WARNING

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.

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y., 2025 ONCJ 638

COURT FILE NO. 24-222

DATE: December 4, 2025

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO

APPLICANT

Lucia Spampinato,

Counsel for the APPLICANT

• and -

K.Y.

RESPONDENT MOTHER

Preeti Yadav and

Daljit Mann,

Counsel for the RESPONDENT MOTHER

• and –

Y.S.

RESPONDENT FATHER

Helen Kavouras Lopes and

Elena Kurgatnikov Miller,

Counsel for the RESPONDENT FATHER

• and –

S.C.

RESPONDENT

KITH CAREGIVER

• and-

L.B.

RESPONDENT

KITH CAREGIVER

OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER

Zahra Taseer,

Counsel for the Child, S.S.

HEARD: October 21-24, 27-31, 2025 and November 3, 4, and 12, 2025

JUSTICE J. HARRIS

INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES

1This is a decision following the trial of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto’s (“CAST”) Amended Protection Application, dated February 27, 2025.

2This trial was complicated by many substantive and procedural issues, conflicting evidence and translated proceedings. As a result, this decision is necessarily lengthy.

3At the time of the trial, the Child was nine years old (the “Child”).

4The issues the Court has been asked to decide are as follows:

[a] Is the Child in need of protection?

[b] Is so, is a further protection order required to protect the Child?

[c] If so, what dispositional order is in his best interests?

[d] If a dispositional order is made, what access orders should be made?

EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES

Statement of Agreed Facts

5The parties signed a Statement of Agreed Facts, dated September 23, 2025, to support the subsection 90(2) statutory findings, and a protection finding pursuant to subsection 74(2)(n) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”).

6At the outset of the trial, the Court indicated that the finding pursuant to 74(2)(n) did not comply with section 99 of the CYFSA specifically subsection 99(b)(iii) as the parents do not consent to the section 101 or 102 order sought, and that the court must therefore consider the issue of the protection finding.

The CAST’s Witnesses

7The CAST called the following witnesses:

[a] Lerecia Williams (“Ms. Williams”), the current Family Services Worker since July 15, 2025, and relied on her affidavit affirmed October 6, 2025.

[b] Carmela Paolozza (“Ms. Paolozza”), the Family Services Worker from May 7, 2024, to January 3, 2025, and relied on her affidavit sworn October 5, 2025.

[c] Haviva Levstein (“Ms. Levstein”), the Family Services Worker from January 3, 2025, to July 15, 2025, and relied on her affidavit sworn October 3, 2025.

[d] Ayesha Butler, (“Child and Youth Support Worker”) who met with the Child for a total of 10 hours in 10 sessions, as follows: November 25, 2024; December 9, 2024; December 27, 2024; January 10, 2025; January 20, 2025; March 27, 2025; May 8, 2025; April 11, 2025; July 21, 2025; and August 7, 2025.

The OCL’s Witness

8The OCL called Katie Duguid, (“New OCL Clinician”) who testified in the capacity of a clinical assist and relied on her Affidavit affirmed, October 28, 2025.

The Kith Caregivers’ Witness

9S.C. and L.B., are unrelated to the Child, and are referred to as the Child’s Kith Caregivers.

10Only one of the Kith Caregivers testified, S.C., and she relied on her affidavit sworn October 17, 2025.

The Mother’s Witnesses

11The Mother called the following witnesses:

[a] The Mother testified and relied on her affidavit affirmed October 17, 2025.

[b] The Maternal Aunt, E.Y, (“Maternal Aunt”) testified through a translator, by video conference from Italy and relied on her affidavit affirmed October 16, 2025.

[c] The Mother’s former partner, K.B., (“Former Partner”), testified, by video conference from Bratislava, Slovakia and relied on his affidavit sworn October 16, 2025.

[d] The Mother’s Husband, E.G., (“Husband”) testified, and relied on his affidavit, affirmed October 16, 2025.

The Father’s Witnesses

12The Father called the following witnesses:

[a] The Father testified through a translator by video conference from Carcassonne, France and relied on his affidavit sworn October 22, 2025.

[b] O.S. the Child’s Paternal Grandmother (“Paternal Grandmother”) testified through a translator by video conference from Carcassonne, France and relied on her affidavit sworn October 26, 2025.

13This was a 12-day trial with 12 witnesses. The Court has carefully and fully considered all of the evidence, whether directly referred to in this decision or not.

14The trial was conducted as a blended proceeding. The Court did not consider evidence solely related to disposition when considering whether the Child should be found to be a child in need of protection.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

15The CAST sought an order for deemed custody pursuant to section 102 of the CYFSA placing the Child with the Kith Caregivers, with the following access terms and a communication protocol:

[a] Once per month, the Kith Caregivers shall email the Mother and the Father an update regarding the Child and shall include at least one picture of the Child in the correspondence.

[b] Mother’s access is at the discretion of the Kith Caregivers including the discretion of the access location, method (virtual or in person) and level of supervision, to take place a minimum of once per week. Access is subject to the terms below.

[c] Father’s access is at the discretion of the Kith Caregivers including the discretion of the access location, method (virtual or in person) and level of supervision, and they shall have the discretion of to allow. Access is subject to the terms below.

[d] The following are terms and conditions of access by the Parents

i. Access and contact with the Father shall not commence until the Child is ready to develop a relationship with his father.

ii. The Child shall not be forced to have access or contact with either parent.

iii. No other person shall attend a visit unless approved by the Kith Caregivers in advance of the visit.

[e] The Mother and Father shall each be entitled to send to the Child one letter and up to five pictures per month. The Kith Caregivers shall first review each picture and letter and may choose not to share with the Child all or parts of each picture and letter.

16The OCL supports the same order as the CAST with the exception of the access minimum for the Mother, which the OCL seeks to be once every three weeks.

17The order sought by the CAST, the OCL and the Kith Caregivers has long-lasting consequences and are highly intrusive. The access orders sought are minimal. If granted, the Child will likely never return to his biological family or his Ukrainian community.

18The Court has been asked to make this profound order without the benefit of hearing any evidence from the Child’s other Kith Caregiver, L.B., the Child’s babysitter, a Kinship worker, an access worker, any medical or mental health provider, or a witness from the school, or any friend or family member of the Kith Caregivers.

19The Mother sought to dismiss the CAST application, and, in the alternative, an order that the Child be returned to the Mother, with or without supervision. In the further alternative a transitional schedule culminating in the return of the Child to her. The Mother supports the access orders that the Father is seeking for himself and the paternal family.

20The Father’s position changed mid-trial, after hearing the evidence, and he sought the Child’s return to the Mother or, alternatively, an order placing the Child with the Father in France, and in the further alternative, an order placing the Child in the CAST’s interim care. The Father sought access to the Child including a minimum of two video calls per week for about 30 minutes, and video calls for the Child with the extended paternal family two times per week for 30 minutes. The Father sought holiday video calls. The Father sought in-person visits in France during holiday times, which the Father will pay for. The Father seeks informational access. The Father sought to have the Child immediately enrolled in language tutoring. The Father sought weekly photos and videos of the Child from the Child’s primary caregiver.

21The Kith Caregivers support the orders sought by the CAST and the OCL.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND LITIGATION HISTORY

The Child’s Birth and Life in the Ukraine

22The Child was born on […], 2015, in Kyiv, Ukraine, when the Mother was 17 years old.

23The Father, also in his late teens, was present at the Child’s birth. The Paternal Grandmother picked the Mother, Father and Child up from the maternity ward after his birth. The Paternal Grandmother helped the parents apply for the Child’s birth certificate.

24The parents spoke Russian to the Child. The Child resided with his Mother and the maternal family, which included his Maternal Grandparents, Maternal Aunts and Maternal Uncle, and the Father resided with them.

25The Mother breastfed the Child, changed him, woke at night with him, attended all his medical appointments and ensured his vaccinations were up to date.

26During this time, the Father played with the Child, prepared food, read to him and went for walks. The Father sang lullabies to the Child and rocked him at night

27The Mother was the Child’s primary caregiver, and the Father was also a caregiver, and they had occasional help from the Child’s godmother, and extended maternal family.

Child’s Parents Separated

28On or about September 1, 2017, when the Child was 21 months old, the Father and the Mother separated.

29The Father has never been criminally charged and has no criminal record.

30The Child did not have a relationship with the Father after his parents’ separation. However, in August 2020, the Child was visited by the Father and the Paternal Grandmother was present when the Child was 4.5 years old. This was the last contact the Child had with his Father until the court-ordered access commenced on June 27, 2025.

31The Paternal Grandparents and one of the Child’s Aunts who is only 2.5 years older than the Child (the “Young Paternal Aunt”) remained consistently involved and maintained contact.

32The Mother enrolled the Child in kindergarten in Ukraine from the age of 2.5 until he was 6 years old.

33The Mother was admitted to university, but she put her own education on hold to care for the Child and to work. Initially, the Mother worked as a waitress and a nanny to support herself and the Child.

34When the Child was 4 years old, the Mother secured employment in Information Technology (“IT”) as a software engineer.

35The Mother made significant efforts to support the Child’s early learning, for example:

[a] The Child was enrolled in kindergarten, which focused on early educational classes about getting dressed, eating, spending time outside, children’s games, and learning the alphabet and numbers, as well as learning poetry.

[b] She taught the Child at home to read and to add and subtract.

[c] The Mother took the Child to the zoo, the circus, the movies, playrooms, and the library and the Maternal Aunts would sometimes join them.

[d] The Mother enrolled the Child in climbing, swimming, martial arts, roller skating, horseback riding, and robotics classes.

[e] The Mother was on the kindergarten parent committee and organized creative projects for the children – including building and painting a new sandbox. The Child was photographed happily painting the sandbox with a large brush.

36In early 2021, the Mother met her Former Partner when the Child was 5 years old. The Child enjoyed vacations to Egypt, Italy and Germany at this time.

37The Mother and the Child moved in with her Former Partner.

38The Former Partner stated that the Mother used incentives to motivate positive behaviour, such as earning something he wanted by reading a book, helping around the house, or practicing writing, which was described as a common parenting approach in Ukrainian families.

39The Mother arranged for and attended the Child’s speech therapy appointment to improve his pronunciation and communication in the Russian language, as well as taking him to his pediatrician appointments for checkups and vaccinations, and to a psychiatrist when there were concerns that the Child may have ADHD.

40The Mother also took him to the dentist and ensured he had braces in his mouth as recommended by the dentist.

41The Mother and the Child had an affectionate bond and their relationship was close, positive and emotionally healthy.

42The Child showed appropriate affection, boundaries, and respected personal space.

The Russian Invasion of the Ukraine and The Child’s Displacement

43In February 2022, during the events leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Mother, aged 23, her Former Partner, and the maternal aunt, A.Y, packed some belongings, and fled Ukraine.

44On March 22, 2022, given the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, the Paternal Grandmother left Ukraine for France with the Young Paternal Aunt. The Paternal Grandfather joined them in February 2023. The Paternal Grandmother and the Young Paternal Aunt lived with a French family rent free as many people were trying to help Ukrainian mothers and children. Eventually, the paternal family rented their own home.

45Displaced by the Russian invasion, from February 2022 until November 2022, (approximately 9 months) the Child lived in various European countries with his Mother, her Former Partner and the maternal aunt, A.Y.

46The Child attended Kindergarten in Georgia and participated in outings, lessons, performances and creative workshops. The Child was also enrolled in virtual speech and language sessions in Ukraine at this time.

47This was a period of significant stress and uncertainty for the Mother. The Mother tried to maintain as much normalcy as possible for the Child. However, the atmosphere in many places became uncomfortable and isolating for Ukrainians. It was an extremely difficult time to find affordable accommodation because of the mass refugee arrival.

48The Mother applied for the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel (“CUAET”) program for herself and the Child to have an option for safe relocation to Canada, if necessary.

49The Mother was required to travel back to Ukraine to have the Child’s passport renewed. The Child remained with the maternal aunt, A.Y. and the Mother’s Former Partner. The Child was not seen to experience any negative reactions to the Mother’s absence.

50The hope was that the war would end, and the family could return to Ukraine.

51The Paternal Grandmother remained in contact and would often check-in. The Paternal Grandmother offered for the Mother, her Former Partner and the Child to live with her in France. As the war continued, the Mother decided it was time to settle in France with the Child’s paternal family.

52The Paternal Grandmother is a lawyer, and the Paternal Grandfather is an engineer by training, and they plan to both work in their professions when they have learned French sufficiently.

53The Mother maintained her IT employment remotely for a Ukrainian company.

The Child’s Relocation to France

54The Mother organized a “pirate adventure” for the Child’s 7^th^ birthday and explained to the Child they needed to travel to find his presents. They flew to Barcelona, Spain, toured the city and then arrived in Carcassonne, France, on November 28, 2022.

55While living in France, the Child enjoyed Ukrainian foods including dumplings, a dish with cabbage, meatballs, and cutlets. The Child could use a fork and other utensils when eating. The Child was photographed neatly eating ice cream and meatballs.

56There was a big celebration at New Years, which was consistent with Ukrainian culture.

57Within two weeks of the Child’s arrival in France he was enrolled at […] school in Carcassonne, France. At the same time, the Child continued on-line classes from a teacher in Ukraine to support his reading and writing in his first language.

58The Child spent a lot of time with the paternal family regularly staying with them 2-4 days per week overnight. The paternal Grandparents were very involved in the Child’s life and took him to some of his medical and dental appointments and other activities, including bicycle riding and rowing. The Child played Lego, with his Great Paternal Grandmother and even crocheted.

59The Child attended Sunday school and was friends with other children at […] school and Sunday school. The Mother and the Child’s Godmother began to teach the Child the English language. The Child struggled with French. Neither the Mother nor the Mother’s Former Partner spoke French, so they were unable to help the Child effectively with his studies. The Mother worried about her employment situation and her limited ability to obtain employment in France because of the language barrier.

60In February 2023, the Mother was falsely informed that her father, the Child’s Maternal Grandfather, was recently shot in the war in Ukraine. As a result of this news, the Mother experienced severe anxiety and insomnia.

61The Mother returned to Ukraine to see her psychiatrist for about two weeks and the Child was cared for by her Former Partner and the Paternal Grandmother. The Mother was diagnosed with depression and was prescribed medication.

62When the Child was left, the Child was not observed to have any negative reactions to the Mother’s absence.

63Prior to his arrival in Canada, the Child was observed by those adults around him at the time as affectionate, joyful and to have a strong bond with his Mother.

64The Child was not observed to ever display any sexualized behaviours.

65The Mother and her Former Partner amicably separated. After their separation, the Child initially remained connected with the Former Partner sending him chats and photos of cats.

Meeting the Kith Caregivers’ Online

66On June 22, 2023, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., then unknown to the Mother and the Child, contacted the Mother, via social media, to offer to rent them their renovated basement apartment for $1,100 monthly, with a shared upstairs shower. The rental conditions included that the place had to be kept very clean and there is no meat, dairy, or fish allowed in the home because the Kith Caregivers are vegan.

67The Kith Caregivers charged the Mother $1,200 monthly rent. This was not a sponsorship or charitable arrangement.

The Kith Caregivers Plans to Adopt

68In 2019, the Kith Caregivers, who are middle-aged and have no children, began to live together in Toronto, Ontario.

69During cross-examination, the Kith Caregiver, S.C. gave evidence that they looked into adoption with the CAST. They attended multiple adoption sessions and had a meeting with a CAST adoption worker. From those meetings, the Kith Caregivers learned that there are few children in Ontario available for adoption.

70The Kith Caregivers purchased a larger home to support their adoption prospects. The COVID pandemic interrupted the adoption plans, and a home assessment was not completed by CAST.

Child’s Arrival in Canada

71On July 20, 2023, the Child (aged 7.5) and the Mother (aged 24) arrived in Toronto.

72The Child continued to have access with his Paternal Grandparents and Young Paternal Aunt through Telegram, an instant messaging service, several times per month.

73Around the same time, in July 2023, the Mother met the Husband. The Husband is a software engineer. He is originally from Mexico, but was living in San Diego, California and working for an American bank, while running an online community for software developers. The Husband organized discussion groups about new technologies, which the Mother joined. For the next few months, the Mother and the Husband stayed in touch as colleagues and friends, and eventually they would get married.

74In Canada, the Mother registered the Child for camp, for school, and took the Child to the walk-in clinic to address his occasional medical needs. The Mother and the Child visited museums, libraries, and community events to help the Child adjust to life in Toronto.

75The Child spent time with the Kith Caregivers and their pets. The living arrangements included a shared kitchen and a shared second-floor bathroom for showering, so the Child interacted with the Kith Caregivers frequently and the Kith Caregivers provided childcare.

76The Mother acknowledged occasional misunderstandings between her and the Kith Caregivers, which she attributed to cultural differences and the emotional effects of war and displacement. For example:

[a] On one occasion, the Child became ill. The Kith Caregivers would not permit the Child to go upstairs to the kitchen, but instead required the Child to remain in the basement. Later when the Kith Caregivers became ill, they blamed the Mother, claiming they had warned her repeatedly to keep the Child in the basement.

[b] The Kith Caregivers expressed concern about the Child’s bathing, and making his own cereal, which he ate frequently. The Mother explained in her culture it is normal for children to learn small self-care tasks as part of building responsibility.

[c] The Mother was working for a Ukrainian IT company and because of her work schedule to accommodate time-zone differences, the Mother would occasionally rest longer during the day. The Kith Caregiver’s found fault with the Mother for not being out of bed earlier.

77There are no concerns about the Child’s attendance, behaviour or academic progress noted on his November 10, 2023, report card.

Child and Mother Move to Their Own Place

78On December 1, 2023, after four months of living with the Kith Caregivers, the Mother and the Child moved out and found a different rental accommodation. The Mother enrolled the Child in a new school in her catchment area.

79The Kith Caregivers invited the Mother and the Child to spend time with them. The Kith Caregivers took a very active interest in the Child.

80In January 2024, the Maternal Aunt, travelled to Toronto for three weeks. The Maternal Aunt observed many positive interactions and had no concerns for the Mother’s care of the Child.

81On February 8, 2024, the Mother continued to take the Child to the doctor for occasional medical issues.

82In February 2024, the Mother lost her job. The stress of the war, relocating, social isolation, the sudden employment loss and financial worries were overwhelming.

The Kith Caregivers’ Continuous Offers for Respite Child Care

83The Kith Caregivers continually offered to provide respite care for the Child.

84On February 25, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., sent a message “we love having him here. It’s lovely. He’s a wonderful child who is curious and excited about the world. He can come back anytime.”

85The Mother provided the daycare with consent for the Kith Caregivers to pick up the Child from daycare on February 29, 2024.

86The Kith Caregiver, S.C., insisted in an email to the Mother sent February 29, 2024, that the Mother should plan all kinds of activities for the Child for March Break 2024, “insisting the Child needed lots of stimulation and challenge” despite being aware of her mental health struggles. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated “of course we will support whatever you choose but I hope you will consider what I am saying here.”

87On March 16, 2024, the Child called the Paternal Grandmother on Telegram and said it was very difficult, he did not like the Kith Caregivers, he was worried about his Mother, and he wanted to go back to France be with his paternal family.

Kith Caregivers Emotional Reactions Negatively Impact the Child

88On March 20, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., wrote to the Mother:

I asked [the Child] about March Break and he said he was indoors watching TV most of the time. Maybe he could see my distress. I was very very sad to hear that. But not mad…I am mainly sad that poor [the Child] feels bad. I’m so sorry for that. He is a sensitive boy, and I need to hide my feelings more gracefully.

89Despite stating that she was “supportive of whatever” the Mother chose for March Break, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., was “distressed” and “very very sad” about the Mother’s choices, and her feelings where clearly shared with the Child and negatively impacted him.

Mother Seeking Professional Medical Assistance

90On March 27, 2024, the Mother attended Michael Garron Hospital to seek help. She was assessed and a referral was made to psychiatry.

91On March 28, 2024, the Child spent the day with the Mother and then was taken to the Kith Caregivers’ home for respite caregiving at 6:30 p.m. While in the Kith Caregivers’ care that evening, the Child’s ankles and heels were hurting after walking. The Kith Caregivers forgot to mention this to the Mother until the next day, and then the Kith Caregiver, S.C., indicated it was not an emergency and suggested the Child should see a doctor next week.

92On April 5, 2024, the Mother took the Child to the doctor to address the Child’s foot discomfort and pain, and then took him to school.

93The Mother advised the Kith Caregiver, S.C., that the Child required orthotic inserts, and physiotherapy was reportedly recommended, and the Mother asked the Kith Caregiver, S.C., if physiotherapy was covered for children in Ontario. It was also recommended that the Child have new shoes every six months.

Voluntary Services with the CAST

94On April 9, 2024, the Mother and the Kith Caregivers and social worker with Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”) were in a meeting at the Child’s school.

95The TDSB social worker called the CAST, with the Mother’s consent, and among other things, advised that the Child had a Paternal Grandmother living in France, and wrongly informed the CAST that the Kith Caregivers had “sponsored” the Mother and the Child.

First Visit From the CAST Intake Worker

96On April 11, 2024, CAST intake worker, Shelly-Ann Riley, visited the Mother and asked the Mother whether the Mother could move back in with the Kith Caregivers. This was not possible because the Kith Caregivers needed the space for their adoption.

97The Kith Caregivers had openly discussed their desire to adopt with the Mother. They told the Mother they wanted to adopt a child around the Child’s age and told her when they adopt, they would not want contact with an adopted child’s biological family.

Mother’s Meeting with Psychiatrist – Dr. Zener

98On April 17, 2024, the Mother met with her psychiatrist from Michael Garron Hospital, and her next appointment was not scheduled until June 13, 2024.

Voluntary Agreement for the Child to Reside Temporarily with Kith Caregivers

99On April 24, 2024, the CAST worker and CAST supervisor signed a Voluntary Working Agreement (“VWA”).

100On April 25, 2024, the Mother signed the VWA. The Father and the Kith Caregivers did not sign the VWA.

101The VWA stated that the parties agree to several things, including:

[a] [The Child’s] basic needs (shelter, food, clothing, education and health) have been met in the care of [the Mother] prior to CAS involvement.

[b] [The Mother] and [the Child] have the support of [Kith Caregivers] friends with whom she had resided from July – November 2023.

[c] [The Child] is presently safe in the care of [Kith Caregivers] with the consent of [the Mother].

First Family Services Worker Assigned – May 7, 2024, to January 3, 2025

102Ms. Paolozza was assigned on May 7, 2024. At this time the Mother was suicidal and engaging in cutting. The Mother was socially isolated and lacked supports.

103The Husband suggested the Mother go to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico where he could support her because the Husband was unable to travel to Canada and the Mother was unable to travel to the United States.

104The Mother was confident that the Child would be safe with the Kith Caregivers. However, the Mother raised concerns about the Child’s restrictive diet and told the CAST that she and the Child are not vegan. She also said that her relationship with the Kith Caregivers was complex and that she felt that she could not speak freely about disagreements because she worried about them getting upset.

105On May 21, 2024, the Child told Ms. Paolozza he was not worried about his Mother going to Mexico because she had left before and always returned.

Mother Leaves for A Trip to Mexico

106On May 25, 2024, the Mother left Canada for Mexico for 18 days returning June 12, 2024.

107The Mother’s departure marked a significant change in her relationship with the Kith Caregivers, who had been relatively supportive up until that point.

108The Kith Caregiver, S.C. reported that following the Mother’s departure the Child was crying so hard that he would sweat and gag, screaming at night, bedwetting and had nightmares. No medical attention was sought for the Child.

109Ms. Paolozza admitted in her testimony that she found it concerning that the Kith Caregivers reported that the Child was so upset because only 4 days before, the Child told Ms. Paolozza that he was not worried.

Protection Application Issued

110On June 3, 2024, the Protection Application was issued, and the first appearance date was scheduled for June 28, 2024.

111On June 12, 2024, the Mother returned from Mexico and met Ms. Paolozza. The Mother met with her psychiatrist Dr. Zener from Michael Garron Hospital as scheduled the following day.

112Positive access visits were observed between the Mother and the Child.

113On June 20, 2024, the Kith Caregivers, the CAST workers and the Mother met and agreed that the goal was reunification with the Mother when she was stable.

Mother Leaves for Mexico a Second Time

114On June 21, 2024, the Mother left for Mexico for 6 weeks to seek mental health and social supports, and she returned August 6, 2024.

115On June 28, 2024, a “without prejudice” order was made placing the Child with the Kith Caregivers without any terms, and access, which remains the operative temporary order. The Mother attended remotely from Mexico. The Father did not attend and had not been served.

116During these weeks of the summer, the Child spent time walking, having playdates, and going to the beach with the Kith Caregivers.

117In Mexico, the Mother sought psychological care from a clinical psychologist and was evaluated by a psychiatrist.

118In early August 2024, when the Mother returned from Mexico, she was treatment-focused and wanted support from CAST to find a dialectic behavior therapy (“DBT”) program, which she found through CAMH. The Mother remained connected with her psychiatrist in Toronto.

119The Mother repeatedly expressed concern to Ms. Paolozza about the Kith Caregivers being unsupportive of her and influencing the Child against her, specifically telling the Child she had abandoned him and that she went to another country “for fun”, despite being fully aware of the Mother’s mental health crisis.

120On August 13, 2024, during the Child’s visit, the Child asked the Mother not to leave him again. The Mother told the Child she would have to leave sometimes, but she would always come back for him. The Child and the Mother had a positive access visit.

121In September 2024, the Child started Grade 4.

122In September 2024, the Mother’s access visits with the Child moved from the CAST office to the Yonge Street Mission, once a week for two hours and remained fully supervised.

123In September 2024, the Mother’s Husband travelled to Toronto and stayed until early December 2024. The Kith Caregivers were expressing concerns about the Child being introduced to the Husband because they say he was a stranger.

124On September 8, 2024, the Mother suggested to Ms. Paolozza finding the Child a psychologist after issues continued to be reported by the Kith Caregivers following the Mother’s positive supervised access visits.

125On September 23, 2024, Ms. Paolozza sent an email to the Kith Caregivers. Ms. Paolozza shared the CAST was observing a pattern of positive visits with the Mother and the Child, and that there were concerns about the Kith Caregivers telling the Child negative things about the Mother and the Husband, as well as pressuring the Child. Ms. Paolozza also advised that the Mother seeking to have the Child returned to her care.

Financial Pressure Exerted on the Mother by the Kith Caregivers

126Within hours of Ms. Paolozza’s email being sent, the Kith Caregivers requested that the Mother repay a loan they had made to her within 3 months, which the Mother agreed to do.

127A few days later, on October 1, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, L.B., sent an email to the Mother that stated that the Mother was doing something illegal when she asked the Child’s daycare provider to write a letter for CRA confirming the Child lived with the Mother from 2023 to March 2024. The Kith Caregiver, L.B., asserted in his email that the Child “was living with us for much of that time”.

128As a result, the Mother was unable to obtain that letter from the daycare provider and the Mother had to repay to the Canada Revenue Agency $2,000 for the Child Tax Benefit. Notwithstanding that the Child was residing with the Mother in July 2023 to March 2024, and the VWA was not signed until April 25, 2024.

Positive Access Observed but Continuous Concerns Raised by the Kith Caregivers

129The Child and the Mother had consistently positive visits in October and the Child was asking when he would be returned to the Mother.

130However, issues continued to be raised by the Kith Caregivers.

131The Kith Caregivers also overstepped their role and told the Child the Mother intended to get married before the Mother was able to share her news. Ms. Paolozza repeatedly apologized to the Mother for this on October 23, 2024.

132The Kith Caregivers continued to tell the Child negative things about his Mother at this time for example: the Mother “makes bad decisions”, the Mother “had offended [the Kith Caregivers].” The Kith Caregivers also spoke negatively about the Husband and encouraged the Child not to talk about the Husband.

133The Mother’s access was not expanded despite her requests and the positive visits.

134On October 25, 2024, the Mother and her Husband were married.

135The Kith Caregiver reporting that the Child was having tantrums, screaming, stomach upset and was not eating, and that he was calling his Mother names, which was reportedly new behaviour for the Child. There was no medical evidence or other supports sought for the Child.

136At the same time, on October 29, 2024, Ms. Paolozza observed a positive access visit.

137On November 14, 2024, the Child and the Mother had another positive access visit supervised by Yonge Street Mission with no concerns noted:

[a] The Child, who was in good spirits, went to the Mother and gave her a hug immediately.

[b] The Mother brought new shoes for the Child. The Child was excited and tried them on immediately.

[c] The Mother brought food for the Child, which the Child stated was “delicious”.

[d] The Child and the Mother cuddled on the bean bag together. The Child was observed to laugh. They were observed to be playful together. The Mother was affectionate with the Child.

[e] The Child was insistent that they call the Husband, but he did not answer.

Intake Session Completed with Child and Youth Support Worker

138On November 15, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., completed an intake session with the Child and Youth Support Worker, which was recorded on an Intake Report.

Positive Access Observed but Continuous Concerns Raised by the Kith Caregivers

139On November 21, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., emailed Ms. Paolozza that the Child did not sleep well and was saying his Mother tricked him into playing Minecraft with the Husband and expressed worry that the Mother was finding tricky ways to get the Child to do what she wants.

140Ms. Paolozza reviewed the November 14, 2025, contact log, and it was clear that the Child was insistent on playing Minecraft and the Mother had not tricked him.

141On November 21, 2024, the Mother and the Child had a positive access visit, and the contact log indicated:

[a] The Child was hugging his Mother. The Child and the Mother were in good spirits.

[b] The Child and the Mother spoke in Russian.

[c] The Child and the Mother played foosball together. The Child was animated and excited and the Mother and the Child laughed as they played together.

[d] The Mother was affectionate and gave the Child a hug and kiss. The Mother and the Child shared a long hug and exchanged lots of kisses.

[e] The Child said with a smile that he would see her next week.

142On November […], 2024, it was the Child’s 9^th^ birthday. The Mother was prepared with decorations and gifts. This was a positive visit.

143Despite these positive visits, the Kith Caregivers continuously reported concerns to the CAST workers.

144On November 28, 2024, the Mother and the Husband expressed serious concerns to Ms. Paolozza about the Kith Caregivers’ continued attempts to negatively influence the Child as well as the lack of expansion of the Child’s time with the Mother.

145The stressors of access visits, the ongoing allegations from the Kith Caregivers, and the Husband leaving were all seriously impacting the Mother’s mental health.

146On December 3, 2024, Ms. Paolozza attended the Kith Caregivers’ home with the Kin Services Worker, Youli Arsenault (“Ms. Arsenault”), and discussed:

[a] The workers explained the importance of neutrality around the access visits so that the Child feels he has a safe space to return to where he is not feeling conflicted about the information he is receiving from his Mother during the visits and information he is receiving from the Kith Caregivers after the visits.

[b] Ms. Paolozza discussed the Mother’s access expanding, and the Kith Caregivers raised some scheduling issues based on their family plans.

Positive Access Visit

147On December 5, 2024, the Mother and the Child had another positive access visit, with no concerns noted.

148On December 10, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., wrote in an email sent to the Child and Youth Support Worker, prior to his second visit, with her perspectives describing the Mother in only negative ways.

Mother’s Access Visit with the Child

149On December 12, 2024, the Mother and the Child had another positive access visit and no concerns were noted, and the contact log indicated:

[a] The Child was in good spirits. The Child ran to give his Mother a hug. The Mother hugged him and kissed him. The Mother was very affectionate with the Child.

[b] The Mother brought “a Russian dish” for the Child and the Child ate it and said it was “good”.

[c] The Child called his Mother “mama” and gave her a hug. The Mother held the Child in her arms and kissed him.

[d] The Child and the Mother drew together, and the Mother complimented the Child’s drawing.

Mother Left for San Diego, California

150On December 17, 2024, the Mother left Canada for the third and longest time, for over seven months, returning on August 3, 2025.

151The Mother admitted that she knew this would impact and hurt the Child, but she was afraid of being alone as a result of her Husband moving back to the United States, her housing was unstable, and her mental health situation was deteriorating. The Mother did not feel the CAST supported her reunification with the Child after the Kith Caregivers repeatedly raised issues with her access visits.

152On December 28, 2024, the Kith Caregivers wrote an email to the Mother stating:

“If leaving [the Child] with us more permanently really is what you want, we feel able to provide him with a safe and happy home. He is a beautiful boy with such a good heart - it is a joy to have him in our lives...

The money you sent last week has enabled us to meet some of those needs, and we should talk about what this would look like in the future.”

153The Kith Caregiver, S.C., forwarded a copy of the email to Ms. Arsenault and Ms. Paolozza. The Mother never responded to their email.

154While the Mother was exercising virtual access, the Kith Caregivers imposed numerous restrictions to the Child’s virtual access with the Mother. They prohibited them from watching movies together, playing online games, or doing other interactive activities.

155The Mother wanted to include the Child’s Godmother, which the Child also wanted initially, but the Kith Caregivers did not permit her to join the virtual visits.

156The Kith Caregivers continued to raise issues with the CAST about the Child’s behaviours after his access visits with his Mother.

New CAS Worker Assigned

157Ms. Levstein was the assigned Family Services Worker from January 3, 2025, to July 15, 2025.

158On January 7, 2025, Ms. Levstein and her supervisor met to review the file, and the notes indicate there have been no concerns noted during access by CAST or Yonge Street Mission, and the Child had no concerns.

159From the first meeting with Ms. Levstein, the Mother began to feel significant pressure from the CAST and the Kith Caregivers to give up her “parental rights permanently” so the Kith Caregivers could keep the Child long-term. In her first conversation with Ms. Levstein, the Mother felt she was told she needed to give up the Child and that there was no way she could ever take care of the Child. The Mother confirmed this in an email sent January 17, 2025.

160On January 13, 2025, the Kith Caregivers shared with Ms. Levstein, during a home visit, that they would be prepared to keep the Child permanently.

161On January 20, 2025, the Kith Caregivers emailed the Child and Youth Support Worker, before the Child’s fifth visit and indicated they would not allow the Mother to join the sessions and stated: “The trust and privacy he feels with you is invaluable and needs to be protected.”

Mother’s Contact with the FSW

162On January 28, 2025, Ms. Levstein spoke to the Mother. The Mother also shared that she was engaged in therapy in Mexico and taking her medication. The Mother expressed wanting the Child in therapy, and concerns about the paternal family, which she reiterated in more serious terms in March 2025.

January 30, 2025 – OCL Appointment

163On January 30, 2025, the OCL was appointed but did not meet with the Child until March 2025.

Kith Caregivers Contact With the Child and Youth Support Worker

164On February 7, 2025, the Kith Caregivers emailed the Child and Youth Support Worker (emphasis added):

We forgot to get back to you about [the Child’s] next session.

CAST is moving to a Section 102, which would effectively deliver [the Child] permanently into our care. We have started preparing [the Child] for both the reality that his mum will not be able to care for him, and a life with us as part of his family, not just temporary caregivers.

165On February 26, 2025, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., emailed the Child and Youth Support Worker after neglecting to schedule any appointments in February:

[The Child] has come to understand that he will not go and live with his mother again as a child. …

Amended Pleading

166The CAST amended its Protection Application, issued February 27, 2025, to seek a section 102 deemed custody order placing the Child with the Kith Caregivers.

167A case conference was held on February 28, 2025. The original OCL lawyer was present but had yet to meet with the Child.

The Mother Indicates Her Intention to Return to Canada

168In April 2025, the Mother indicated she was feeling better, her medication was sorted out so it was no longer giving her side effects, and she was ready to return to Canada to continue the reunification process. The Mother began looking for jobs in Canada and saving money in order to afford first and last months’ rent.

The Mother’s Access Visits are Cancelled and Other Concerns are Raised

169On May 29, 2025, the Kith Caregivers cancelled the Child’s virtual visit with his Mother that week as the Child was “too emotionally drained after hearing the letter from his Father”.

170On June 20, 2025, the Mother wrote to Ms. Levstein and requested that a neutral third party supervise her access visits with the Child as the Kith Caregiver, S.C., was monitoring and intervening during the virtual access and it was having a negative impact on the Child.

171On June 20, 2025, the Mother observed that the Child appeared to look frightened of the Kith Caregiver, S.C., when the Kith Caregiver, S.C., intervened in their virtual access.

172For the first time, on June 20, 2025, Ms. Levstein provided the Mother with the contact information for the Child and Youth Support Worker. On the same day, the Mother emailed the Child and Youth Support Worker. A week later, the Child and Youth Support Worker responded and stated they could not share further information without speaking with the Child.

Mother’s Complaint to CAST

173On June 25, 2025, the Mother sent an email to the CAST with a formal complaint about the failure to act in the best interests of the Child and maintain neutrality and fairness. The Mother felt that Ms. Levstein pressured her to give up the Child and said there were no alternatives. A new worker was assigned.

Mother’s Support for the Father Impacted her Relationship With the Child

174On June 27, 2025, Father’s access motion was granted. It was opposed by the CAST, the OCL and the Kith Caregivers. The Mother consented to this motion.

175After the Mother supported the Father’s access the Child began to tell the Mother strange things and calling her “sick.” The Child said that he was angry with the Mother because she was allowing the Father to have access with him.

176The Child began saying that the Mother “never took him to the doctor”, that she had “a lot of boyfriends” and then would abruptly end their virtual visits.

177On July 31, 2025, Ms. Williams met with the Kith Caregivers in their home:

[a] Ms. Williams discussed with the Kith Caregivers the importance of supporting the Child’s access visits with his parents and how they can go about doing this.

[b] The Kith Caregivers said they would like to parent the Child permanently.

[c] Ms. Williams advised the Kith Caregivers of the need to seek reunification with the Mother, and/or the Father, according to the CYFSA, while at the same time concurrently planning for an alternative such as the Kith Caregivers continuing to care for the Child.

The Mother’s Return to Canada

178On August 3, 2025, the Mother returned to Canada.

179Ms. Williams and the Mother met in-person at the CAST office on August 5, 2025, and on that day the Mother indicated and shared that she was doing well and that her mental health had been stable for 4-5 months. She will remain in Canada, seek employment, and enroll in the Triple P Parenting Program the following day. She was hoping to obtain an understanding of how to support the Child with his feelings around her leaving him.

180The Mother provided Ms. Williams with signed consents for the CAST to follow up with her therapist, her husband, as well as consent to obtain the Mother’s medical records from Michael Garron Hospital. The Mother told all of her collateral supports to expect a call from Ms. Williams, but they were never contacted.

Parents’ Access Schedule

181Once the Mother returned, the Child’s access schedule, was a total of 2.5 hours per week with both his parents, as follows:

[a] Tuesdays – In-Person fully supervised 1 hour with the Mother

[b] Wednesdays – Virtual 30 minutes with the Mother

[c] Thursdays – Virtual 30 minutes with the Father

[d] Fridays – Virtual 30 minutes with the Father

Mother Attended Michael Garron Hospital

182On August 14, 2025, the Mother also attended Michael Garron Hospital and was seen by psychiatrist Dr. Derek Zhang. No current concerns about her mental health were noted.

Positive Access Visit

183On August 14, 2025, the Mother resumed in-person access visits. During the first visit, the Child told his Mother that he did not want to speak in Russian as he had forgotten some of the words. At the end of the visit, the Child asked when he would see his Mother again. They shared a hug.

184The Child told Ms. William that he thought the visit went well and there were no concerns. Ms. Williams observed that it was a good visit.

Positive Access Visits and Kith Caregivers Reporting Concerns

185On August 18, 2025, Kith Caregiver, S.C., sent an email to the CAST workers, and the OCL that reported the Child was experiencing extremely concerning levels of anxiety, stress, anger and melancholy, as well:

She took the Child to a walk-in appointment at Yorktown Family Services that day and she stated that his current state is considered “serious”, and he had been added to their waiting list for ongoing psychological care.

In the meantime, we will be taking him to their Jamestown location for walk-in appointments every other week.

186Despite the alleged severity of the Child’s behaviours that the Kith Caregivers reported, there was no evidence the Kith Caregivers ever took the Child to any future walk-in appointments.

187The next day, on August 19, 2025, Ms. William’s supervised the Child’s in-person access with his Mother. Ms. Williams observed that the visit went well. Ms. Williams met with the Child afterwards and he reported no concerns.

188But later that day the Kith Caregiver, S.C., emailed Ms. Williams, and stated that the Child came home “panicked and threw up and was in much distress.” The Kith Caregiver, S.C. stated that the Child did not want to have access with either parent.

189On August 20, 2025, Ms. Williams’s contact log indicates that she stated concerns about the Kith Caregivers with Ms. Arsenault. She noted that the Kith Caregivers delayed the planning of access for the parents and did not respond to an email regarding planning and securing the Mother’s in-person visits and virtual visits, but yet were being responsive to all other emails sent to them. Ms. Williams advised as follows:

[a] Ms. Williams met with the Child privately after his visit with his Mother yesterday, which she had supervised and the Child reported that he had a good time with his Mother, which now differs from what the Kith Caregiver is reporting via email.

[b] Ms. Williams asked the Kith Caregivers to provide the contact information for the Yorktown counsellor they met with so she could review that person’s assessment.

190There was no evidence filed that confirmed a visit to Yorktown Family Services or any observations, assessment or recommendations made by Yorktown Family Services.

191There was no evidence that the Kith Caregivers ever provided the contact information to the CAST as requested by Ms. Williams.

FSW Has Difficulty Scheduling a Private Meeting with the Child

192Ms. Williams testified that it was difficult to schedule a home visit to meet with the Child through the Kith Caregivers, as the Kith Caregivers were not responsive to her emails and eventually Ms. Arsenault went out and met with the Child in person. Repeated attempts were reportedly made by Ms. Williams.

Meeting with Mother and FSW

193The Mother met with Ms. Williams again at the CAST office on August 25, 2025. The Mother shared she was compliant with her medication and attended Michael Garron hospital. She was mentally stable and doing well. She was seeing her therapist virtually in Mexico weekly. She would be starting employment as a software engineer. Her Husband would be moving to Canada to support her plan, and she wanted Ms. Williams to meet her husband.

194Ms. Williams admitted in cross-examination that she has not reached out to the Mother’s therapist or psychiatrist, despite the Mother’s consent for her to do so.

Child’s Letter to His Mother

195On August 26, 2025, during the Child’s supervised visit with the Mother, the Child brought with him a letter read it to his Mother. The Child stated he does not want to live with the Mother and wishes to live with the Kith Caregivers.

196The Mother reportedly listened keenly and validated his feelings. She did not try to sway the Child’s expressed statements.

Kith Caregivers and OCL Obtain Evidence from the Child and Youth Support Worker

197On August 29, 2025, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., emailed the OCL and the Child and Youth Support Worker about the preparation of a letter prepared by the Kith Caregivers to be reviewed with the Child and Youth Support Worker with the Child. The Child was described as being in a “bad state”, but an appointment was not requested or offered, despite the Child and Youth Support Worker not seeing the Child since August 7, 2025.

FSW Contacting Kith Caregivers

198On August 29, 2025, Ms. Williams contacted the Kith Caregiver, L.B., who reported that the Child was having great difficulty having access with his parents, and that the Child did not want to have access with either parent for the week of September 2, 2025, as the Child would like to focus on his first week of school.

Home Visit at Mother’s Home

199On September 4, 2025, Ms. Williams attended the Mother’s home, which had working smoke detectors and was “orderly”.

200On September 9, 2025, the Mother and the Child had an in-person visit supervised by CAST access worker Dianne Clayton.

[a] The Child expressed a desire to make his own decisions, such as continuing to live with the Kith Caregivers.

[b] The Child expressed that he wanted no contact with the Paternal Grandmother.

[c] The Mother listened keenly to the Child and asked him relevant and open-ended questions.

[d] The visit was child centered. The visit was child focused.

[e] The Child spoke at length about all the changes he has been through with transitioning, adjusting to life in Canada, and residing with the Kith Caregivers.

[f] The Mother and the Child made paper airplanes with each other and shared smiles and giggles.

[g] They were able to interact/engage in a lighthearted way. The Child quickly offered to help the Mother build a paper plane when she was struggling to do it by herself.

[h] The Mother asked the Child what he liked, and he said puzzles, and badminton.

[i] The Mother gently encouraged the Child to “give family a try because at the end of the day they are still your family”.

[j] The Child told the Mother he would attend access next week.

Kith Caregivers Asked to Complete a Psychological Assessment

201On September 15, 2025, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., advised Ms. Williams the Child was struggling with his access with his Father. The Kith Caregivers have told the Child many times that he will remain in their care. The Child is having nightmares, and they are exploring certain issues with his “therapist” because they feel it may be a trauma response.

202The Child was not seeing a therapist or even the Child and Youth Support Worker at that time.

203On September 15, 2025, Ms. Williams asked the Kith Caregivers to obtain a psychological assessment for the Child through the Hospital for Sick Children and to let Ms. Williams know when this was done so the process could be expediated.

204There was no documentary evidence provided to confirm that steps have been taken to obtain a psychological assessment for the Child either from Yorktown or the Hospital for Sick Children.

Child’s In-Person Access with the Mother

205On September 16, 2025, the Child had an access visit supervised by Dianne Clayton, and a contact log was provided. The Mother brought a badminton set and pizza, which the Child was excited about.

206However, during the access visit the Child said he was experiencing anxiety and felt overwhelmed with everything going on right now and wanted to take a break from access visits.

Second Home Visit with Mother Cancelled by CAST

207On October 9, 2025, Ms. Williams cancelled her second visit to the Mother’s home. This was not rescheduled until a few days before the trial for a date after the trial was anticipated to be completed.

Child Reportedly Refuses Access Before Trial

208On October 14, 2025, the Child’s access visit with his Mother was cancelled by the Kith Caregivers, as it was reported the Child did not want to attend.

209On October 15, 2025, Ms. Williams supervised a virtual access visit with the Child and his Mother, and the Child repeatedly stated that he did not want to have access with his Mother, he wanted to remain with the Kith Caregivers, and he has trouble sleeping and his access visits have been a lot.

210Ms. Williams testified that it appeared that the Child was instructed to end the call.

Express Concerns from the Maternal Aunts

211By letter, dated September 10, 2025, the maternal aunts wrote to the CAST to express their concerns about the Child, specifically:

[a] The Child can no longer communicate in Russian and he is losing his connection to his extended family, his language and his culture.

[b] Visits used to be every two weeks but the visits over the last year have been: November 25, 2024, February 2, 2025, March 16, 2025, June 21, 2025, and September 6, 2025.

[c] More than once, they communicated with the Kith Caregivers that the Child’s relatives and Godmother wish to speak with him. The Kith Caregivers would reply that the Child had no time, no desire and was far too traumatized to communicate.

[d] The Kith Caregivers forbid them from speaking with the Child about his Mother.

[e] The Kith Caregivers would suggest to the maternal aunts many of the negative things the Child is now reportedly saying.

[f] The Kith Caregivers suggested to the maternal aunts that the Child had been inappropriately touched in the Ukraine and molested. The maternal aunts denied that the Child was ever inappropriately touched while he lived in the Ukraine, and he never had any signs suggesting he was molested as the Kith Caregivers alleged.

[g] The Maternal Aunt wants the Child to be independently assessed.

Cultural Supports

212On September 15, 2025, Ms. Williams discussed with the Kith Caregivers the importance of fostering the Child’s culture and use of his first language. The Kith Caregivers responded that the Child is uninterested in speaking Russian.

213The Kith Caregivers also responded that they are making concerted efforts to foster [the Child’s] identity and that he is residing in a multilingual house, as they speak two different languages. The Kith Caregivers are from “Anglo-Indian descent and a Danish newcomer with permanent residency.”

214Ms. Williams stated that it was important that the Child’s culture was fostered – which differs from their own culture, and they were asked to send an email of how they are fostering the Child’s culture.

215The Kith Caregivers never sent an email about how they were fostering the Child’s culture.

The Child’s Relationship with His Paternal Family

216Prior to the CAS involvement, the Child would use his own phone to call and message his paternal family several times per week.

217On April 14, 2024, the Child’s direct messaging communication with the paternal family stopped and the paternal family’s contact numbers had been blocked.

218On May 3, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother received two audio messages from the Child in Russian, through the maternal grandmother. The Child said he wanted to see her so much and that he loved her so much.

219On May 20, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother also received some strange voice messages in Russian that were sent to the maternal grandmother, which were meant for the Young Paternal Aunt, suggesting he was not allowed to talk to the Paternal Grandmother.

220On May 20, 2024, prior to leaving for Mexico, the Mother supported a video call for the Child with the paternal family.

221On May 28, 2024, while the Mother was in Mexico, the Child responded to the Young Paternal Aunt’s messages in Telegram in Russian for the last time.

222On June 6, 2024, the Mother reported to Ms. Paolozza that the Kith Caregivers had cut the Child off from his Paternal Grandmother and she was worried the Kith Caregivers would do the same to her.

223On June 8, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., responded to the Young Paternal Aunt through the Child’s messaging account and provided her contact information to give to the Paternal Grandmother.

224Immediately on June 8, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother asked to talk with the Child. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., wanted contact information for the Father. The Kith Caregivers provided the contact information for the CAST kinship workers but refused to allow a virtual visit with the Child. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., stating the Mother was against it.

225On June 11, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother emailed the CAST kinship workers. There was no response.

226On June 13, 2024, the day after she returned from Mexico, the Mother supported a virtual visit for the Child with the paternal family during her access visit.

Over a Year of Requests and Not One Visit

227Starting on June 8, 2024, and for the next 18 months, the Paternal Grandmother repeatedly and regularly requested virtual visits with the Child. She made those requests to the Kith Caregivers and the CAST.

228The Child also repeatedly requested visits.

229Not one virtual visit was ever scheduled.

230On June 28, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother sent a letter by email to Ms. Paolozza.

231On July 13, 2024, the Father began to serve in the Ukrainian army. The Father was originally stationed in Kursk and in order to obtain cell service the Father had to walk 20-30 kilometers. It made communicating with the CAST very challenging.

232On September 4, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, L.B., wrote to the Paternal Grandmother that during any visits with the Child there must be no conversation about the Mother or questions about where the Child wants to live. All questions about the Mother were to be directed to the Kith Caregivers. A visit was not scheduled.

233In September 2024, the Paternal Grandmother contacted Ms. Paolozza again to request access.

234On September 13, 2024, Ms. Paolozza and the Paternal Grandmother met by phone, through an interpreter.

235On October 7, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, L.B., wrote to the Paternal Grandmother that the “social workers have given permission for [the Child] to spend time playing with [the Young Paternal Aunt] on Roblox, but [the Mother] has very firmly blocked conversation with anyone else for now.”

236The Paternal Grandmother responded that the Young Paternal Aunt does not play Roblox, and she really wants to see the Child and communicate in video chat or Telegram or WhatsApp.

237A virtual visit was not scheduled.

238On October 24, 2024, the Kith Caregivers sent an email to the workers, which included the following:

Paternal Grandmother – Attached are the WhatsApp messages where we offered playdates for the [Child] and the [Young Paternal Aunt]. We asked [the Child] again today if he wants a video call with his grandma – he said no. Maybe he’s worried about how his mum would feel. A playdate with the [Young Paternal Aunt] might help him reconnect with this family. We have no personal stake in this argument – but we will not force [the Child] into a video call that has asked to avoid. He rarely says no. We take it seriously when he does.

239The Kith Caregivers told the Paternal Grandmother that the Mother “very firmly blocked the conversation.” However, the Kith Caregivers told the CAST it was the Child who was declining visits.

240On or about November 3, 2024, the Kith Caregivers wrote to the CAST workers that the Child wants to talk to the Young Paternal Aunt, but not his Paternal Grandmother.

241A virtual visit was not scheduled.

242On November 15, 2024, the Father emailed Ms. Paolozza and requested to know how to contact the Child and where he could send the Child’s birthday presents.

243On December 3, 2024, the Child told Ms. Paolozza he wanted to speak with his Young Paternal Aunt. A virtual visit was not scheduled.

244On December 3, 2024, Ms. Paolozza asked the Kith Caregivers to reach out to the Paternal Grandmother to offer virtual visits with the Young Paternal Aunt. The Kith Caregivers agreed to do this. A virtual visit was not scheduled.

245On December 6, 2024, the Young Paternal Aunt wrote to Ms. Paolozza requesting the ability to have access with the Child. Ms. Paolozza indicated that she reached out to the Kith Caregivers to contact the Paternal Grandmother.

246However, the Paternal Grandmother never heard from the Kith Caregivers.

247On December 13, 2024, the Paternal Grandmother sent an email to the Kith Caregiver, S.C. and indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Paolozza and requested the virtual meeting with the Child.

248On December 13, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., told Ms. Paolozza that the Paternal Grandmother had reached out but that the Child was “too upset to speak”.

249On December 13, 2024, the Father emailed Ms. Paolozza again and among other things asked for an address to send the Child Christmas gifts.

250On December 15, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., emailed the Paternal Grandmother and said the Child doesn’t feel like speaking right now. The Paternal Grandmother responded and shared that the Child’s Young Paternal Aunt was upset to learn that the Child does not want to communicate with her.

251On December 15, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., wrote:

… We will keep asking. We think it is so important for him to keep his family connections - but we don't want to force him. This will just take time and patience.

252On December 30, 2024, Kith Caregiver, L.B., wrote to the Paternal Grandmother and stated: “We continue to ask him if he would like to connect with you. At the moment, he has declined – but we will ask again.”

253On January 13, 2025, the Child again stated to the CAST workers that he wanted contact with the Paternal Grandmother, and it did not need to be supervised.

254A virtual visit was not scheduled.

255On January 6, and 17, 2025, the Father emailed Ms. Levstein again to ask how the Child was and on January 20, 2025, Ms. Levstein responded and stated that the Child does not want contact with the Father.

256On January 28, 2025, Ms. Levstein had a virtual meeting with the Father and the Paternal Grandmother. Ms. Levstein advised:

[a] She was going to connect the Child with his paternal family.

[b] The Child could call the Paternal Grandmother whenever he wanted, and that Ms. Levstein would reach out to the Kith Caregivers.

[c] The Child could not be moved as a result of his difficult psychological condition.

257In her testimony, the Paternal Grandmother explained that CAST was reporting that the Child was flourishing with the Kith Caregivers. But as soon as the Child might talk to his biological family his psychological condition would worsen.

258On January 30, 2025, the Paternal Grandmother sent a follow-up email to Ms. Levstein and Ms. Levstein replied to the Paternal Grandmother that her access did not need to be supervised, and that this information would be passed on to the Kith Caregivers.

259A virtual visit was not scheduled.

260After January 30, 2025, when the OCL was appointed, the Paternal Grandmother reached out to the initial OCL. There was no response.

261On February 4, 2025, Ms. Arsenault recorded in her notes that the Kith Caregivers “believe her involvement has a negative impact”. Ms. Levstein “agreed that continued contact with [the Paternal Grandmother] was not necessary but can be revisited as they see necessary”. During her testimony, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., confirmed this was their view.

262By March 14, 2025, the Child now stated he did not want contact with his Paternal Grandmother, expressing that she pressured him and tried to control him. The Child was still open to speaking with his Young Paternal Aunt, but worried the Paternal Grandmother would take over the conversation.

263A virtual visit was not scheduled.

264On March 25, 2025, the Paternal Grandmother emailed Ms. Levstein and again requested to communicate with the Child.

265The Paternal Grandmother also reached out to the Child’s current OCL. There was never a response from the OCL.

266By April 2025, the Paternal Grandmother was able to retain counsel in Canada. She experienced difficulties because she does not speak English but was able to retain counsel who spoke Russian.

Court Ordered Access

267After multiple counsel and party meetings to unsuccessfully re-establish access, the Father brought a motion.

268On June 27, 2025, the court heard and granted the Father’s motion to seek access with the Child. This motion was opposed by the CAST, the OCL and the Kith Caregivers. The Mother consented to this motion.

Father’s First Access Virtual Access

269On July 4, 2025, during the Father’s first access visit his impression was that the Child was already incited against him. From the moment they first spoke, the Child said, “leave me with [the Kith Caregivers]” and “leave me alone”.

Grandmother’s Motion to be Added as a Party and for Access

270On September 9, 2025, the case management judge heard a motion brought by the Paternal Grandmother to be added as a party and for access for the Child with his Paternal Grandmother, Paternal Grandfather, and his Aunt. The Motion was not granted.

271This motion was opposed by the CAST, the OCL and the Kith Caregivers. This motion was consented to by the Father and the Mother.

272At this motion an affidavit was relied upon by the court from the original OCL clinician who was also an employee of the CAST, which was not disclosed to the parties or the court at the time.

Kith Caregivers Raise Concerns about the Child’s Reactions to Access

273On September 11, 2025, the Kith Caregivers stated that that the Child was in a “terrible state” following his access with his Father. The Child was “weeping on the floor, crawling into our arms and punching the table.” The Kith Caregivers stated that they kept encouraging the Child towards these calls and helped him to choose neutral topics like gardening or school. The Kith Caregivers stated that they worry they are pushing a “traumatized child into painful, stressful contact with someone he does not know.”

Child’s Missed Access Visits

274In September 2025, the Child attended only two of his eight court ordered access visits with his Father. On October 3, 7, and 10, 2025, the Child also did not join his virtual access visit with his Father.

Father Granted Leave From the Military

275On October 15, 2025, after the Father’s heart condition worsened, he was granted medical leave from the Ukrainian Army and was permitted to go to France. In France, the Father has seen a family doctor and has been referred to a cardiologist. The Father is adjusting after being a soldier in a war for over a year.

CREDIBILITY AND RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS

276Throughout the trial, the Court received evidence that was inconsistent with and in many instances conflicting with other evidence. Some of the allegations are serious and the consequences are serious. The Court must decide which evidence to accept.

277The Supreme Court of Canada recently summarized witness assessment in R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, at para. 146:

Whether evidence is accepted as fact by the trier of fact will depend on an assessment of the witness’s “credibility” and “reliability”. Credibility refers to a witness’s honesty or sincerity. Reliability, meanwhile, is about the accuracy of the witness’s testimony, referring to the witness’s ability to observe, recall, and recount events (see R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 244 O.A.C. 288, at para. 41).

Assessing credibility and reliability is not a science (see R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621, at para. 20).

Credibility and reliability are assessed based on various factors including the character, demeanor, and conditions and capabilities of the witness, the plausibility and internal consistency of the testimony, and supporting information; it is also assessed in light of its consistency with other facts and evidence (D. M. Paciocco, P. Paciocco and L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence (8th ed. 2020), at p. 593).

278In Jayawickrema v. Jayawickrema, 2020 ONSC 2492, at paragraph 28, Justice Jarvis summarized the relevant considerations when assessing credibility and reliability as follows:

As has been frequently observed, the assessment of witness credibility is an inexact science, impossible to articulate with precision. For example, a witness may impress the court with the coherence and logic, or common sense, of their narrative but be unreliable due to their interest in the outcome of the case or the lack of probative information. Or a witness may be so interested in a case that they are incapable of making an admission or facilitating the disclosure of information that they perceive as helpful to the other party and harmful to their case. These affect the weight to be given to that evidence. There is, quite simply, no one-size-fits-all template. Several of the many considerations relevant to the weighing and assessment of witness credibility and reliability, and relevant to his case, were comprehensively reviewed in Al-Sajee by Chappel J. who aptly observed that,

…the judge is not required by law to believe or disbelieve a witness’s testimony in its entirety. On the contrary, they may accept none, part or all of a witness’s evidence, and may also attach different weight to different parts of a witness’s evidence (citations omitted).

CAST Witnesses

279Ms. Williams is the current Family Services Worker. Overall, the Court found her credible and reliable, with the following concerns noted.

280There was some confusion around an access visit and a meeting in late September 2025, but this was a relatively minor issue.

281Ms. Williams clearly had some concerns about the Kith Caregivers’ conduct when scheduling the parents’ access, based on her contact logs, and she was not fully transparent about these concerns during her cross-examination.

282Ms. Williams admitted that she had not reviewed the Mother’s mental health assessment from Kaiser Permanente in California and that she had not followed up on any of the consents to speak with the Mother’s collaterals including the Mother’s psychotherapist in Mexico, or psychiatrists at Michael Garron Hospital.

283Ms. Paolozza is currently on leave from the CAST.

284Ms. Paolozza was straightforward and answered questions directly, she was balanced in her responses and in cross-examination. She admitted when she did not know something. She did not over-state her evidence. The Court found her credible and reliable.

285Ms. Levstein was not credible or reliable. She refused to admit obvious issues or make reasonable concessions. She was defensive, argumentative, and did not present as transparent.

286Additionally, Ms. Levstein routinely interrupted counsel and spoke over counsel before they had completed their questions. The Court reminded Ms. Levstein not to do this. She persisted and required repeated reminding. Ms. Levstein struggles to listen to others and allow others to speak without persistent interruption.

The Child and Youth Support Worker

287The Child and Youth Support Worker was credible. She was professional and clearly focused on doing her best to support the Child, although she was very inexperienced.

288The Child and Youth Support Worker has been working as a Child and Youth Support Worker since July 2024, which was only four months before she first met the Child.

289Prior to that time, she was an Early Childhood Education Assistant with the YMCA, and prior to that a Youth Counsellor for Norwegian Cruise Lines.

290The Court found her testimony mostly reliable. The Child and Youth Support Worker had a poor recollection of the last time she met with the Child. She also suggested that she had met with the Child every two weeks, which was inaccurate.

OCL’s Witness

291The New OCL Clinician was straightforward and balanced in her testimony. She readily admitted the limitations of her evidence. The Court found her both credible and reliable.

Kith Caregiver’s Witness, S.C.

292The Kith Caregiver, S.C., is not a reliable or credible witness. The Kith Caregiver presented as a complex, intelligent, and emotional person. She described herself as a “highly articulate wordsmith.”

293The trial affidavit of the Kith Caregiver, S.C. made constant negative and denigrated comments about the Mother, including petty criticisms, exaggerations, or inaccuracies. A few examples where the Kith Caregivers criticized the Mother include the following:

[a] For sending the Child to summer camp in Huntsville, in August 2023, although nothing negative occurred. The Child has subsequently been sent to camp by the Kith Caregivers.

[b] For the Child not showering within two days of their arrival.

[c] For her inappropriate Halloween Costume.

[d] For starting “clubs at her work” rather than focusing on her employment.

[e] For telling them how smart she was, how she had written a book, and that her father (the Child’s maternal grandfather) was a great hero.

[f] For ordering packages online.

294The trial affidavit of the Kith Caregiver, S.C. does not include any positive statements about the Mother, or her parenting.

295The Kith Caregiver, S.C., is clearly angry with the Mother. She expressed her anger towards the Mother in her email sent May 27, 2024, and called the Husband an a##hole. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., told the Child and Youth Support Worker during her Intake Session on November 15, 2024, that she was “angry and frustrated” with the Mother. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., also appeared to be seething with anger when she cross-examined the Mother, and the other Kith Caregiver, L.B., took over her questioning when she was unable to continue.

296The trial affidavit contains very little information about the Child.

297The Kith Caregiver’s affidavit and testimony was inconsistent with other credible witnesses who were present at the relevant times, other documentary evidence, and even the Kith Caregiver’s own evidence. These are only a few examples:

[a] Kith Caregiver’s Claims about Teaching the Child Skills – The Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated in her trial affidavit that the Child “could not properly use cutlery, held his food like a toddler, smashing food into his face like a toddler”, that Kith Caregiver, L.B. taught the Child to ride a bike and to swim, and that the Child struggled to hold a pen, knife, fork and similar tools.

i. This was inconsistent with other witnesses, including the Mother, the Maternal Aunt, E.Y., but also the Paternal Grandmother who testified that the Child ate using a fork.

ii. There were photos of the Child eating meatballs and mashed potatoes with a fork and ice cream neatly with a spoon.

iii. The Child could also crochet a straight stitch. The Child also put together intricate Lego pieces.

iv. The Child is photographed painting with large and small brushes, as well as colouring with markers. The Child has an effective tripod grip.

v. The Paternal Grandmother testified that she and the Child would ride their bikes together in France.

vi. There was a video of the Child riding his bike in France, months before meeting the Kith Caregivers.

vii. There were photos and a video showing the Child attending swimming lessons and swimming independently, years before meeting the Kith Caregivers.

[b] The Kith Caregivers’ Anger About the Mother’s First Trip to Mexico – May 25, to June 12, 2024 – In her testimony, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated that they were “really, really frightened” when the Mother went to Mexico in May 2024. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated in her affidavit “[the Child] was shattered” and “For weeks, [the Mother] was hard to reach, largely uninterested in [the Child’s] experiences...”. However, the other evidence including the documentary evidence indicates, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., was the one to cut off all contact between the Child and the Mother. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., was not frightened, she was angry.

i. The Mother was away for 16 days, not weeks.

ii. The Mother reached out on May 25, 2024, and May 27, 2024.

iii. On May 27, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C. emailed the Mother:

• “… He is abandoned. And he knows it.”

• “… Do you have any idea how easily he could be exploited?”

• “You have one job on this planet: to be [the Child’s] mother…”

• “as for [the Husband] any man who would help a woman leave her child behind in a foreign country is a complete a##hole”.

• “I have not been able to lie to [the Child] about this. He knows you left him and that this is wrong.”

• “I will not be in touch for a few days. I need space to calm down and find a way to help [the Child]”.

iv. The Mother reached out to Ms. Paolozza because she was concerned about what was happening.

v. On May 30, 2024, the Mother wrote to the Kith Caregiver and asked to have a call with the Child.

vi. On June 2, 2024, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., responded: “We are very hurt…” and was unable to support the Child’s virtual visits with the Mother, despite the Mother’s repeated requests.

[c] Exceptional Mental Health Support for the Child – The Kith Caregiver, S.C, stated in her affidavit that “they have found exceptional mental health professionals” to support the Child though his Mother’s departures from Canada. However, there was no evidence to support this claim. The evidence indicated that the Child has no mental health professionals in place.

i. After a referral from CAST, the Child had a maximum of 10 hours with the Child and Youth Worker. These sessions were not started until November 2024 and ended on August 7, 2025.

ii. After a referral from CAST, the Kith Caregiver terminated another therapist for the Child, after two sessions, through Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture. The Kith Caregivers determined “it wasn’t a really great fit linguistically.”

iii. On May 9, 2025, the Child and Youth Support Worker gave the Kith Caregivers information about Yorktown. The Child was reportedly taken once and not until on August 18, 2025, to Yorktown. The Kith Caregivers could not recall the full name of the person they saw but identified him as Preston. After the August 18, 2025, visit to Yorktown, the Kith Caregivers intended to take the Child to walk-in appointments every other week, but there was no evidence this occurred.

iv. There was no evidence this Child was ever taken to a doctor for his bedwetting, his nightmares or the other concerning behaviours the Kith Caregivers describe.

v. In terms of other mental health professionals, the Kith Caregivers indicated on November 15, 2024, to the Child and Youth Support Worker that they would get an ADHD assessment for the Child in the near future. There was no evidence this occurred.

vi. The Kith Caregivers indicated on December 20, 2024, to Ms. Paolozza that they would get art therapy for the Child, as their Kin Worker had already suggested. There was no evidence this occurred.

vii. The Kith Caregivers were asked by Ms. Williams to book an assessment for the Child with the Hospital for Sick Children (“SickKids”), but stated they were already on the list with Yorktown. There was no documentary evidence to confirm the Child is on either waitlist or that SickKids was even contacted.

viii. The Kith Caregiver admitted in cross-examination that they have never discussed the Child’s refusal to speak Russian with a therapist or a child psychologist.

[d] The Spelling of Justice “Kapurura” – The Kith Caregiver, S.C., denied “really engaging with” the Child when he wrote the letter to Justice Kapurura. The Kith Caregiver, S.C. “was not sure if” she offered the Child any ideas about the letter. The Kith Caregiver, S.C. told the OCL in her testimony that she did not know that the Child knew the name of the judge.

i. However, when the Kith Caregiver, S.C, was cross-examined by Father’s counsel she had a different explanation. She stated that the people participating in court are named on their fridge and they have a family calendar, notes on the fridge and appointment notes. The Kith Caregiver “imagined” that the Child would have seen the judge’s name and “he’s very smart”. She went on that “Judge Kapurura’s name is in our home, like there’s a lot of documents, there’s calendars and on our fridge, we’ve had lots of notes about court –reminders about court.”

ii. This explanation was concerning for many reasons. If it is true, it is highly inappropriate for the Child’s environment to be so immersed in the court documents. If it is not true, the much more likely explanation is the Kith Caregivers helped the Child write the letter and provided the Child with the correct spelling of Justice Kapurura’s name, and are being dishonest about that.

298The Kith Caregiver, S.C. also had difficulty remembering recent significant concerns raised about the Child’s wellbeing and behaviour for example the contents of the maternal aunts’ letter, dated September 10, 2025, and when the Child swore at his Father during access on August 15, 2025.

299The Kith Caregiver, S.C., provided inaccurate information to the Child’s professional supports, including the CAST workers, and the Child and Youth Support Worker, for example:

[a] In late October 2024, the Kith Caregivers were reporting the Child was having tantrums, screaming, stomach upset and was not eating, and that he was calling his Mother names.

[b] Yet, on November 15, 2024, when the Kith Caregiver, S.C., completed an intake session with the Child and Youth Worker with respect to the Child’s behaviours, the Kith Caregiver, S.C. only shared:

i. [The Child is] currently experiencing behaviours of being “very distracted”.

[c] The Kith Caregiver also stated exaggerated and entirely negative facts about the Mother, as well as other inaccurate information.

i. “All other family in Ukraine in war zone.”

ii. “[The Child] woke up one day with foster family [Kith Caregiver S.C.] and Mom had left the country (came to Canada in January, Mom left in April. Told [Kith Caregiver S.C.] they could just keep [the Child]. CAS became initially involved at this point.”

iii. “Mom pregnant with [the Child] at 15 – big contribution to having no parenting skill.”

iv. “[The Child] and the Mom are refugees from Ukraine to escape war – came in January. Mom left [the Child] (abandoned) and left the country to pursue man she met online. Left to marry him (April).”

v. “[The Child] never went to school before coming to Canada.”

300The Kith Caregiver, S.C., made considerable efforts to try to manage the impression she was making, as opposed to telling the truth. She came across as highly motivated to both create and control the narrative.

301The Kith Caregiver, S.C., intellectualized her responses rather than providing straightforward ones. In one example, but there were many others, when asked a simple question about whether she was aware that the Child attended Kindergarten in Ukraine (which she was aware of according to her own evidence in a WhatsApp message from the Mother sent May 24, 2024) the Kith Caregiver, S.C., gave a convoluted and lengthy response about her own knowledge of the Ukrainian school system, and then denied knowing how to answer the question.

302The Kith Caregiver, S.C., gave many very lengthy responses in cross-examination prolonging her cross-examination, while complaining about the length of her cross-examination.

303The Kith Caregiver, S.C. explained that in their household they eat only a plant-based diet. She denied knowing what the Child ate before coming into their home. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., struggled to answer the question whether the vegan restrictions were her choices or the Child’s. When asked whether a vegan diet can affect a child’s growth and nutritional status the Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated, “that is scientifically incorrect”. The Kith Caregiver denied taking the Child for any blood tests and did not answer whether the Child was taken to a doctor for growth monitoring. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., did not obtain a pediatrician’s approval or specialist approval before restricting his diet to vegan. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., stated this was a decision made by the Mother when she initially agreed to live with them in July 2023.

304The Kith Caregiver, S.C., only deferred to the Mother’s purported decision-making when it aligned with the Kith Caregiver, S.C.’s interests: veganism and restricting the Father and paternal family’s contact with the Child.

305During cross-examination, the Kith Caregiver, S.C., interjected with answers to questions that were not asked, she struggled with questions that challenged her narrative, she could not make reasonable concessions, and she was confident to the point of arrogance on some topics, especially the Child’s experiences and views.

306Finally, and significantly, only one of the Kith Caregivers testified despite seeking an order that the Child be placed with both Kith Caregivers. The Kith Caregiver, L.B., did not testify and he also missed parts of the trial because of work commitments. The lack of the Kith Caregiver, L.B., testifying raised unanswered questions and concerns for the court.

Mother’s Witnesses

Former Partner

307The Court found the Mother’s Former Partner to be credible and reliable. He presented as an easy going and pleasant person. His evidence was logical and consistent and was not undermined through cross-examination. He had no investment in the outcome.

Mother’s Sister, E.Y.

308The Maternal Aunt, E.Y., is in school to become a doctor in Ukraine, but currently lives in Italy.

309The Court found the Maternal Aunt, E.Y., to be credible and reliable, and a very compelling witness.

310She provided the Court with evidence that was consistent with other evidence and documents before the court about the Child’s life in Ukraine.

311The Maternal Aunt, E.Y, took a great risk by sharing her experiences and perceptions with the Court because of the risk that she will be cut off by the Kith Caregivers for speaking up against their treatment of the Child and the exclusion of his extended family.

Mother’s Husband

312The Husband was credible and reliable. He was soft-spoken and serious.

313He is a software engineer. He is originally from Mexico but was living in California before relocating to Canada.

314Without animosity, he explained that he felt the Mother was not supported by the CAST or provided tangible assistance when she was in crisis.

315Without animosity, he also explained that the Kith Caregivers characterized the Mother’s relationship with him in a wrong and narrow light by referring to him as “a man she met online,” which did not accurately reflect their history together.

316The Husband appears deeply committed to the Mother and her well-being. He has engaged in couples’ counselling to understand how to best support her. He has moved to Toronto to support her and is willing to follow whatever recommendations by independent professionals regarding the Child.

The Mother

317The Mother was credible and reliable in most of her evidence.

318Her evidence about the Child’s life prior to arriving in Canada was consistent with other credible witnesses that were present at the relevant times and the documentary evidence.

319The Mother was not undermined by cross-examination, she admitted facts that were put to her, even if they did not support her position.

320The Mother admitted that she had trouble remembering what took place in November, December in 2024 and January 2025, as these were difficult times for her and her mental health. However, she clearly remembered certain specific events that shocked her, for example, Ms. Levstein telling her to give up the Child because she was ill and there were no alternatives. The Court accepts the Mother was feeling a lot of pressure and was deeply conflicted about the situation and struggling with her own mental health at that time.

321She politely and calmly corrected CAST counsel when CAST counsel gave an incorrect date or did not understand something.

322The Mother is bright, resourceful and remarkably resilient.

323The Mother shows insight into her mental health challenges, and she was completely candid about the seriousness of her struggles.

324There were no signs that the Mother’s mental health impacted her during this lengthy difficult trial. She was on time every day and when returning to court from every break. She was paying attention and assisting her counsel. She was calm and regulated throughout all days of trial and during her cross-examination, despite lengthy questioning and difficult subject matter.

325Despite her long-term inability to support the Child’s relationship with the Father, the Mother demonstrated a lot of insight into supporting the Child’s relationship with his Father and the paternal family. Her position on this issue changed in May or June 2025, as she was engaged in therapy and reflection.

326The Court accepts the vast majority of the Mother’s evidence about the Child’s life when the Mother was the Child’s primary caregiver, as well as the Mother’s evidence about her interactions with the Kith Caregivers and her concerns about the Kith Caregivers. That was consistent with other evidence.

327However, the Mother minimized the impact on the Child of her leaving him multiple times of increasing duration.

328The Mother did not appear to fully appreciate that she also contributed significantly to the Child’s separation from his Father and paternal family, who might have otherwise been a placement option for the Child.

The Father

329The Father was a credible and reliable witness.

330The Father has a pronounced stutter, which is worsened by stress.

331He was reluctant to answer some of the Kith Caregiver’s questions about the accusations the Mother made against him in the past.

332The Kith Caregivers suggested that they “have been the only ones to facilitate” his contact with the Child, unlike the Paternal Grandmother and the Mother. The Father calmly and accurately pointed out that the Kith Caregivers prevented his communication with the Child and opposed his motion for access. His virtual access only began after a court order was made.

333The Father acknowledged that he has not been involved in the Child’s life and he recognized this would impact his current ability to develop a relationship with the Child.

334The Father did not display any animosity towards anyone.

335He voiced serious concerns about the Child’s current placement, given that the Kith Caregivers have been unable to support the Child’s relationships with his Mother, Father, or extended family. The Father was also concerned about the Child’s loss of language.

The Paternal Grandmother

336The Paternal Grandmother was credible and reliable. She was joyful talking about the Child and describing their time together. Her deep love and genuine concern for the Child was obvious.

337She displayed no animosity towards anyone. The Paternal Grandmother thanked the Kith Caregivers for sending messages about the Child.

338She acknowledged the complications between the Child’s parents following their separation and minimized the issues that existed between the parents to some extent, but not to such a degree that it impacted the Court’s view of her overall testimony.

339The Paternal Grandmother is an intelligent, resilient, and compassionate person. The Paternal Grandmother had several serious issues to balance in her own life including raising the Young Paternal Aunt, the constant worry of her son in active military service, her displacement from Ukraine, adjusting to life in France, re-establishing her professional career, in addition, to being highly concerned about the Child and rebuffed in all her efforts to contact and plan for him.

340The Paternal Grandmother is in disbelief about how the Child’s attitude reportedly has changed. She described that he had “all nice, wonderful, excellent, warm relations.” The Paternal Grandmother described that severing the Child’s relationship with the Young Paternal Aunt was a “crime” and described that the Young Paternal Aunt was impacted emotionally, and she imagines the Child would have been as well.

341The Paternal Grandmother expressed that the Child should never have been deprived from those he loved. She was not pointing fingers or making accusations, but she felt it was a tragedy.

342The Paternal Grandmother was sure that if the Child remains with the Kith Caregivers, they will never have a chance to see him or communicate with him.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Paramount Purpose of the CYFSA

343The paramount purpose of the CYFSA is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.

344As long as it is consistent with the paramount purpose, other purposes of the CYFSA as set out in subsection 1(2) are also designed to support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and to utilize the least disruptive course of action available, and provides that services to children should respect the child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family, takes into account the child’s physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs, and, among other things, the child’s ancestry, and family diversity: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. H.F., 2020 ONCJ 52; Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. T.W., 2018 ONCJ 451 at paragraph 28.

345The CYFSA is child focused and also recognizes the importance of keeping families together: Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. E.O., 2009 CanLII 72087 (ON SC) at paragraph 189; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.) (1994), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), 2 R.F.L. (4th) 313 (S.C.C.).

346State interference with the parent-child relationship, through a procedure in which the relationship is subject to state inspection and review, is a gross intrusion into a private and intimate sphere of family life: Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48 at paragraph 5, citing New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC) at paragraph 61.

347Few state actions can have a more profound effect on the lives of both parent and child. Not only is the parent’s right to security of the person at stake, the child’s is as well. Since the best interests of the child are presumed to lie with the parent, the child’s psychological integrity and well-being may be seriously affected by the interference with the parent-child relationship: New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC) at paragraph 76.

348The state may only relieve a parent of custody when it is necessary to protect the best interests of the child, provided that there is a fair procedure for making this determination: New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC) at paragraph 70.

349The Court of Appeal for Ontario held in Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316 at paragraphs 68 and 69:

The courts should be especially mindful of the reality and material circumstances of those subject to child protection proceedings. As Justice L’Heureux-Dubé noted in her concurring reasons in G. (J.), at para. 113, “women, and especially single mothers, are disproportionately and particularly affected by child protection proceedings”. She continued at para. 114:

As well as affecting women in particular, issues of fairness in child protection hearings also have particular importance for the interests of women and men who are members of other disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, particularly visible minorities, Aboriginal people, and the disabled.

69Poverty and other forms of marginalization form part of the experience of many parents involved in child protection proceedings. If we do not face up to this reality, we risk forgetting the hard-learned lessons of the past by exacerbating pre-existing inequities and harms. The miscarriages of justice outlined in the Report of the Motherisk Commission (2018: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General) speak, by way of example, to the significant imbalance between parents and Children’s Aid Societies, noting that parents, even when represented by counsel, were “simply overpowered” (at p. 121). Fairness in the child protection context demands recognition of these dynamics.

350The Court is mindful of those dynamics referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and also mindful of the impact on the family of fleeing war, fighting in war, and being displaced by war.

351Subsection 35(1) and (2) of the CYFSA, set out the CAST’s functions and that the CAST must follow the regulations in its performance of its functions. With respect to the regulations:

[a] Subsection 3(1) of O. Reg. 156/18 requires that the CAST to take into account a child’s “identity characteristics” (which term includes “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity” amongst other attributes) when making a decision “likely to materially affect the child’s interests”: Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. J.U., 2024 ONSC 1550 at footnote 3.

[b] Subsection 29(1) of O. Reg. 156/18 requires the CAST to follow the Child Protections Standards (2016).

[c] Sections 38-44 of O. Reg 156/18 govern the mandatory steps and procedures the CAST must undertake when the society proposes or is apprised of a plan to place a child of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community in specific circumstances.

Evidentiary Issues

Evidence from the OCL

352The Court addressed the admissibility of the original OCL clinician assigned in a separate decision following a mid-trial voir dire: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y., 2025 ONCJ 623.

353As a result of that decision, the OCL requested that a new OCL clinician conduct a mid-trial interview with the Child, which was not strenuously opposed by parents’ counsel, and was consented to by the Kith Caregivers and the CAST. Other than controlling the trial process, and reducing further delay, the Court did not interfere with the OCL’s process, particularly given that the Court was told that participation was something that the Child was seeking and was important to the Child.

Evidence from Child’s “Therapist”

354The CAST sought to rely on the evidence of the Child’s “therapist”.

355At the outset of trial, the Court raised the issue of the importance of maintaining the Child’s confidential relationship with his “therapist”, and the Court was concerned about whether the Child had consented to his “therapist” providing evidence related to his confidential sessions in court, as well as the production of the notes and records from those confidential sessions.

356The Supreme Court of Canada observed in A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 567, at paragraph 17:

Recognition of the inherent vulnerability of children has consistent and deep roots in Canadian law. This results in protection for young people’s privacy under [various statutes], not to mention international protections such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child… The law attributes the heightened vulnerability based on chronology, not temperament [.] [Emphasis in original.]

357Children have a privacy interest in their therapy records due to the confidentiality of the therapeutic relationship in which the records were created: G.L.K. v. C.L.K., 2021 ONSC 5843 at paragraph 66, citing M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (SCC) at 37; and Child and Family Services for York Region v. L.H., 2013 ONSC 5622 at 34.

358Therapeutic relationships are necessarily confidential given the intimate personal topics that are shared in therapy. To properly benefit from therapy, children must share their innermost thoughts and feelings with their therapists, which requires them to have confidence with the privacy of their therapeutic sessions: G.L.K. v. C.L.K., 2021 ONSC 5843 at paragraph 50.

359The Court was mindful of the importance of preserving the confidentiality of the Child’s therapeutic relationship in order to promote the best therapy and health outcomes.

360Therefore, prior to her testimony, a voir dire was held on the admissibility of the Child’s “therapist’s” testimony concerning confidential sessions. The Court expressed concern about maintaining the Child’s confidential therapeutic relationship.

361The CAST took the position that they would just be seeking confirmation about the length of time the “therapist” worked with the Child, treatment goals and recommendations, follow through by the Kith Caregivers, a description of the Child’s maturity, but without getting into what the Child confided to her.

362The OCL was consenting to the “therapist” being called without limitation.

363The Kith Caregiver, S.C., said in submissions that the services are entirely consent based. The Child fully understood that the Child and Youth Support Worker would be in court. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., went on to submit that the Child “fully consents” to his “therapist” participating and the Child has studied consent in school. The Child has “agency” and the ability to express himself to a child-centred practitioner and the Kith Caregivers felt that the “therapist” could report on the Child’s feelings, wishes and thoughts.

364The Court heard that the Child and Youth Support Worker’s notes had not been produced or disclosed. It was unclear why this disclosure issue had not been addressed previously, and it caused delay in the trial.

365However, the Child and Youth Support Worker repeatedly corrected that she is not a therapist, she is a Child and Youth Support Worker.

366A voir dire was held on the issue.

367Given that the Court was told by the OCL and the Kith Caregivers, that the Child was consenting to his “therapist” providing evidence, the Court agreed that she could testify provided that her notes were given to opposing counsel for cross-examination.

368The witness repeatedly corrected counsel that she was not a therapist, but a Child and Youth Support Worker. After introductory questions, counsel for the CAST asked the Court if the Child and Youth Support Worker could rely on her notes during her examination.

369The Court asked the Child and Youth Support Worker if she had the consent of the Child to share her notes and discuss the content of the Child’s confidential sessions in court.

370The Child and Youth Support Worker said that she did not have the Child’s consent, and that she did not discuss that with the Child.

371The Child and Youth Support Worker said she previously obtained the Child’s consent to share a letter the Kith Caregivers had prepared. Additionally, the Child previously declined to consent to provide information to his Mother when she made a request in June 2025.

372The witness was excused for further submissions given that the Court had been told by OCL counsel and the Kith Caregiver that the Child had consented.

373Given that the Child had not provided consent, the Court ruled that the witness was to restrict her testimony to evidence other than what was discussed confidentially by the Child in their sessions, which were essentially the parameters the CAST originally proposed.

Evidence From a Case Conference

374Paragraph 26 of Ms. Levstein’s affidavit, affirmed October 3, 2025, refers to a settlement position the Mother took before the case management judge at a case conference on February 28, 2025. A copy of this endorsement was not provided in the trial record.

375There is a presumption of confidentiality associated with conferences, and though extraordinary circumstances may cause a breach of that confidentiality, those circumstances should be limited, to promote the frank and open discussions expected to be had at conferences: Abid v. Mahmud, 2025 ONSC 2220 at paragraph 46, citing Dobraca v. Serter, 2024 ONSC 1936, Benet v. Benet, 2009 CanLII 60665, Strutzenberger v. Strutzenberger, 2023 ONSC 1649.

376Subrule 17(23) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, (the “Rules”) states:

Confidentiality of settlement conference

No brief or evidence prepared for a settlement conference and no statement made at a settlement conference shall be disclosed to any other judge, except in,

(a) an agreement reached at a settlement conference; or

(b) an order.

377In Abid v. Mahmud, 2025 ONSC 2220 at paragraph 41, it was held with respect to subrule 17(23) that “while no parallel rule exists case conferences, in my view, this ought to extend to case conferences…”

378Case conferences provide a safe environment where parties and counsel can openly discuss the issues. If confidentiality is respected, participants are more likely to share honest and candid information, which helps in resolving the matter effectively. Similarly, if confidentiality is compromised, it will impact the entire case moving forward: Abid v. Mahmud, 2025 ONSC 2220 at paragraph 35.

379Finally, as held in Abid v. Mahmud, 2025 ONSC 2220 at paragraph 47, counsel and parties must be dissuaded from producing contents of conference discussions in the evidentiary record.

380Some Courts have referred to such behaviour as egregious: Long v. Mitchell-Hourie, 2021 ONCJ 642 at paragraph 22.

381The Court did not rely on this evidence. However, if the Court is misguided on this issue, and the Court could rely on this evidence, it would not change the result. The fact is no final agreement was reached, the Mother changed her position and at that time was experiencing significant pressure prior to taking that position, which she explained in an email sent January 17, 2025, to the CAST, coupled with her ongoing mental health struggles.

The Finding that a Child is in Need of Protection

382The protection finding is essential in child protection cases. In the Amended Application, the CAST sought a protection finding on the basis of subsections 74(2)(b)(i), which is risk of physical harm, and 74(2)(n), which requires the parent’s consent and compliance with section 99 of the CYFSA.

383In closing submissions, the CAST sought protection findings on the basis of different subsections of the CYFSA namely 74(2)(f), which is emotional harm, and 74(2)(h), which were not pled.

384That the specific subsection was not pled is not fatal to advancing the ground in closing submissions, where such finding is justified by the evidence, the parent had disclosure of the evidence, is not caught by surprise and has had full opportunity to test that evidence: Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. P. W. and M. T., 2022 ONSC 4340 paragraph 71.

385The CAST has the onus, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that the child is at risk of harm and the risk of harm must be real and likely and not speculative: M.P. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society and S.G., 2022 ONCJ 298 at paragraph 53, citing Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. G.P., 2019 ONCJ 365 paragraphs 71-75.

386The CAST took the position that the Mother’s mental health crisis in 2024 until 2025 was so significant that she was unable to care for the Child and unable to put the Child’s needs before her own, and some of the decisions she made created risk and impacted the Child’s mental health.

387The CAST submitted that:

[a] the Child needed emotional support starting in the summer of 2024, which led to the referral to the Child and Youth Support Worker.

[b] the Child’s mental health declined more recently over the summer of 2025, and he demonstrated serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal and some self-destructive or aggressive behaviours and delays in development.

[c] Those examples included: the Child’s refusal to speak Russian or Ukrainian, engaging in self-harm including hitting himself, that led him to require an emergency “medical” walk-in appointment through Yorktown.

388The OCL adopted the CAST’s submissions on the protection finding.

Timing of the Finding in Need of Protection

389Courts have held that the time to which the finding in need of protection relates is flexible. That is, the finding can be made in relation to circumstances at the time the application was brought, up to and including the time of the hearing, so long as adequate disclosure is made to all parties: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V. A, N. E. and M. E., 2022 ONSC 4684 at paragraph 146.

390The Court should be free to consider whether the child is in need of protection at the commencement of the proceeding or at the hearing date, or for that matter some other date depending on the circumstances. There cannot be an absolute rule as to the relevant date: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. K.R. and C.W., [2001] O.J. No. 5754 (Ont. Fam. Ct) at paragraph 50.

391In K.R. v. Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2023 ONSC 3798 the Divisional Court, confirmed that the evidence as of the date of the hearing is relevant to and must be addressed in making a finding of the child being in need of protection, and concluded at paragraph 44:

…In my view, that encompasses both the facts as they exist on the date of the hearing and the history of the participants in the trial. By considering the entirety of this evidence, a trial judge can arrive at a complete and accurate risk assessment.

The Finding in Need of Protection

392Subsection 74(2)(b)(i) states:

(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,

(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child,

393Subsection 74(2)(f) states:

(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,

(i) anxiety,

(ii) depression,

(iii) withdrawal,

(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or

(v) delayed development,

and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;

394Subsection 74(2)(h) states:

(h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;

Risk of Physical Harm under 74(2)(b)(i)

395The CAST pled that the Child was at risk pursuant to subsection 74(2)(b)(i), which relates to risk of physical harm “inflicted” by the person having charge of the child.

396While the CAST did not make submissions about this finding, it was not formally withdrawn or rescinded, so the Court is required to address it.

397The CAST must prove that the risk of physical harm is real and likely, not speculative. The CAST does not need to prove that the person having charge of the child intended to cause harm in order to find a child in need of protection.

398Physical harm can be caused by neglect or error in judgment. However, it must be more than trifling physical harm. A child may be at risk even if the conduct is not directed specifically towards that child.

399The evidence does not support a finding of risk of physical harm to the Child.

Emotional Harm under s. 74(2)(f)

400To show actual emotional harm, or risk of emotional harm, expert evidence is often helpful both to establish the specific harm or risk and draw the link to the caregiver.

401Some courts have held that expert evidence is required to establish emotional harm or risk of emotional harm, and a link to parental conduct or neglect: N.V.C. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2017 ONSC 796, at paragraph 105; A.C. v. V.A., 2012 ONCJ 7, at paragraph 69, and Chatham-Kent Children’s Services v. C.P., 2014 ONCJ 395at paragraph 22.

402Yet, numerous other cases established that expert evidence of emotional harm or risk of emotional harm is not a pre-requisite. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.S., 2016 ONCJ 279, at paragraph 94; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251at paragraph 59; Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services v. L.V., 2016 ONSC 7039, paragraph 18; Chukwunomso v. Ransome, 2017 ONCJ 121, at footnote 5.

403Anxiety and depression, require psychological diagnoses: P.L. v. J.C., 2023 ONSC 7072 at paragraph 39.

404Withdrawal and aggression are not purely psychological terms: P.L. v. J.C., 2023 ONSC 7072 at paragraph 39. Aggression is defined as “hostile or destructive behaviour”: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. P. Y., 2007 CanLII 14325 (ON SC) at paragraph 31.

405A competent and appropriate caregiver may be a reliable witness to the serious aggressive or self-destructive behaviour of the child without being a qualified mental health expert: Re: D.S., 2001 CanLII 28177 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paragraph 69.

406In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R. (M.), [2003] O.J. No. 4385, at paragraph 13, as cited in N.V.C v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2017 ONSC 796 at paragraph 88:

Accordingly, in the absence of authority to the contrary, I conclude that the types of emotional harm set out in clause 37(2)(f) are exhaustive in determining whether a child is in need of protection. And, because of this, I also conclude that feelings and emotions of "distrust, fear, guilt and anger," simpliciter are not subsumed by clause 37(2)(f) and would not, therefore, lead to a finding that a child is in need of protection.

407When this Protection Application was commenced, there was no evidence that the Child was experiencing any mental health challenges. No mental health supports were recommended or sought by anyone for the Child, until the Mother began requesting therapy on September 8, 2024 and the Mother offered to pay for the therapy for the Child.

408Yet counselling was not arranged by the CAST or the Kith Caregivers for the Child until November 2024, and the last session was on August 7, 2025.

409There was no evidence that the Child has been diagnosed with anxiety or that he was even seen by a primary medical provider for treatment for anxiety. There was no evidence from a doctor who treated the Child. There was no evidence from anyone that the Child ever saw a doctor, except when he was in his Mother’s care.

410There was no evidence that the Child takes any medication for anxiety. The evidence suggested that the Child had an “anxiety coping strategy sheet” from the Child and Youth Support worker and the Kith Caregiver, S.C. stated in an email that those strategies provided him with “so much comfort and stability.”

411There was evidence that the Child said he had “anxiety” and that the Kith Caregivers observed him to have anxiety, nightmares, and bedwetting.

412The Workers observed the Child to appear anxious and be hiding once on December 3, 2024, at the Kith Caregivers’ home, in the context of ongoing concerns raised by the Kith Caregivers about the Child playing Minecraft with the Husband during Mother’s access.

413The Child and Youth Support Worker never observed him to have any of the behaviours the Kith Caregivers described during any of her sessions with the Child.

414The Child’s report cards do not suggest any behavioural concerns.

415There was evidence from the Kith Caregiver, S.C., that the Child was taken to Yorktown for a walk-in appointment on August 18, 2025. The evidence was that these were counselling services and not medical services. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., could not remember the full name of the counsellor but recalled his first name was Preston. There was no documentary evidence confirming any of this information.

416The Kith Caregivers were asked to have the Child assessed at the Hospital for Sick Children. Ms. Williams asked the Kith Caregivers for confirmation about the Yorktown appointment, but nothing was provided.

417There was evidence that the Child was experiencing emotional dysregulation during and after access visits. However, the evidence does not support that the Child has serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour or delayed development.

418The evidence does not support a finding that the Child has been emotionally harmed as defined by section 74(2)(f) of the CYFSA.

Risk of Emotional Harm under s.74(2)(h)

419To come within the subsection 74(2)(h), the Court must find that the child is at risk of suffering one of the specifically enumerated harms: anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour or delayed development, and that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that this results from action or inaction on the part of the parent or person having charge of the child.

420In Children's Aid Society of Oxford County v. E.M.T, [2019] O.J. No. 5445 (Ont. C.J.) at paragraph 21, cited in Family and Children Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v. B.M. and D.O., 2022 ONSC 28, at paragraph 147, the court held as follows:

Clause 74(2)(h) is a ground that involves risk of emotional harm to the child. Therefore, it looks to the future. The type(s) of harm, the degree of the harm, and the causal connection of the harm to the parents' conduct, pre-requisites for a finding under (h) grounds, are all necessary for the Society to prove to the court with respect to this ground. Although no actual emotional harm symptoms are needed to be shown, the Society cannot rely only on the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that a risk exists. This ground requires the Society to show that the risk does exist, and to do it on the balance of probabilities. "Risk" has been said to mean "more likely than not"…

The Mother’s Absence

421Children need their parents to be consistent and reliable and to exercise good judgment: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.A.L., 2024 ONCJ 146 at paragraph 93 citing Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.B., 2014 ONCJ 518 at paragraph 112.

422However, a parent’s absence for a vacation, and even periods of not seeing a child for two months have not been held to support a finding of emotional harm where the connection to the impact on the Child could not be established: N.V.C v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2017 ONSC 796 (SCJ)

423The Mother was out of the country for 16 days from May 25, 2024, to June 12, 2024, and for six weeks from June 21, 2024, to August 6, 2024, and for 7.5 months from December 17, 2024, to August 3, 2025. Cumulatively, the Mother was away for almost 10 months.

424The Mother had made reasonable arrangements for the Child’s care leaving him with the Kith Caregivers.

425The evidence did not suggest that the Mother missed substantial portions of her access, virtually or in-person. The evidence does not suggest the Mother was ever violent, threatening, dysregulated or inappropriate in any her access visits. The CAST’s evidence suggests there was no observable concerns during the Mother’s access visits and the Child had no concerns when asked by the CAST workers. It was not until the Child returned to the care of the Kith Caregivers following his visits that the Kith Caregivers reported concerning behaviours. As trial approached, the Child’s behaviour became increasingly angry and rejecting towards his parents.

426The Court finds that the Mother’s cumulative absences and particularly the Mother’s third trip from December 17, 2024, to August 3, 2025, contributed to a risk of emotional harm for the Child.

Mental Illness

427Many parents with mental health issues parent their children well; others cannot. There is a wide range of mental illnesses that affect parents differently and, by extension, affect their children differently: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 at paragraph 113.

428The court assesses several factors to determine if a parent's mental illness places a child at risk of harm and if so, whether a child can still be placed in the parent's care. These factors include:

[a] The type of mental illness the parent has.

[b] The severity of the mental illness.

[c] The frequency of the parent's mental illness symptoms - whether they are situational or chronic.

[d] The impact of the mental illness on the parent's functioning.

[e] The impact of the mental illness on the parent's parenting.

[f] Other risk factors impacting on the mental illness, including substance abuse, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, domestic violence and other stressors such as unstable housing and financial problems.

[g] The impact of the mental illness on the children.

[h] The insight of the parent into their mental illness.

[i] The ability of the parent to meaningfully engage with supports to address the mental health issues.

[j] Whether the parent is compliant with treatment recommendations.

[k] The strength of the parent's support system, the insight of those support persons into the parent's mental health issues and the ability of those persons to prioritize a child's needs to those of the parent's and to protect the child.

[l] Whether the children have any needs that make them more vulnerable to compromised parenting.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.C., 2024 ONCJ 142 at paragraph 83, citing Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 at paragraph 114. A similar test appears in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. B. (N.), 2009 ONCJ 648, aff’d on appeal 2010 ONSC 615, (Ont. SCJ) at paragraph 97.

429The type of mental illness the parent has. The Mother has multiple diagnoses at various times, including borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

430The severity of the mental illness. The Mother’s mental health struggles have occurred since she was a teenager. She had suicidal and homicidal ideation in February 2024. The homicidal ideations related to worry for the Child if she were not alive. She had a suicide plan in May 2024. There was no evidence that the Mother has ever been admitted to the hospital voluntarily or involuntarily. A letter, dated October 20, 2025, was also provided from Dr. Everardo Castro Silva, a psychologist, from Kaiser Permanente in California, who stated that he has been working with the Mother in individual psychotherapy for approximately 10 months using DBT and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (“ACT”). During the Mother’s psychologist’s involvement, he notes the Mother has demonstrated:

i. A reduction in episodes of non-suicidal self-injury

ii. Improved ability to regulate emotions and apply mindfulness strategies

iii. More stable emotional responses in interactions with significant persons, including her husband

iv. Increased stability in self-esteem, both in her professional role and in her self-image

v. Decreased overall emotional distress compared to her initial presentation.

431The frequency of the parent's mental illness symptoms. The Mother’s mental health struggles are chronic and they were aggravated by the situation of living in Canada alone, losing her job, housing instability, the conflict in Ukraine, displacement, as well as the separation and rejection from the Child. While the Mother was in the United States she was receiving medical support from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Clinic. The Mother had an intake session on January 13, 2025, an assessment on June 4, 2025, and finally on July 8, 2025. The records from Kaiser Permanente indicate that the Mother was compliant with her prescription medication throughout that time. The Mother’s mental health symptoms have shown improvement, and her day-to-day functioning has improved from very poor to very well. According to Dr. Zhang’s August 14, 2025, consultation notes, the Mother has not engaged in cutting for 5-6 months.

432The impact of the mental illness on the parent's functioning. The Mother is quite functional. Currently, she has a stable long-term relationship with her Husband. She has housing and has a one-year lease. The Mother is employed and earning significant income. She is not violent, there is no allegation that she has ever been violent to anyone, and there was no evidence that she has ever been criminally charged with anything. The Mother has the support of her Husband who is now with her in Toronto. The Mother continues to be compliant with her treatment. The Mother demonstrated no symptoms of mental health struggles during a stressful trial. However, the Mother was impacted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine for many months, travelled frequently and continued to hope to return to Ukraine. However, prior to the war, she resided in the Kyiv for her entire life. The Mother’s illnesses have contributed to some dysfunctions in her interpersonal relationships; however, she shows greater maturity and insight about the relationships after therapy.

433The impact of the mental illness on the parent's parenting. The Mother’s mental health impacts her parenting as she has been unable to prioritize the Child’s needs, and she has not been available to parent as she seeks mental health treatment. By letter dated August 29, 2025, Maria Dora Bucur, a psychotherapist from Mexico City, Mexico, wrote:

[a] The Mother presents with psychological vulnerabilities that may, at times, impact her ability to fully attune to her Child’s emotional needs.

[b] However, she also shows resources, resilience, and motivation to continue working on these issues within the therapeutic framework.

However, she has never physically harmed the Child, and she made reasonable arrangements for the Child by placing him with the Kith Caregivers who she felt she could trust. The evidence suggests that the risk the Mother poses includes an impacted ability to fully attune to the Child’s emotional needs.

434Other risk factors impacting on the mental illness, including substance abuse, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, domestic violence and other stressors such as unstable housing and financial problems. There was no evidence of any other risk factors.

435The impact of the mental illness on the child – The impact on the Child is largely the Mother’s absence and unavailability. There was no evidence that the Child was exposed to or impacted by the Mother’s mental health symptoms other than her absence and her leaving. The Mother always made reasonable provisions for his care. The Child was enrolled in school and seeing a doctor when in the Mother’s care despite her mental health issues being at their worst. The Mother sought help from the Kith Caregivers, the TDBS social worker, and the CAST to avoid impacting the Child.

436The insight of the parent into their mental illness – The Mother has considerable insight into her mental health struggles. She sought treatment before she began to self-harm in March 2024. She has recognized when she is in a “dark place”. The supports available in Toronto were not adequate and so the Mother sought treatment and supports that appear to have stabilized her. The Mother has actively engaged in mental health services and supports, and she had gained greater insight through that active engagement.

437The ability of the parent to meaningfully engage with supports to address the mental health issues. The Mother meaningfully engages with supports to address her mental health issues. She has kept appointments with her psychiatrists as scheduled. By letter dated August 29, 2025, Maria Dora Bucur, a psychotherapist from Mexico City, Mexico, wrote:

[a] She has been working with the Mother since April 2025 with an average frequency of once per week.

[b] The work has focused on characteristics of borderline functioning, including intense fears of abandonment, severe anxiety, and manifestations of identity diffusion.

438Whether the parent is compliant with treatment recommendations – The Mother is highly compliant. She takes her medication as prescribed, and she has engaged for many months in DBT. She is seeking and actively engaging in her treatment. She did not require reminders from the CAST because she engaged with every service that was offered.

439The strength of the parent's support system, the insight of those support persons into the parent's mental health issues and the ability of those persons to prioritize a child's needs to those of the parent's and to protect the child – The Mother has the support of her Husband who is her main support. Her Husband has known her for over two years and the Mother has been transparent with him about her mental health struggles. The Husband is a significant support. He has assisted her with affording her medication, housing, and providing her daily emotional support. As well he has found professionals that have provided treatment to the Mother. The Husband appears to take the recommendations of mental health providers very seriously and would follow those recommendations. The Mother also has the support of the Maternal Aunts and the Paternal Grandmother. The Mother also resides with a family in Toronto.

440Whether the children have any needs that make them more vulnerable to compromised parenting – The Child is now 10 years old and is quite independent and able to contact another adult for help if assistance were required. Currently the Child is expressing very negative emotions and behaviours towards the Mother, which creates an additional challenge. The Child is engaging and talkative, and should be able to engage well with therapy focused on maintaining and establishing his relationships with his parents and extended family. The Child reportedly has some anxious behaviours, but this has not required any mental health interventions and only occasional counselling. The Child had no symptoms of any mental health issues or struggles prior to being placed with the Kith Caregivers, and his symptoms do not impact him in other areas of his life such as his school performance.

441The Mother admitted it was a “horrible mistake” to leave the Child the third time, but she felt she had no choice but to leave as she was not being supported by CAST, was criticized continually by the Kith Caregivers, the reunification plan was not being supported, her mental health was suffering and her Husband, her closest support, was not able to stay in Canada.

442The Mother stated that she takes full responsibility for her mental breakdown and for leaving the Child. She indicated that she in therapy and engaging with treatment to make sure that the Child will never experience anything like this again.

443The CAST did not have any evidence to suggests that the Mother was currently experiencing mental health issues that would cause the Child emotional harm or put the Child at risk of emotional harm. When the Mother experienced emotional harm previously, she acted responsibly and sought professional help, and placed the Child with the Kith Caregivers who she thought she could trust.

444The Mother was focused on her own well-being, establishing a relationship with her Husband and addressing her own mental health, which were all very important for her to do.

445The Mother was right to address her mental health in the ways she felt she needed to, and it appears the ways she sought have been very positive.

446However, the way she addressed her mental health, by leaving the Child, particularly for the third lengthy period, had serious implications for the Child.

Alienation/ Estrangement from Family Members/Cultural Harms

447Behaviour that seeks to estrange a child from a parent, often referred to as “alienation,” has been found to create risk of emotional harm: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V. A, N. E. and M. E., 2022 ONSC 4684 at paragraph 132, citing Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v L.R., 2020 ONCJ 22 Zisman J., affirmed, 2020 ONSC 4341.

448Expert evidence is not necessary for a court to ascertain whether “alienating” behaviours are taking place: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V. A, N. E. and M. E., 2022 ONSC 4684 at paragraph 134, citing the Court of Appeal for Ontario in A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764 at paragraphs 31 and 32.

449In L.R. v. Children’s Aid Society et al., 2020 ONSC 4341 at paragraph 74, the court was blunter: “The trial judge did not need an expert opinion to document the obvious.”

450Courts have repeatedly identified the significant short-term and long-term negative impacts that a child’s estrangement from a parent leading to issues with a child’s social and emotional development and adjustment, physical, psychological and mental health, as well as on overall well-being: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V. A, N. E. and M. E., 2022 ONSC 4684 at paragraph 137 referred to Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, 2018 ONSC 5983 at paragraph 68.

451In C.(W.) v. E.(C.), 2010 ONSC 3575, at paragraph 68, the court prepared a summary of evidence that includes “Red Flags for Alienation”, which has been adopted by courts across country without direct reliance on expert evidence: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V. A, N. E. and M. E., 2022 ONSC 4684 at paragraph 140.

452The processes and strategies used by caregivers to estrange a child from other parents include the following (non-comprehensive) list:

• Allowing and insisting that the child makes decisions about access.

• No photos of target parent; removing reminders of the other parent.

• Bad mouthing and denigrating of other parent’s qualities, parenting, or involvement with the child.

• Exaggerating negative attributes of the other parent and omits anything positive.

• Not correcting the child’s rude, defiant and/or omnipotent behaviour directed towards the other parent but never permitting child to do this with others.

• Delusional false statements repeated to child; distorts history and other parents’ participation in the child’s life.

• Believing or portraying other parent as dangerous (harmful, angry, mean) or sick; convinced of harm or abuse by other parent despite absence of evidence; especially concerning if there are unfounded allegations of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse despite independent investigations that do not support these allegations.

• Fostering dependency on and need for protector.

• Engaging in inquisition of child after time spent with the other parent.

• Not believing the child has any need for relationship with the other parent.

• Repeating negatives and embellishing or exaggerating negative attributes of the other parent.

• Over-involving child in adult matters and litigation.

453Children who are caught in a cycle of unjustified rejection are more likely to suffer from low self-esteem, self-hatred, self-blame, guilt and substance abuse problems: Malhotra v Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472 at paragraph 154.

454Behaviours that have the effect of estranging or contributing to the estrangement of a child from another parent may cause risk of emotional harm to children within the meaning of section 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA.

455There are many troubling examples of the behaviours by the Kith Caregivers that contributed to and intensified the Child’s estrangement from his Mother, and his failure to re-establish his relationship with his Father, as well as the Child’s estrangement from the majority of his extended family, his language and his culture:

a. The Kith Caregivers allowed the Child to make access decisions when the decision was to not to parents and extended family. They insist they will not force him, at the same time were not actively supporting, facilitating and encouraging his relationships with his family.

b. The Kith Caregivers have never supported even a single virtual visit for the Child with his paternal family, the entire time the Child has resided with them. Even though the Child repeatedly asked for these visits.

c. The Kith Caregivers controlled the Child’s limited ability to speak with extended family and even controlled the topics of conversation including preventing his family from talking about the Mother.

d. The Kith Caregivers created a false narrative about the Child’s lack of schooling, his behaviours and abilities, and the Mother’s parenting, which the Child has now adopted.

e. The Kith Caregivers’ evidence was focused on making negative attacks against the Mother. The Kith Caregivers did not provide any positive attributes about the Mother, or her parenting.

f. The Kith Caregivers’ closing submissions also were largely an attack on the Mother.

g. The Kith Caregivers’ stated that there is no document where they have denigrated either parent. The Kith Caregiver, S.C, was taken to documents during her cross-examination, that clearly denigrate the parents to others, including to numerous professionals involved with the Child, and the Kith Caregivers were unable to admit that their comments were ever negative or denigrating instead maintaining they were factual. This is concerning because the Kith Caregivers do not appear to understand what a denigrating or negative comment is, and the difference between a neutral comment or a positive comment, as well as what is a fact, what is perception or what is clearly false.

h. The Kith Caregivers treatment of the Mother and their constant allegations contributed to the Mother’s stress and vulnerability on many occasions.

i. The Kith Caregivers described how they needed to be “honest” with the Child about his Mother. Their level of “honest” was not child focused or in the Child’s best interests. It created a wholly negative narrative informed by the Kith Caregivers’ own entirely negative views of the Mother.

j. The Child was inappropriately involved in the litigation.

k. The Child was made to believe he would be living with the Kith Caregivers permanently, ten months before trial.

l. The Kith Caregivers made numerous allegations related to inappropriate sexual touching. However, in closing submissions, the Kith Caregivers stated that they never said the Child “was molested ever”. Instead, they submitted “we have richly documented [the Child’s] behavior for children's aid society and there is not one word about sexual assault. We said [the Child] was engaging in inappropriate touching and reverted to desperate soothing behaviors”.

• The Kith Caregiver, S.C.’s trial affidavit states that in the Spring of 2024 prior to the CAST involvement, the Child was “solicitous” and that one evening prior to the CAST involvement, the Child came downstair after a shower and stroked Kith Caregiver, L.B.’s leg. The Child then “tipped his head and made a flirtatious face, saying ‘Is there anything I can do for you to get some toys or money?” The Child would stroke L.B. and press his bottom into L.B. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., reported that the Child would try to lie on top of S.C. and press his genitals against her body, while burying his face in her neck and opening his mouth.

• The Kith Caregivers suggested to the Maternal Aunts that he had been inappropriately touched.

• On or about November 15, 2024, the Kith Caregivers reported to Ms. Paolozza that when they discussed therapy with the Child, the Child reported that he witnessed his Mother have sex on some unclear date.

• On December 3, 2024, when interviewed by Ms. Paolozza, the Child stated that he had not observed his Mother having sex, and the Mother only had educational discussions with him about sex.

• On December 30, 2024, the Kith Caregivers reported by email to the CAST: "Some of the stroking/pressing/touching doesn’t feel right. [The Child] dances with his bum in people’s faces, tries to rub his face in my breasts, tries to stroke my hair and my body in a way that’s too intimate and last night he lay on top of me and pressed his penis into my leg…We suspect the boundaries between [the Child] and [the Mother] was not clear enough around sexuality and bodies. Today, [the Child] said his Mother taught him to stroke people “to make them feel good”. As you know, he has seen his mother in sexual interactions that made him feel bad. When we tried to talk about this part, he got very sad, quiet and uncommunicative (he talks to us about everything…this is the only topic that make him reticent and withdrawn.”

m. The Kith Caregiver, S.C,’s repeatedly enmeshed her emotional experiences with the Child. The Child told the New OCL clinician: his feelings and experiences may be similar to the Kith Caregiver, S.C., because her mother had mental issues too and she wasn’t nice to the Kith Caregiver, S.C. too, so the Child and the Kith Caregiver, S.C. “are kind of the same with [their] issues.”

n. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., lacked insight into the impact of her emotionality on the Child.

o. On or about August 14, 2025, the Child swore at his Father telling him to “F#ck off f#cking Father”. The Kith Caregiver. S.C. initially denied being aware of the Child telling his Father to “F#ck Off” and calling him “a f#cking Father” and denied receiving an email the next day from Father’s counsel asking that this behaviour be discipline as inappropriate. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., denied hearing the language used but indicated the Child was spoken to a number of times including before access about using constructive language and trying to be “curious”. The Kith Caregiver, S.C., admitted they do not discipline the Child because he is “a displaced refugee child who has family living in a war zone and a mother who has left” and that they were “very sensitive to the amount of pain the Child is already carrying.”

456The Kith Caregiver’s describe the Child as “thriving” in their care while simultaneously describing that the Child as:

[a] in an incredible state of crisis that has been unrelenting for years;

[b] experiencing nightmares and night terrors;

[c] up all night with fear that he is going to be removed from his home;

[d] very worried about his own safety;

[e] bedwetting;

[f] crying so hard he would sweat and gag;

[g] suffering from profound anxiety;

[h] really suffering;

[i] deeply distressed;

[j] self-harming;

[k] vomiting;

[l] screaming; and,

[m] physically violent, for example, kicking, punching the stairs, punching the furniture, and slamming the doors.

457There was no evidence that the Child ever experienced any of these symptoms at any time prior to being placed with the Kith Caregivers.

458Additionally, these concerning symptoms were never directly observed by the Child and Youth Support Worker or by the school, or by the CAST workers.

459There was no evidence the Kith Caregivers ever sought medical or ongoing psychological supports for the Child.

460The Kith Caregiver, S.C.’s trial affidavit stated that they have a close family friend, [H.K.], who has offered to pay for the Child’s therapy or classes they are unable to afford. Despite the Kith Caregivers’ stating the Child is experiencing extreme anxiety and escalating behaviours, the Kith Caregivers’ have not arranged for private therapy or a private assessment.

461The Child received no support to continue to learn and speak Ukrainian, or Russian, the language of his birth and of his biological family.

462The court finds that the Kith Caregivers actively fostered the estrangement of the Child from his Mother, refused to support the Child’s relationship with his Father and utterly failed to maintain the Child’s relationships with his paternal family members, as well as limited the Child’s relationships with his maternal family.

Conclusion on Protection Finding

463The Court finds that the Child is at risk of emotional harm. This finding is based three factors: the mother’s physical absence, the mother’s mental health struggles, and also based on the risk of emotional harm caused by his Kith Caregivers who estranged the Child from his Mother, his extended biological family, were unable to support a reunification with the Father, as well as the Child’s loss of language and culture.

464The evidence is clear that the loss of the Child’s relationships with his Mother, extended family, inability to support the Child’s development with his Father, as well as the loss of his language and culture, create a risk of emotional harm for this Child.

Disposition

465Subsection 101(1) of the CYFSA provides that where a court finds that a child is in need of protection, it must first satisfy itself that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future.

466For all the reasons set out in this decision, and the reasons that follow, the Court finds that intervention is necessary to protect the Child in the future.

467If a court order is determined to be necessary to protect a child in the future, the Court shall make one of the orders set out in subsection 101 (1) or section 102 of the CYFSA in the child’s best interests.

468Subsection 101 (2) of the CYFSA requires the court to determine what efforts the CAST has made.

469Subsection 101 (3) of the CYFSA requires that the Court look at less disruptive alternatives than removing a child from the care of the persons who had charge of the child immediately before intervention, unless it determines that these alternatives would be inadequate to protect the child.

470Subsection 101 (4) of the CYFSA requires the Court to look at community placements, including family members, before deciding to place a child in care.

471The Court has the following options available for disposition:

[a] Deemed Custody with the Kith Caregivers, under section 102.

[b] Return to the Mother, with or without a supervision order.

[c] Placement with the Kith Caregivers, with a supervision order.

[d] Placement with the Father or Paternal Grandmother under a supervision order.

[e] An order for interim society care.

[f] An order for interim society care and then a supervision order.

472In deciding the appropriate disposition, the Court must consider the criteria set out in subsection 74 (3) of the CYFSA in making this determination.

Best interests of child

74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.

…, and

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent,

and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

473In April 2018, the CYFSA was introduced to replace the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11. Several important changes were made, including changes with respect to the best interests of the child factors. The CYFSA now makes judicial consideration of the children’s wishes mandatory, but children’s views and wishes are not given “primacy”. The court is required to give these wishes “due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity: SMCYFS v. T.M., 2020 ONSC 5900 at paragraph 30.

474The 2018 amendments also include the additional mandatory considerations of a child’s culture, linguistic heritage, race, ancestry, place or origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, and creed, as enumerated, and mandatory considerations in the best interest test under s. 74(3): Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONSC 1135 at paragraph 79.

Pre-intervention Caregiver

475The issue of who had charge of the Child prior to CAST intervention is an important threshold issue. Sections 101(3), 101(4), and 101(8) of the CYFSA each specifically require the Court to consider the ongoing placement of the child with “the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part”. These provisions require that the Court:

[a] Shall not remove the Child from the care of this person unless there are less disruptive alternatives to the Child.

[b] Shall return the Child to (or order that the Child remain with) this person if an order is not necessary to protect the Child in the future; and

[c] Shall only consider alternative placements if it is necessary to remove the Child from the care of this person.

476The CAST submitted that both the Mother and the Kith Caregivers had “charge” of the Child prior to intervention under Part V, which was interpreted as the commencement of the court application in June 2024. The OCL took the position that only the Kith Caregivers had “charge” of the Child. The parents took the position that the Child should be returned to the Mother. As a result, the Court must make that determination.

477“Intervention” is not defined by the CYFSA. Intervention is not synonymous with bringing a court application. Part V of the CYFSA is “this part” and Part V includes voluntary agreements.

478“To intervene” means to take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events. When the CAST involves itself in fundamental interests such as the right to raise one’s own child and when the continuity of family relationships are at stake, there has been an intervention. This may occur in the context of voluntary services or involuntary service. When, specifically, an intervention occurs will be based on the particular circumstances of each case: NCFST v. A.B. and M’Chigeeng First Nations 14/11970 (unreported September 22, 2022).

479“Charge” is not defined in the CYFSA. The following principals exist in the case law:

[a] “Charge” has connotation of authority and responsibility. “Charge” of a child suggests some established relationship, not something transient or temporary: Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. G.(T.), 2002 CanLII 52569 (ON CJ); Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M.(J.), 2008 ONCJ 782 at paragraph 15.

[b] A week-long visit is a temporary situation: Ottawa (Children's Aid Society) v. H. C., 2003 CanLII 38754 at paragraph 19.

[c] A months long temporary physical placement of a child, should not be conflated with authority over the child and does not extinguish a natural parents legal and actual charge over a Child’s care and custody: CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk v. J.-L. J et al, 2021 ONSC 5465315.

[d] There is no exclusivity inherent in the words “had charge”. More than one person may have charge of a child at any particular time, just as more than one person can have custody or care and control: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M. (J.), 2008 ONCJ 782 at paragraph 16.

[e] Charge is not synonymous with custody, nor is it synonymous with possession. It is necessary to examine closely all the facts in order to determine who had the ongoing care, custody and responsible possession of the child: Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. L.B.-A., 2020 ONCJ 562, Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. H.C. and C.C., 2003 CanLII 38754 (ONSC), C.A.S. v. J.M., 2021 ONSC 1716, Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.D., C.M., G.D. and W.D., 2008 CanLII 49155 (ONSC)

480This case was not commenced by a removal of the Child to a place of safety. The CAST involvement began with voluntary service, and then a VWA placing the Child with Kith Caregivers, and finally a court application.

481Voluntary agreements are governed by the CYFSA and specifically, within Part V, as well as Part II with respect to consents and agreements. The reorganization of the Voluntary Services Agreement under Part V was an intentional legislative change made to the CYFSA.

482In determining the preintervention caregiver(s), the Court has considered the following facts among others:

[a] The Mother was the Child’s primary caregiver for the first 8.5 years of his life.

[b] The Kith Caregivers were the Mother’s landlords for 4 months, the end of July 2023 to November 2023, and the Child spent time with and stayed with the Kith Caregivers, as they provided temporary respite care for the Mother. The Mother trusted the Kith Caregivers. The Child came to enjoy spending time with the Kith Caregivers, despite being strangers to the family a few months before.

[c] The Mother maintained authority over the Child’s pick up from daycare and on February 29, 2024, and on March 25, 2024, notified the daycare that the Kith Caregivers were permitted to pick the Child up.

[d] The Mother maintained authority over the Child’s medical decision-making taking the Child to the doctor on February 8, 2024, and on April 5, 2024.

[e] On April 9, 2024, the CAST’s voluntary services commenced when the CAST received a report from the TDSB social worker, which is governed by Part II of the CYFSA. Voluntary Agreements were previously under Part II of the CFSA.

[f] The VWA was signed on April 24, 2024, by the CAST worker and supervisor and the Mother on April 25, 2024. The VWA stated:

i. [The Child’s] basic needs (shelter, food, clothing, education and health) have been met in the care of [the Mother] prior to CAS involvement.

ii. [The Child] is presently safe in the care of [Kith Caregivers] with the consent of [the Mother].

iii. [The Mother] identified where she was struggling to care for [the Child] and sought out supports from the school and hence, the Society.

[g] The Kith Caregiver, S.C.’s trial affidavit states that on May 25, 2024, when the Mother left for Mexico, the Kith Caregiver, S.C.’s, evidence was “we did not have childcare in place to suddenly be the Child’s full-time caregivers…”

483The CYFSA is remedial legislation centred on supporting early intervention, maintaining, and restoring a child’s long-standing relationships with his pre-intervention caregiver. The remedial nature of the legislation allows for people to reach out for help to obtain voluntary services and support without the fear of losing their children or losing the presumption in a protection application that the child should be returned to them and not a temporary caregiver assisting them.

484Parents must be encouraged to reach out for help. This is in the best interests of children. Fear of removal, on a temporary and permanent basis, is a common reason parents do not seek help.

485The court in Re S. (B.), 1996 CanLII 8689 (ONSC) at paragraph 15, held that:

Nevertheless, I do not believe, where children have been in voluntary care before commencement of the protection application, that the legislation intended those children to be returned to foster parents.

486As held in CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk v. J.-L. J et al, 2021 ONSC 5465at paragraph 317:

To interpret the meaning of “charge” in this manner would create a legislative advantage that could serve to discourage parents in need of assistance from considering temporary respite and working voluntarily with child protection agencies during times of crisis. Such disincentive to seek out assistance when needed would clearly run counter to many stated purposes of the CYFSA (e.g. to give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit wherever possible on the basis of mutual consent, and focus on preventative and early intervention services) and would be contrary to the best interests of children in general.

487The protection finding sought in the Amended Application is a 74(2)(b) finding of risk of harm. The risk of physical harm must be “inflicted by the person having charge of the Child.” The OCL takes the position that only the Kith Caregivers were the pre-intervention caregivers, which is clearly problematic, illogical and inconsistent with protection finding pled by CAST.

488The Court finds that the Mother remained the Child’s primary caregiver and decision maker until the CAST intervened through the VWA. The Kith Caregivers were helpfully providing temporary respite childcare. To decide otherwise would undermine the clear intention of the CYFSA.

489However, even if the Court is misguided in its analysis and the Kith Caregiver are the only pre-intervention caregivers as asserted by the OCL, or are also pre-intervention caregivers as asserted by the CAST, the conclusion on this issue would not change the Court’s disposition, based on the facts of this case.

Efforts by the CAST

490Subsection 101(2) of the CYFSA requires the Court to ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.

491The CAST’s duty to provide services to a family is a fundamental issue in determining whether or not the risk to a child of being returned to a parent can be addressed. If every available service is not provided, or not provided in a timely manner, then a parent is not given a reasonable opportunity to engage in those services and the ability of the parent to benefit from those services cannot be assessed by the court: CAS of S.D.G v. A.G. and K.T, 2021 ONSC 4172 at paragraph 88, citing Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. (C.)L., 2016 ONCJ 432 at para. 123; cited with approval in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.B., 2020 ONCJ 113, at para. 155.

492The CAST has provided the following services for the Mother, the Father and the Child:

[a] The Mother was referred to the Healthy Families CAMH Worker.

[b] The Mother was provided weblinks to crisis centres by email.

[c] The Mother was provided information about COSTI.

[d] CAST provided supervised access and initially provided Russian interpretation, so the Child and the Mother could speak in Russian, and the worker could understand what was being said.

[e] CAST provided Russian interpretation for the Father and the Child’s visits because the Child can no longer speak Russian.

[f] CAST provided family services workers, but the Mother and the Father were not well served by having three different family services workers, and a covering worker during this case.

[g] Referrals were made by the Kin Worker to the Kith Caregivers for counselling for the Child.

493The Court has concerns that the services provided to the family were not adequate.

494Ms. Paolozza recognized on May 21, 2024, the need to look for the Child’s extended family when she discussed with the Mother the need to contact the Father. The Child’s paternal family was then excluded from for all planning and any access.

495There was no evidence that CAST ever suggested or offered an informal or formal family group conference to discuss the introduction of the Mother’s Husband, or to involve the paternal family and address the ongoing complex access issues, which the CAST identified and sought to address only through the appointment of the OCL.

COMPLIANCE WITH A SUPERVISION ORDER

496For a supervision order to be an effective instrument of risk management the Court should consider the following:

a) the parent must meet a minimum threshold of co-operation and reliability;

b) there needs to be a trusting relationship;

c) there needs to be clear and accurate information exchanged between the parties;

d) there needs to be demonstrable evidence that the parent would be compliant with the terms;

e) there needs to be evidence that the society could monitor a parent’s compliance; and

f) a supervision order should not be imposed if a parent is ungovernable.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.R., 2020 ONCJ 22 at paragraph 620.

497For the Court to make a supervision order, it would need to be confident that the Respondents would comply with the order: CAS of S.D.G v. A.G. and K.T, 2021 ONSC 4172 at paragraph 163, citing Children's Aid Society of Windsor-Essex v. H. (L.), 2004 ONCJ 196, [2004] O.J. No. 3889 (Ont. C.J.), Jewish Family and Child Services of Toronto v. K. (A.), 2014 ONCJ 227 (Ont. C.J.), as cited in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489, at paragraph 290.

Application of the Best Interests Factors

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.

498Initially and until mid-January 2025, the Child expressed his love for his Mother, and repeatedly expressed that he wanted to speak with his Paternal Grandmother and Young Paternal Aunt.

499The Child’s voice was ignored during this time.

500The Child also stopped expressing his love for his Mother. The Child began rejecting his Mother and completely refusing any relationship with his Father.

501At this point, the Child’s voice became amplified.

502The New OCL Clinician’s evidence included, among other things:

[a] He advised that prior to residing with the Kith Caregivers, the Child resided with the Mother by his current school, though he “almost never went to school” during this time.

[b] The Child shared that the Mother had “like five boyfriends” before her current Husband.

[c] The Child stated that he didn’t attend school in Ukraine and attributed this to the Mother not wanting to send him.

[d] The Child noted that his feelings and experiences may be similar to his Kith Caregiver, S.C., because her mother had mental issues too and she wasn’t nice to the Kith Caregiver, S.C. too, so the Child and the Kith Caregiver, S.C. are “kind of the same with [their] issues.”

503The Child’s letter to Justice Kapurura states, among other things:

[a] “This summer I felt frustrated and angry because [Mother’s first name] and [Father’s first name] and [Paternal Grandmother’s first name] ruined my summer.”

[b] “All these years when I was living with [Mother’s first name] I didn’t go to school. I didn’t go to the doctor and she was treating me like a doll, baby, and a play friend and a servant.”

[c] “I learned in [Kith Caregiver’s home] to wash myself, read, write and take me to school.”

504Both the Child’s letters to his Mother and to Justice Kapurura contained many factually inaccurate things such as the Mother never taking him to school or to the doctor.

505Frustrated and angry are the same words the Child and Youth Support Worker recorded in her intake session on November 15, 2024 with the Kith Caregiver, S.C., when the Kith Caregiver, S.C., was asked to describe her general attitude towards the Mother.

506The Child’s letter is strikingly similar to what the Kith Caregivers wrote in an email to the CAST workers on October 24, 2024, almost a year before, where the Kith Caregivers indicated that they want their own letter from themselves to be before the court as follows:

[a] Court & Our Letter – We would like to know if our letter to the court can be included…We are the ones teaching him to read, wash himself, tie shoes, use a pen – all the missed skills and knowledge gaps from missing years of school. We are his carers and would like the judge to hear us.

507On or about November 3, 2024, the Kith Caregivers again wrote to CAST: “COURT Where do we submit our letter? We hope to be able to speak for [the Child] in court tomorrow – is it possible? How do we make that request?”

508Letter writing originated with the Kith Caregivers.

509The Court finds the Child’s views have been influenced by many factors, including the Child’s experiences, but also the influences of the adults around him.

510The Kith Caregivers have repeated the same inaccurate and harmful narrative about the Child’s life and his parenting, to the Maternal Aunts, the CAST and the Child and Youth Support Worker.

511Unfortunately, the OCL was appointed at a time after the Child had been told he would not return to his Mother and influenced by many other negative and inaccurate information about his Mother and his own life.

512Had the OCL been appointed at the beginning of the Application, the OCL would have heard the Child’s views and wishes from the beginning, which included repeated requests to speak with his Paternal Grandmother, and his Young Paternal Aunt, and his wish to return to his Mother’s care, which he articulated for many months.

513The OCL only represented the Child’s views and wishes and did not complete a full independent enquiry of all the circumstances relating to the best interests of the Child, despite the right of the OCL to do so in the Order of Justice Kapurura, dated January 30, 2025.

514The OCL did not speak with the Child’s extended family members, not even the Paternal Grandmother with whom he had lived.

515The Child’s views at the time of trial were clear: he wants to live with the Kith Caregivers and spend time with his babysitter, his friends and their family friends. He does not want any contact with his parents or his paternal family. He would like to see his Maternal Aunts and Maternal Uncle.

516Regardless of the influences, the Child’s views are nevertheless very important to the courtroom. However, the Court is very concerned about the pressure and influence on the Child and, therefore, the Child’s views are given limited weight in this decision.

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

517The Child has the average physical and mental needs of 9-year-old boy. The Child has some special emotional needs that have recently developed. He has no medical diagnosis and is not prescribed any medication. He is doing well in school.

518The Child has the following school attendance record according to his report cards:

Grade 3 – Mother’s sole care/Kith Caregiver’s Care

[a] Grade 3 – November 10, 2023 – 4.5 days absent (Mother’s sole care)

[b] Grade 3 – February 12, 2024 – 2 days absent and 0 days late (Mother’s sole care)

[c] Grade 3 – June 27, 2024 – 19.5 days absent and 8 late (Mother’s care with assistance from Kith Caregiver from February 13, 2024, until April 25, 2025, and from April 25, 2025, onward Kith Caregiver’s care alone)

Grade 4 – Sole Kith Caregiver’s Care

[d] Grade 4 – June 26, 2025 – 19.5 days absent and 14 days late (Kith Caregiver’s sole Care)

519The Child’s worst school attendance has been while the Child has resided in the sole care of the Kith Caregivers, despite the additional support of a paid babysitter.

520His Mother met his educational, medical and emotional needs until the VWA was signed. The Mother suggested therapy for the Child in September 2024. The Mother has provided thousands of dollars in ongoing financial support for the Child while he was in the temporary care of the Kith Caregivers and despite her own significant struggles.

521The Kith Caregivers provided a home, vegan meals, and supported the Child’s academic needs and English language learning. The Child reportedly enjoys long walks, baking, gardening, and the pets in the Kith Caregivers’ home. The Child is also connected with other children and enjoys playdates and hip-hop dance. The Kith Caregiver, L.B, also intends to teach the Child some basic martial arts because the Kith Caregiver, L.B., has a black belt in Taekwondo. The Child has play dates and spends time with a babysitter going to the park and to the movies.

522The Kith Caregivers have been unable to meet the Child’s needs:

[a] The Child did not start seeing the Child and Youth Support Worker until November 25, 2024, and that ended on August 7, 2025, despite all the Child’s recent emotional challenges with access. Appointments were missed and not re-scheduled.

[b] According to the Kith Caregivers, Yorktown Family Services reportedly saw the Child on August 18, 2025; however, no documentation confirmed that. The Kith Caregiver emailed the CAST and the OCL and stated they would be taking the Child for walk-in appointments at the Jamestown location every other week. There was no evidence this was ever done.

[c] The Child has never had therapy, despite stating multiples times that it was necessary.

[d] They never arranged for any assessments.

[e] The Child currently has no professional mental health supports.

[f] There was no evidence that the Kith Caregivers took the Child to a medical doctor. His restrictive diet was not overseen by a doctor.

[g] Despite the Child being in their care for over a year and having the resources available from a friend, the Kith Caregivers have never arranged for a private assessment or the trauma-focused and child-centered therapy they suggest he needs.

[h] They never arranged for a tutor for the Child to support his Russian and Ukrainian language skills.

[i] The Child was never on a waitlist for Russian or Ukrainian school.

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

523The Child is developing typically with the exception of his mental health needs.

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression

524The Child is Ukrainian and was born in Kyiv. The Child is a citizen of Ukraine.

525The Child is Christian. He was baptized and attended Sunday school. He has a Godmother with whom he has been denied contact by the Kith Caregivers.

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage

526The Child’s culture is Ukrainian. The Child has been displaced by the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. The Ontario government has recognized the importance of Ukrainian heritage in the Ukrainian Heritage Month Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 40.

527The Child ate Ukrainian food and practiced Ukrainian customs, prior to living with the Kith Caregivers.

528The Child’s first languages are Russian and Ukrainian.

529The Child’s cultural and linguistic heritage has not been supported while he has lived with the Kith Caregivers. The have not supported his language learning, despite his Paternal Grandmother’s offers to provide financial support for this. They have not kept him adequately connected to his Russian-speaking family members so that he continues to speak his first language. The limited cultural programing the Kith Caregivers sought for the Child was inadequate.

530The Kith Caregiver, S.C., suggested her years as a foreign correspondent in Eastern Europe connect her to the Child’s Ukrainian culture.

531The Kith Caregivers have suggested to the CAST that they are “a cultural diverse home with many languages”; however, none of those cultures or languages are the Child’s cultural or first language.

532Reducing culture to painting Ukrainian eggs, occasionally spending time at a community centre, filling a house in Ukrainian flags, and decorating cupcakes with Ukrainian colours is not meeting a Child’s cultural needs.

533The importance of the Child’s birth culture appears poorly understood by Kith Caregivers and CAST.

534The CYFSA recognizes a positive cultural identity, and a sense of belonging are crucial for children’s well-being and overall life outcomes. However, children from culturally diverse backgrounds can be at risk of unmet well-being needs and vulnerabilities when they live in care environments that are not aligned with their birth cultures, and there is little attention paid to their cultural and linguistic needs.

535The most important people to instill the Child’s culture are his biological family who can share cultural traditions, family stories, family experiences, expression, mannerisms, humor, games and food within the Child’s culture.

536To be most meaningful, a Child’s culture is incorporated into daily routines. Children are constantly learning culturally relevant messages through observation of their parents, extended family and within their cultural community, through participation in daily activities.

537The Mother will support the Child’s cultural and linguistic heritage.

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family

538The Child is a very important member of both his own biological family and the Kith Caregivers’ family.

539The Child had positive relationships with his large extended biological family prior to being placed with the Kith Caregivers. The Child lacks that attachment currently.

540The Kith Caregiver, S.C., few tangible examples of anything that was done by her or Kith Caregiver, L.B., to support the Child’s access visits with the Father, which were mostly limited to looking at vocabulary cards and talking about being “curious”.

(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

541The Kith Caregiver, S.C., states at paragraph 67 of her affidavit that they are strong believers in family and community bonds and will continue to build the Child’s connections to their family and friends. The Kith Caregiver, L.B.’s parents, brother and sister have all raised boys and can provide parenting guidance. There is no mention of the Kith Caregiver, S.C.,’s extended family. None of these people provided any evidence and it is not clear whether they reside in Toronto.

542The Mother acknowledged the importance of maintaining the Child’s relationships both with the Father and the Child’s extended family.

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

543The Child spent the vast majority of his life with his Mother. The Child also had the love and support of members of his large biological family who were involved prior to his placement with the Kith Caregivers.

544The Child has been in the care of the Kith Caregivers since April 2024, and they were involved in his life providing regular respite care in the months prior to that. The Kith Caregivers are not part of the Child’s extended family. The Kith Caregivers were unknown to the Child prior to July 2023. They have “no ethnic, cultural or creedal ties” in common with the Child: subsection 2(3)(1) of the CYFSA.

545The evidence supports that the Kith Caregivers have not been child focused and have engaged in harmful behaviour towards the Child, which supports a disruption to the Child’s current situation of care.

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent

546The CAST’s plan is for the Child to be placed with the Kith Caregivers despite the clear problems with such a placement and the clear evidence it is not meeting many of his needs.

547There was a lack of evidence from the CAST of an approved kinship assessment or compliance with sections 38-44 of O. Reg 156/18.

548The parents are seeking the Child’s return to the Mother. The Mother has a detailed plan of care.

549The CAST has not assessed the Mother’s plan, as the worker admitted she has primarily focused on access.

550The Mother’s Amended Plan of Care, dated September 22, 2025, indicates that the Child will have his own bedroom within a 4-bedroom home, which is occupied by a family of three (two adults and a child who is the same age as the Child). The Mother’s home is close to the Child’s current school. The Mother is employed and earning $110,000 annually. She will have the support of her Husband and the family she resides with and will continue to engage with her mental health supports.

551The Father supports this plan and also supports a plan that the Child reside with him and the paternal family in France.

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case

552The delay in this case, like many other aspects of this situation, is unfortunate. Delay is rarely in a Child’s best interests.

553However, the court cannot make a final order simply to avoid delay. The court has to be satisfied that the order being made is in the Child’s best interests.

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent

554The Kith Caregivers have permitted, and at least tacitly encouraged, the Child to be angry, rejecting and unkind, which were not traits the Child had prior to being in their care.

555The Child will likely experience temporary emotional upset being removed from the Kith Caregivers. This is the result of being estranged from his Mother and isolated from all his other family members. The Mother is partially responsible. Additionally the Kith Caregivers’ conduct is also largely responsible, as well as the failure of the CAST to meaningfully and effectively address that conduct early on.

556The Child is at risk of emotional harm if he continues to reside with the Kith Caregivers. The Child’s best interests are not being served by continuing to reside with the Kith Caregivers.

557Placement with the Mother is also not without risk. She has mental health challenges that will be with her for life. She appears to be taking very positive steps.

558The Father and the Paternal Grandmother support the Mother’s plan.

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

559The risk to the Child related to the Mother’s mental health could be mitigated by a supervision order. The CAST has failed to continually assess the Mother’s plan.

560The Mother has met or exceeded the expectation of CAST as set out in its plan of care, dated February 26, 2025, as follows:

[i] The Mother is actively engaging with mental health services and supports and is following through with recommendations made by her mental health professionals – The CAST did not present any evidence that suggests the Mother was not actively engaging with mental health services. The Mother scheduled and kept her medical appointments. The Mother has actively sought out mental health support prior to and throughout the CAST’s involvement. She continues to receive psychiatric care through Michael Garron Hospital, as well as from Dr. Everardo Castro Silva, a clinical psychologist in Mexico. The Mother testified she has engaged for months in DBT therapy and has learned how to manage her emotional responses. The Mother has also engaged in couples’ therapy with the Husband.

[ii] The Mother has demonstrated that she is complying with treatment recommendations, including taking medication as prescribed – The CAST did not present any evidence that the Mother has ever not complied with treatment recommendations. She has always taken her medication. The Mother’s evidence is that her medication is now the correct type and dosage, and she no longer experiences side effects.

[iii] The Mother has demonstrated that she has developed an informal support system that she can use in the future for childcare and emotional support. The CAST did not present evidence that the Mother did not develop an informal support system. The Mother is now married, and her Husband is living with her. The Mother identifies that her Husband is a source of emotional support for her. The Mother also rents space in a home with another family.

[iv] The Mother has attended consistently for access and demonstrated that she is able to engage the Child in an age-appropriate manner. The Mother has attended virtual assess regularly. The Mother has also attended in-person access when she was in Toronto and permitted to do so. The access visits supervised by professionals have consistently been reported to be positive. Until recently, the CAST’s evidence confirmed the visits were positive and the Child reported no concerns.

[v] The Mother has engaged positively and transparently with the CAST workers, regarding the CAST’s consents. The CAST presented no evidence to suggest the Mother did not engage positively and transparently throughout its involvement. The Mother indicated she provided signed consents in August 2025, which the CAST has yet to follow up on, and many of her medical records.

[vi] The Mother has demonstrated a period of stability in her mental health and circumstances. The CAST did not present any evidence that the Mother’s mental health is not currently stable such as hospital admissions or medical records, despite having signed consent to obtain this information. The Mother’s evidence, and her Husband’s evidence was that her mental health has been stable since March 2025.

[vii] The Mother has demonstrated that she has a realistic and sustainable safety plan in place to ensure the Child’s needs can be met (including but not limited to the Child’s need for consistency and stability) and to ensure the Child’s safety and well-being. The CAST relies on the evidence of the Mother’s frequent moves and absences from the Child’s life, since the CAST involvement, as evidence of her instability. The Mother has a home, a Husband, and employment. The Mother has completed the Triple P parenting course. The Mother is actively engaged in treatment, the Mother is seeking help, and the Mother works very transparently and cooperatively with the CAST.

[viii] The Mother has secured safe and stable housing. The CAST attended the Mother’s home on September 4, 2025, and cancelled the second visit on October 9, 2025.

561The degree of risk from the Kith Caregivers is serious. It may be very difficult for the Child to return to his Mother’s care and to normalize all his family relationships.

Non-Compliance with Court Orders

562The Kith Caregivers have repeatedly demonstrated that they are unable to follow court orders.

563The Kith Caregivers did not demonstrate sufficient parenting ability to ensure that the Child follows court orders.

Conclusions on Disposition

564The Court finds that a disposition order is necessary.

565It would not be in the Child’s best interests to be placed in the deemed custody of the Kith Caregivers.

566A supervision order placing the Child with the Kith Caregiver also is not in the Child’s best interests because the Court lacks confidence that the Kith Caregivers will follow its terms and anticipates continued negative allegations and a lack of support for the Child’s relationships with his parents, extended family, language and culture.

567A supervision order placing the Child with the Mother is the goal. However, given some resistance is expected from the Child this may create a difficult and unstable situation initially between the Mother and the Child.

568The Child may need to be in a neutral placement before he is willing to accept his Mother. The Child may need professional psychological supports to understand and begin to accept their relationship. The Child has learned a lot of inaccurate things about his childhood and his Mother’s parenting. The Child had a lot of love for his Mother.

569Additionally, the CAST has not adequately assessed the Mother’s plan, which creates unknowns for the Court.

570As a result, pursuant to subsection 101(1)(2) the Child shall be placed in the interim society care of the CAST for a period of three months.

571The CAST shall make all reasonable efforts as follows:

[a] to maintain the Child’s current school placement, including transportation supports by the CAST;

[b] to ensure the Child shall receive culturally appropriate food;

[c] in consultation with the Mother, Father and Paternal Grandmother to ensure that the Child shall receive a psychological assessment, and immediate therapeutic supports focused on reunification with his family; and

[d] in consultation with the Mother, Father and Paternal Grandmother to ensure that the Child shall receive appropriate language supports.

572The Child’s clothing, belongings, and any government issued identification shall be provided by the Kith Caregivers to the CAST.

573The CAST is permitted to allow the Mother extended access visits as soon as possible with terms and conditions set out below. If the Child is willing and can be safely placed with the Mother, the CAST should explore this immediately, as opposed to a foster home.

574If the CAST is of the view that the Child can be placed under a supervision order with the Mother, the CAST shall return this matter to court earlier than three months.

575For concurrent planning purposes, within 7 days, the CAST is ordered to engage International Support Services and or the child protection authorities in Carcassonne, France to complete an assessment on the Father’s plan with respect to the potential placement of the Child with the Child’s paternal family in France.

ACCESS

576In making an order under subsection 104(1) of the CYFSA, the Court considered the relevant best interest factors set out in subsection 74(3) of the CYFSA set out above.

577The Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.E., 2023 ONCA 149 (“T.E.”) at paragraph 40, set out that once a person has a right of access or custody to a child, they are a parent as defined in subsection 74(1) of the CYFSA.

578In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. B.H., 2023 ONCJ 376 at paragraph 67, Justice Sherr held:

Subsection 105(7) requires that the court differentiate between access holders and access recipients when making an order placing a child in extended society care. It does not prohibit the court from using these distinctions in other situations. Making these distinctions is even more important since the T.E. decision so that courts don’t inadvertently create parent and party status for a plethora of individuals who might have access with a child – some who would not even want to be parties.

579The Court finds that it is in the Child’s best interests that his Mother, Father and Paternal Grandmother be granted an order for access. They shall all be parties to the Status Review Application.

580The Child, through the OCL, requested access with his Kith Caregivers if he were not placed with them, and given the Child’s views and wishes, the Court is granting the Child the right of access to the Kith Caregivers on a limited and structured basis. The Court’s concern with access for the Kith Caregivers is based on their conduct and their attempts to undermine and sever the Child’s relationships with his family. Therefore, access is limited to once per month, virtually and supervised.

581To be clear, the Child’s access order does not create party status for the Kith Caregivers.

The Role of CAST

582The 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 …”: B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24 at paragraph 63.

583When the state has the statutory duty to investigate abuse and protect children, that duty carries with it a high onus to conduct themselves in a professional and objective manner: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.D.B., 2013 ONSC 5556.

584It has long been recognized that the CAST, as an agent of the state, is not an ordinary litigant and the adversarial concept of winning and losing does not apply: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.L.-R., 2011 ONCJ 670 at paragraph 104.

585In Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. E.V.F.S., 2004 CanLII 34346 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 1216, at paragraph 41, Justice Vogelsang stated:

Just dealing with a case in accordance with the Rules and acting to ensure fair procedure for all parties was recently examined by Justice Sherrill M. Rogers in Children and Family Services of York Region v. P.E., J.M. and B.E. (citation omitted).

Although this case involved a determination of costs, considerable reliance was placed by Justice Rogers on Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. B.-C.(Z.) and B.-C.(J.) (citation omitted) and the following references to fairness in the exercise of a society's statutory mandate found therein.

3Protection agencies are not ordinary litigants. The society has a mandate to protect children, and children have a right to be protected.

4As party of its duty to act with fairness and reasonableness in carrying out its statutory responsibilities a society must exercise good faith, due diligence and reason in its investigations. A society is not free to assume that "if there is smoke, there must be fire".

5Nowhere is a society authorized, in the name of the powers entrusted to it by the legislature, to ignore or trample on a parent's rights.

7An ordinary person perceives a society as having acted fairly in the following circumstances:

(a) before launching a court proceeding, the society has undertaken a thorough investigation [of] allegations or evidence of a child's need for protection.

(b) as part of its thoroughness, the society has recognized and acted on its duty to look beyond an allegation for corroboration or independent evidence of it.

(c) as part of its thoroughness, the society, mindful of its duty under subsection 2(2) of the Act to ensure that children and parents have an opportunity, where appropriate, to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made, has interviewed the person who is alleged to have created the need for protective intervention, invited that person to have counsel involved, permitted that person an opportunity to reply to the allegation, and then weighed the competing versions for their likely reliability and credibility - before the society proceeds to "validate" the allegation and draw the unequivocal conclusion that the need for protection exists;

(d) the society has demonstrated its openness to any version of the events that is offered, including the version offered by the person against whom the allegation is made.

(e) as part of is [its] thoroughness, the society, has been alert to rancour that might reasonably be animating the allegations.

(f) the society has reassessed its position as more information becomes available, even if a court hearing is in session at the time; in short, it has continued its investigation up to the time of a final court determination of the alleged need for protection, and done so in a vigorous professional manner; and

(g) the society has investigated all pieces of relevant information, not just those pieces for which there is uncontroverted proof.

586The CAST must reassess its position as circumstances warranted over time: Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. W.D. (2004), 2004 CanLII 66347 (ON SC), at paragraph 75; Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. B. (C.), 2005 CanLII 32915 (ON SC), at paragraph 96.

587The CAST must bring all material evidence before the Court, even if it goes against its case: Re. R.M.C., 1980 CanLII 3794 (ON CJ), [1980] O.J. No. 1768 (P.C.)

588The CAST is required to present full and impartial evidence to the Court: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. R.M., 2001 CanLII 25594 (ON CJ), [2001] O.J. No. 2441 (C.J.).

589The CAST has a duty of fair and frank disclosure and is required to file fair and balanced pleadings: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.D.B., 2013 ONSC 5556 at paragraph 286, citing Children’s Aid Society of the City of Kingston and County of Frontenac v. J.M.S., [2004] O.J. No. 844 (S.C.).

590Due to the special powers granted under the CYFSA, the CAST has a duty to act with fairness and reasonableness and must always exercise good faith and respect the rights of all persons: Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. E.O., 2009 CanLII 72087 at paragraph 164.

Problematic Conduct by the CAST

591The role of the CAST was concerning in this matter for a number of reasons, including:

[a] The CAST failed to provide relevant, balanced and accurate, evidence – several examples:

i. The lack of any direct evidence from an intake worker, a kinship worker, or any access workers.

ii. There was no evidence called from the Child’s doctor, school, or any member of the Child’s current community, other than one of the Kith Caregivers.

iii. The lack of comprehensive contact logs related to the Mother’s access. Many of the contact logs of positive access visits with the Child and the Mother were not provided. Even when access visits were referred to as positive in the workers’ affidavits there were no further details described.

iv. The failure to provide any evidence of the Paternal Grandmother’s multiple attempts to contact the CAST, which started prior to the first court appearance.

v. The failure to provide evidence of the concerns from the Maternal Aunts regarding the Child’s loss of language before the Court, and during the trial, and initially indicating that CAST had never received the letter, which was not accurate.

vi. The failure to disclose the Kith Caregivers’ longstanding intention to adopt or their attendance at CAST adoption meetings and their meeting with a CAST adoption worker.

vii. The CAST’s evidence was that the Child was having weekly access visits with his maternal family. The Child never was.

viii. The CAST’s evidence incorrectly stated that the Child was on a TDSB waitlists for language supports. The Child never was.

ix. Repeatedly suggested the Child had school attendance issues when the Child was in the Mother’s care, when this was inconsistent with the Child’s attendance as recorded on the Child’s school report cards, tendered by the CAST.

x. Referring to the Kith Caregivers as a “host family” but not disclosing that Mother was paying rent while living there.

[b] Highly Aggressive Litigation Position – The CAST adopted an aggressive litigation strategy inconsistent with the appropriate role of a Children’s Aid Society.

i. The CAST amended the protection application to seek a section 102 order with the Kith Caregivers on February 2025. Prior to this amendment being made, both the Father and the Paternal Grandmother advised that they wished to present a plan for the Child and the CAST took no steps to assess the plans.

ii. The CAST relied on its Plan of Care, dated February 26, 2025 at trial which stated the Father was not in a position to present a plan, despite the Father filing an Answer and Plan of Care, dated June 6, 2025, which was never assessed and International Social Services (“ISS”) was never contacted.

iii. The CAST opposed the Child’s biological family’s efforts to connect and reconnect with the Child. The CAST opposed Father’s motion for access and opposed the Paternal Grandmother’s motion to be added as a party. In taking this position, the CAST relied on the evidence of the original OCL Clinician, who was a CAST employee, without disclosing that fact to the Court, during the motion to have the Paternal Grandmother added as a party.

iv. The CAST never re-assessed the Mother’s plan despite her clear gains in stabilizing her mental health, obtaining housing and employment in Toronto, expanding her social network including the support of the Husband. The CAST cancelled the second home visit before trial, failed to review her medical records, and failed to follow up on the consents she provided.

v. The original OCL clinician in this case is also a CAST employee, with conflicting interests, and the CAST had no issue with that. The OCL acknowledged, after the ruling on the voir dire, that this was problematic and would make internal changes. The CAST did not.

vi. The CAST attempted to rely on evidence that was settlement privileged.

vii. During the trial, the CAST attempted to limit the Father’s examination when he was well within his time, and also has a pronounced acquired speech impediment, which was impacting the speed of his testimony, which he indicated was aggravated by stress. The Father had special needs requiring accommodation.

[c] Unfairness – The CAST did not treat all parties with fairness.

i. There was no evidence that the Mother was provided with an opportunity to obtain legal advice before signing the VWA. The worker and supervisor signed it the day before the Mother and there was no evidence the Mother was able to negotiate its terms. Additionally, the CAST was aware that the Mother’s mental health was an issue and perhaps her capacity to enter an agreement should have been considered.

ii. The Child’s Father, who was in active military service, and the Child’s entire extended paternal and maternal families, who are non-English speakers and displaced persons fleeing war, were not engaged meaningfully or treated with fairness.

iii. At the same time, while ignoring the Child’s paternal family, on September 8, 2025, Ms. Williams responded to the Kith Caregivers by email and suggested ways that they could have their submissions heard in court and explained to the Kith Caregivers “how to highlight” their court materials that they want to speak to so the judge “is more receptive in hearing you in future appearances.” This appears unfair.

[d] Lack of Compliance with the CYFSA and its Regulations – The CAST did not comply with various sections of the CYFSA – a few examples:

i. Subsection 15(2) of the CYFSA requires that the CAST is to ensure that children … and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

ii. The CAST made little to no effort to hear from the Father or to hear from the Paternal Grandmother.

iii. There was no evidence from the CAST of an approved kinship assessment or compliance with sections 38-44 of O. Reg 156/18.

iv. A lack of any evidence about any investigations into the repeated allegations made by the Kith Caregivers about the Child’s sexualized behaviour.

v. There was no evidence that CAST complied with subsection 3(1) of O. Reg. 156/18 which requires that the CAST take into account a child’s “identity characteristics” when making a decision “likely to materially affect the child’s interests.”

vi. Ms. Williams admitted she never sought a cultural liaison consultation to address the Child’s cultural needs.

vii. The CAST did not ensure that the Child remain connected to his language through early, meaningful and ongoing connections with his family members.

viii. The CAST Plan of Care, dated February 26, 2025, relied on at trial states: “[the Kith Caregivers] have been, and are able to continue to recognize the importance of [the Child’s] culture and to preserve his heritage, traditions, and cultural identity”. This is inaccurate and inadequate.

ORDERS

592The following orders are made today:

[a] Pursuant to subsection 74(4)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) the Child is found to be in need of protection.

[b] Pursuant to subsection 101(1)(2) of the CYFSA, the Child shall be placed in the interim care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto for three months.

[c] The CAST shall make all reasonable efforts as follows:

i. to maintain the Child’s current school placement, including transportation supports by the CAST;

ii. to ensure the Child receives culturally appropriate food while he is in care;

iii. in consultation with the Mother, Father and Paternal Grandmother to ensure that the Child receives a psychological assessment, and immediate therapeutic supports focused on reunification with his family;

iv. in consultation with the Mother, Father and Paternal Grandmother to ensure that the Child receives appropriate language supports; and

v. the Child’s clothing, belongings, and any government issued identification shall be immediately provided by the Kith Caregivers to the CAST.

[d] The CAST is permitted to allow the Mother extended access visits as soon as possible with terms and conditions set out below, which means that if the CAST is of the view that the Child can be placed with the Mother, and not placed in a foster home, he may be placed with the Mother immediately. If the CAST is of the view that the Child can be placed under a supervision order with the Mother, the CAST shall return this matter to court earlier than three months.

[e] For concurrent planning purposes, within 7 days, the CAST is ordered to engage International Support Services and or the child protection authorities in Carcassonne, France to complete an assessment of the Father’s plan with respect to the potential placement of the Child with the Child’s paternal family in France.

Access

[f] Pursuant to section 104 of the CYFSA, the Mother shall have access with the Child a minimum of three times per week in-person for a minimum of one hour, and at any other reasonable times the Child requests. The Mother’s Husband is permitted to attend the Mother’s access at the discretion of the CAST. The Mother’s Husband is permitted to play Minecraft, Roblox, or other online age-appropriate games with the Child during access visits. Otherwise, the frequency, duration, and level of supervision, shall be at the discretion of the CAST. Access is meant to continually expand proportionately with the current protection concerns.

[g] If the Child is willing and there are no new protection concerns, the Mother is permitted to have extended access visits at the discretion of the CAST, which may include unsupervised overnight visits. The Mother’s extended access visits shall have the following terms and conditions:

i. The Mother shall permit announced and unannounced visits by the CAST.

ii. The Mother shall ensure that the Child’s medical, educational and psychological needs are met.

iii. The Mother shall make best efforts to arrange for a family doctor for herself and the Child and otherwise use the walk-in services available.

iv. The Mother shall continue to be treated by her psychiatrist at Michael Garron Hospital and Maria Dora Bucur, her psychotherapist, or a similar DBT therapist in Toronto.

v. The Mother shall comply with recommendations made by her treating psychiatrist, primary medical provider, and other mental health professionals, including taking her medication, as prescribed.

vi. The Mother shall engage in programming as recommended by the CAST.

vii. The Mother shall maintain her support network including residing with other adults who are aware of the Mother’s mental health struggles and have a safety plan.

viii. The Mother shall work transparently and cooperatively with the CAST and shall sign consents, after the opportunity to review those consents with her counsel, for the CAST to obtain relevant information.

ix. The Mother and the Mother’s Husband shall advise the CAST if the Mother experiences a return of mental health symptoms.

x. The Mother’s Husband is permitted to be present according to the Child’s comfort level.

xi. The CAST shall provide therapeutic support to the Child to address reunification with the Child and the Mother, as well as the Father and the paternal family, as needed.

[h] Pursuant to section 104 of the CYFSA, the Father shall have access with the Child a minimum of two times virtually per week, and any reasonable time the Child requests access with the Father. The Child’s access can include playing Roblox, Minecraft, watching movies or other activities that the Child enjoys and would support a positive visit. The Child shall be supported in access as needed with snacks and other comfort items, if required. If the Father visits Toronto, the Father shall have in-person visits with the Child at the discretion of the CAST and to include a minimum of two times per week in the community, with the CAST present.

[i] Pursuant to section 104 of the CYFSA, the Paternal Grandmother shall have access with the Child, which can include the Young Paternal Aunt, at any reasonable time the Child requests, through Telegram, phone, or virtual visits, and a minimum of one virtual visit per week for a minimum of 15 minutes and otherwise the length of time the Child decides.

[j] Pursuant to section 104 of the CYFSA, the Child shall have access with is Maternal Aunts at any reasonable time the Child requests, through Telegram, phone or virtual visits, and a minimum of one virtual visit per week for a minimum of 15 minutes and otherwise the length of time the Child decides.

[k] Pursuant to section 104 of the CYFSA, the Child may have virtual supervised access with the Kith Caregivers supervised by the CAST for not more than 20 minutes once per month. If the access is disruptive to the Child and/or the reunification plan, the CAST has the discretion to terminate this access. During their access, the Kith Caregivers are not permitted to say negative comments about the parents, discuss historic narratives, or any adult issues before the Court. The Kith Caregivers are to support and actively encourage the Child’s relationships with his family members.

[l] Prior to expanding the Child’s access with the Kith Caregivers beyond the terms of this order, the Kith Caregivers must engage in therapeutic supports to understand their role in the Child’s estrangement from his Mother, extended family, culture and language, and the importance of supporting those relationships.

[m] The first appearance on status review of this matter is scheduled for February 18, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. in-person before Justice Sullivan.

[n] Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to all counsel and the Kith Caregivers.

[o] Cost submissions against any party, if any, may be made within 30 days.