file a 14B motion to request that the next appearance be a temporary care and custody motion.
97Pursuant to Rule 33(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 this matter is still with the child protection timetable.
98The matter has not been adjourned within 30 days, in accordance with section 94(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 to allow the Parents time to obtain assistance from legal counsel, and for NCFS to determine the Children’s First Nation community, if applicable.
14B Motion Dated April 8, 2025
99Following the hearing, NCFS filed a 14B Motion, dated April 8, 2025, requesting that the time of the return date be re-scheduled from 10 a.m. on May 16, 2025.
100The time for the hearing will be scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on May 16, 2025.
Orders
101The following orders are made today:
(a) On a temporary without prejudice basis:
(i) In accordance with the NCFS, Notice of Motion, dated April 4, 2025, except that:
The eldest Child’s birthdate is corrected to XX, 2015.
The Children’s access with their parents must be fully supervised by an NCFS worker at all times.
The OCL is appointed for all three Children.
(b) The matter is adjourned to a Case Conference on May 16, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. Parties shall file Form 17F Confirmations of Conference pursuant to the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
(c) NCFS shall file a detailed plan of care prior to the Case conference.
(d) This matter will proceed IN-PERSON.
(e) Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to NCFS counsel and the parties.
Released: April 11, 2025
Justice J. Harris