Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.M., 2025 ONCJ 639

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.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.M., 2025 ONCJ 639

DATE: December 4, 2025

COURT FILE No.: 23-699

BETWEEN:

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO

Applicant

— AND —

T.M.

Respondent mother

Before Justice M. B. Pawagi

Heard October 20-24; 27-31, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on December 4, 2025

Mira Pilch......................................................................................... counsel for the applicant

T.M. ......................................................................... respondent mother on her own behalf

M. Keyshawn Anderson .............................................................. counsel for the children

PAWAGI, M. B. J.:

1. Nature of the Case

1This case concerns 10-year-old twin boys who have been in society care for two years. The society and the mother are seeking a supervision order with the mother in Vancouver, where she relocated to a few months after the society removed the boys from her care. Counsel for the children is seeking an order for extended care with no access based on the boys’ wishes and concerns about mother’s mental health.

2. Facts

2The mother is the only parent before the court. She is originally from South Africa, of Nigerian descent, and is Francophone. The children’s biological father, who was Egyptian Muslim, died in 2016 when the boys were just a year old. The mother separated from the children’s stepfather (whom she married in 2023) at the end of 2024 and he has had no involvement with the boys since.

3The mother has three siblings who all have a close relationship with the children (maternal uncle, maternal aunt S. and maternal aunt T.). They are not opposed to the return of the children to the mother’s care; but if the children are placed in extended care, they are considering presenting an adoption plan so the children can remain with family.

4The boys, T. and L., are by all accounts delightful children. T. is more extroverted. He is talkative, energetic and loves science. L. is more introverted. He is thoughtful and artistic. They are both good athletes. They are both kind, loving, and compassionate. They are competitive with each other, while still sharing a very close bond. They have fun together. They have no behavioural, social, emotional or academic issues.

5The precipitating incident for the society’s current involvement was mother’s mental health crisis in March 2023. Police were called when mother was yelling at a neighbour from her apartment balcony. The children (then almost 8 years old) were inside the apartment at the time. Police took the mother to St. Michael’s Hospital where she was involuntarily admitted pursuant to the Mental Health Act and released after 72 hours, at which time police took her into custody after arresting her for breach of her release conditions; she was held for 11 days. The release conditions related to an incident in 2022 where the mother was charged with harassing the same neighbour. The mother was also hospitalized in 2022, but no details of that hospitalization were provided at trial, although the society was involved around that time.

6On March 17, 2023, the children were brought to A.C., who was mother’s friend at that time and who was listed as mother’s emergency contact. The children were not left with their stepfather as maternal aunt S. reported to the society that she had heard mother make allegations that he was a pedophile.

7On April 4, 2023, the children were placed with maternal uncle. The society conducted police and child welfare background checks and had no concerns about the maternal uncle’s ability to care for the children. The children were happy in his care and enjoyed being with their cousin (his youngest child who is close in age to them). Maternal uncle also has two adult children. The placement broke down because the mother had ongoing conflict with the maternal uncle and his ex-wife (with whom he shares custody of his youngest child), which culminated in the mother’s arrest when she attended at his home and pounded on his door to the point of breaking the glass.

8This charge and earlier charges (the exact number and nature of which is not known as the society never sought the mother’s police records) were resolved by way of a peace bond which prohibits the mother from communicating with the neighbour and neighbour’s family, mother’s then-friend A.C., and maternal uncle and his immediate family, until June 10, 2027.

9On May 12, 2023, the children were placed with maternal aunt S. who resides with maternal grandmother two hours from Toronto. The society conducted police and child welfare background checks and had no concerns. The children enjoyed going to their new school and made friends with their classmates and neighbours. The children were content to stay with maternal aunt S. where their needs were being met.

10The mother was having phone calls with the children on weekdays until the end of August 2023. The Society suspended the phone calls after receiving reports that the mother was undermining the placement during these calls. The mother did not support the placement and made numerous unfounded complaints about the boys’ wellbeing. The mother was still permitted to see the boys in person weekly.

11In June 2023, the mother went to Vancouver and then travelled back and forth between Toronto and Vancouver until she permanently relocated to Vancouver in November 2023. She did not advise the society of her move until March 8, 2024. The reason she gave for her move was that she needed to place this much distance between her and maternal family for the sake of stabilizing her mental health.

12In September 2023, maternal aunt S. told the society she could no longer care for the children due to the stress caused by the mother. The mother was not supportive of the placement and expressed concerns for the boys’ wellbeing. The society did not share mother’s concerns. The mother advised the society she would prefer the children to be in society care, rather than with maternal uncle or maternal aunt S., which continued to be her position at trial. As there were no other kin/kith plans presented, the society brought the boys to a place of safety on September 25, 2023.

13On September 29, 2023, an order was made placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the society with access to mother at the discretion of the society. The mother was offered in person access on alternate Fridays and alternate Saturdays. How frequently the mother would travel back and forth from Vancouver to Toronto to exercise this access was not in evidence.

14On November 21, 2023, an order was made on consent finding the children to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(n) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act; and placing the children in interim society care for six months.

15In the fall of 2023, the mother appeared to be struggling with her mental health as she was writing emails that were not always coherent. By the end of November and December 2023 the emails were menacing and it appeared that mother’s mental health was deteriorating. Mother did not give the society consent to speak with her doctor when the doctor contacted the society asking to speak to a worker.

16On November 9, 2023, the mother and stepfather advised the society by email that they were suspending all in person visits with the children and instead wanted daily phone calls. The society offered in person visits at Yonge Street Mission which the mother and stepfather declined.

17The mother’s phone call with the children on November 17, 2023 was negative in general. She spoke negatively about the other family members and asked the children to pick a side. The calls were then supported by a society worker.

18In March 2024, a positive plan of care meeting took place virtually with mother and stepfather. The mother was continuing to work with her long-standing psychotherapist Allen Cameron (virtually as he is in Toronto) and now with her mental health outreach worker Corey Tataryn (in person in Vancouver). She completed a parenting course.

19On May 27, 2024, the mother had one fully supervised in person visit at the society office in Toronto. The mother arrived early and brought food for the children. They ate and played games together. She shared stories about living in Vancouver. The mother and children were affectionate with each other. The society noted no concerns.

20In March/April 2025, the mother came to Toronto for six weeks and had access, gradually moving to unsupervised, as follows: Three times per week for the first two weeks; four times per week for the next two weeks; then two overnights in the last two weeks on April 3-4 and April 9-10 – for a total of 14 visits and 2 overnight visits.

21After the mother’s March/April 2025 access visits in Toronto, the society changed its position. This was based mainly on the society workers’ positive observations during the visits (described in detail below). On July 2, 2025, the court made an order on consent placing the children in interim society care for three months. The Agreed Statement of Facts on which this order was based sets out that the goal is reunification.

22From July 7 to 21, 2025 the children went to Vancouver for an unsupervised visit at the mother’s home.

23The Status Review Application before the court, issued August 13, 2025, reviews the July 2nd order and seeks an order placing the children in the care and custody of their mother in Vancouver for six months subject to the supervision of the society with conditions.

3. Evidentiary issues

3.1: Credibility of witnesses

24The society’s witnesses were the following: the current Family Services Worker, the current Children’s Services Worker, and two workers from the British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development (“B.C. agency”) who attended the mother’s home and interviewed the boys during their Vancouver visit. The mother’s witnesses were the following: Herself, her psychotherapist Mr. Cameron, her mental health outreach worker Mr. Tataryn; the children’s piano teacher; the mother’s friend; and the mother’s partner Z. The counsel for the children’s witnesses were the following: Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) clinical investigator; maternal uncle; and maternal aunt S.

25I found the professional witnesses, namely, the society’s four witnesses, the mother’s psychotherapist and mental health outreach worker, and the OCL clinical investigator, to be credible and reliable except when they provided opinion evidence which I disregarded as none were qualified as experts.

26The professional witnesses were all calm, thoughtful and balanced in their testimony, providing both positive and negative observations. They were consistent as between their evidence in-chief and cross-examination. They had made notes at the time of the interactions regarding which they were testifying, in accordance with their professional obligations.

27I found maternal uncle and maternal aunt S. to be credible and reliable witnesses. They were calm, thoughtful and balanced in their answers. Their evidence was consistent as between their evidence in-chief and cross-examination, and consistent with the society’s evidence. Despite the mother’s serious allegations against them, and her past behaviour towards them, they did not express any anger towards her. Despite the mother’s sometimes loud and aggressive questioning of her, maternal aunt S. remained calm and steady in her answers. The mother was not able to question maternal uncle directly due to the peace bond; society counsel asked her questions for her.

28I found the mother’s friend to be a credible and reliable witness. She was clearly doing her best to be as accurate as possible in relaying her observations of the mother and the children. The children’s piano teacher provided no relevant evidence.

29I found the mother’s partner Z. not to be a credible and reliable witness as he was not balanced in his testimony and was only there to support the mother completely and unequivocally.

30I found the mother not to be a credible and reliable witness. Her evidence was not balanced. She was prone to exaggeration and she was contradicted by even her own witness. The following are some examples:

(a) She initially testified that she has spent $250,000 during this court proceeding, $175,000 from her own savings and $75,000 from “donations.” She then took a break as she needed to calm down. When she returned, she said she wanted to make a correction; namely, that she actually spent $500,000, $425,000 from her own savings and $75,000 from her partner Z. However, her partner Z. testified that he had given her about $2,000 (and also some gifts of speakers and helmets for the boys, but not worth $75,000);

(b) She testified, with no supporting evidence, that she expects to earn between $100,000 and $150,000 this year;

(c) She testified that when she was incarcerated she was not provided any food: “I was incarcerated for 11 days in prison. Held against my will in a box without any food”;

(d) She testified that her intimate relationship with her partner Z. began in February 2025, just before she left for Toronto (which was in March 2025 for the six weeks of visits). Her partner Z. testified that their intimate relationship began after this visit to Toronto.

3.2: Admissibility of children’s evidence

31The parties agreed at the start of the trial that this issue would be dealt with by way of blended voir dire with witnesses being permitted to testify regarding what the children told them and with parties making submissions on admissibility of said statements in their closing submissions.

32I find as follows:

(a) The children’s wishes are admissible pursuant to one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule against hearsay; namely, as spontaneous utterances which express the children’s state of mind. The children’s wishes are not in dispute. They do not wish to return to their mother’s care;

(b) The children’s statements regarding their experiences during visits, in person and virtual, are admissible on the threshold test of necessity and reliability. This was also not disputed in that no party sought to call the children to testify at trial and no party disputed that these statements were made by the children and accurately reported by the witnesses who did not influence them;

(c) The disputed issue was the weight to be afforded to the children’s statements, which will be addressed in the analysis below.

4. Law and Analysis

4.1: Disposition

33It was not disputed, and I find, that the children are in continued need of protection as a result of the mother’s mental health concerns and that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the children in the future pursuant to s. 101(1).

34The dispute concerns how this continued need of protection should be addressed. The society and the mother submit that the risk can be alleviated by conditions of supervision, while counsel for the children submits that it cannot.

35Also, in determining which disposition order to make, the court must inquire into what efforts the society, or other person or entity, made to assist the children before the removal: s. 101(2). No evidence was provided on this point.

4.1.a: The mother’s plan

36The court must first consider the mother’s plan before considering any other: s. 101(3). In this case, the mother’s plan is also the society’s plan. The following is a summary of the plan.

37The mother has a 2-bedroom apartment in an affluent neighbourhood of Vancouver, where she has resided since September 2024. The boys’ bedroom is appropriately furnished with bunk beds, desks and toys.

38The mother has already enrolled the boys in the local school. There is an aquatic centre, dentist and optometrist nearby. The mother intends to enroll the boys in the following extracurricular activities based on what they used to do and what they are interested in: Swimming, karate, music, soccer and baseball.

39A child protection worker with the B.C. agency will meet with the boys privately at a minimum of once per month in the home. Also, the children both have tablets with emergency phone numbers which includes contact information for the B.C. worker, the Children’s Services Worker, the Family Services Worker, extended family members and 911.

40The mother’s personal supports include the friend in her building, her partner Z., and her best friend of 35 years in Toronto.

41The mother testified that she has a diagnosis of chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and generalized anxiety, which was made by a psychiatrist she saw around January/February 2022. She testified that she has a medical marijuana prescription (in the form of edibles and vape) to treat insomnia and anxiety. She takes it every night to assist with sleeping, and otherwise as needed. The mother also uses the following tools to manage her anxiety: Running, box breathing, ginger, lavender, sleep routine, candlelit baths, journalling, yoga.

42The mother will continue to attend individual therapy once per week with her psychotherapist Mr. Cameron (whom she has been seeing since 2011) and will meet with her mental health outreach worker Mr. Tataryn every two weeks, or as needed. The family will have access to reunification therapy and family counselling through Family Services of Greater Vancouver. There is no waiting list for said services.

43The mother testified that therapy was very helpful for her: “During the years it taught me how to process and cope with my emotions. It helped me understand the many traumas I had experienced since early childhood. I had developed social anxiety at an early age. However, I was able to develop new habits and tools which help me to deal with my life.”

44The following is a summary of psychotherapist Mr. Cameron’s evidence:

(a) He described himself as a systemic, narrative therapist. He has been providing the mother with blocks of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which he described as a way to “change the script you use.” He testified that the mother has utilized treatment appropriately; she is always an engaged and active client; she rarely misses or cancels a session;

(b) He described the mother’s psychological profile as very complex given her family of origin and how she was raised; namely, she was abused by her father and silenced and not seen by her parents; she has a poor sense of self-worth, and a distrust of others including difficulty in forming trusting relationships;

(c) As a result, the mother has defenses which may appear in a heightened form when triggered, and which include the following: Holding herself back from others; forcefully advocating for the plight of others with hypersensitivity and identification with those in unfortunate positions; having a perfectionist and controlling approach to others; exhibiting a grandiose stance so that she “measures up” to others; and having an elevated need to have her opinion heard and accepted. Mr. Cameron noted that while these defenses were necessary to her in early years, they stop being effective and become problematic in adult years and in certain situations. He works with her on emotional regulation strategies if she is triggered;

(d) When asked to explain what he meant by being “grandiose,” he described it as follows: Attempting to appear larger than life; trying to look like an expert when they do not have the actual expertise; trying to make themselves look more important; where the presentation does not match the evidence;

(e) He noted that the mother, like most perfectionists, generalizes her high (unrealistic) expectations onto others; and that she can tend towards black and white thinking, making it difficult to work collaboratively with others; that her need to control can manifest in a power struggle that might lead to escalating behaviours rather than cooperation; that the frequent court dates and worker changes eroded any gains the mother made in her relationship with the society and when this was the situation, her therapeutic gains were thus also limited because session time was spent dealing with reactive behaviours rather than on proactive psychological development. In other words, her immediate emotional responses to the society were getting in the way of her therapy; when her internal stress is (understandably) heightened, it predisposes her to escalation and when she is escalated, they cannot get to other issues;

(f) He testified that the mother always showed curiosity and commitment to evolve and psychologically/emotionally develop; that she has never shown resistance to getting help as needed; and that she is fully engaged with the therapeutic process;

(g) While he has never seen her with her children, he was impressed by her enthusiasm and excitement in being a mother; her ability as a single mother to line up extracurricular activities, get them into French education, get involved with their teachers, and her dedication in getting them in separate classes as one child was very outgoing, extroverted, and took over in certain situations, which demonstrated her ability to see the children as unique individuals;

(h) He testified that the mother is “radically different now”; that she’s an active participant in therapy; that she’s very intelligent, insightful, intuitive and puts things together in a creative way;

(i) He is 72, with retirement on the horizon. He has not discussed the issue of transferring to another therapist with the mother;

(j) He testified that reunification therapy would be absolutely critical for a successful outcome as there are deep psychological emotional issues on both sides (the mother and the children).

45The following is a summary of the evidence of mental health outreach worker Mr. Tataryn:

(a) He started working with the mother in August 2024: Semi-weekly for the first few months, then moving to as-needed in early 2025. He does not provide clinical support. His support includes the following: Helping find appropriate housing and counselling (individual and family); referrals to supportive agencies such as food banks and Value Village; helping complete disability pension forms; providing basic emotional support by attending virtual court sessions; liaising with BC workers, for example during home visits, communicating with the broader support network to best coordinate various resources:

(b) He identified the following successes:

(i) She has enrolled the children in school;

(ii) She has spoken to an Olympian athlete about coaching them in track and field;

(iii) She has identified an aquatic centre near her home and the school for them to attend;

(iv) She is ready to tackle the insurance paperwork which has been daunting;

(v) She is working on finding an accountant to complete her taxes which is required to be able to apply for rental subsidies;

(vi) She is getting physiotherapy;

(vii) She is moving towards divorce from the children’s step-father.

(c) He testified that he has seen a tremendous evolution and mellowing of the mother’s emotional triggers through the time working with her, and that she has shown a greatly expanded capacity to handle setbacks without becoming emotionally rattled or overly defensive. From what he’s observed he does not see any reason the children should be kept away;

(d) He testified that the mother is not as emotionally dysregulated as she was very early on in their professional relationship; that she is showing a lot more openness to hearing his position and feedback; that she presented more emotional lightness, more frequent joking, jovial moods; that she seemed a lot clearer and more present with greater capacity to handle ups and downs;

(e) In cross-examination by OCL counsel he said the February 18, 2025 court date was the only date he would characterize as her being in a mental health crisis, though he has witnessed what he calls emotional dysregulation at other times. He described that as her being hyper-focused on details, providing long monologues from her long history of trauma and needing to present so much information to buttress and defend her position. He said he has seen grandiosity on occasion.

46The Family Services Worker summarized the society’s support of the mother’s plan as being based on the society’s observations during the March/April 2025 visits and the following:

(a) The mother is cognizant of meeting the children’s needs with respect to education, after school programs, and counselling for children who have had trauma in their lives;

(b) The mother has the support of her psychotherapist Mr. Cameron and her mental health outreach worker Mr. Tataryn;

(c) The worker’s belief that the mother should be given a chance to demonstrate, while the society continues to assess her, that she can parent. Though she also acknowledged that reunification or some kind of family counselling is required as the boys do not have a trusting relationship with the mother.

4.1.b: Best interests considerations

47The following is my assessment of the mother/society’s plan through the lens of the relevant best interests factors.

Views and Preferences: s. 74(3)(a)

48The court must consider the children’s views and preferences, giving due weight to their age and maturity.

49Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children the right to express their views on issues that affect them in any court proceeding with same to be given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. A child’s capacity to express such views has been interpreted generously so as not to restrict these participation rights.

50What these children’s independent, consistent and strong views are is not in dispute: They do not want to return to their mother’s care. More recently, they also do not want to have access with their mother. It is also not disputed that the children are both intelligent and thoughtful.

51What is in dispute is what weight the court should give to their views. To determine weight, one of the things the court must examine is the basis of the views. As seen in the multiple interviews with the OCL investigator and with the Children’s Services worker, the basis is their mother’s behaviour.

OCL clinical investigator’s interviews with the children

52The children’s views and preferences were entered into evidence mainly through the OCL clinical investigator. She interviewed each boy four times, separately and privately, in the presence of their counsel, whom they have known from almost the very beginning of the within court proceeding. She went through an exercise regarding knowing the difference between a truth and a lie and the expectation that all answers would be the truth. She asked open ended questions.

53The following is a summary of the four interviews.

Child L.

August 18, 2025

54When asked about the people who are important to him, he noted his brother first, then members of his foster family and maternal family. Only when specifically asked about his mother, did he include her. He said the people in his world, apart from his mother, show they love him by being kind, loving, listening to him and caring for him. He is not sure he loves his mother.

55Each day he worries: “I wake up and I’m not sure what mood she will be in.” Sometimes she yells, gets angry, and she smokes and vapes which he does not like. She tells him “disgusting” stuff for example, she told him she got raped. She told him this when he was 9 years old. It made him feel bad; he cannot stop thinking about it. He reported that her good mood can change into a bad mood for no reason. He feels like his head is playing tug of war.

56In his Vancouver visit, his mother had 10 down days and 4 good days. He thinks his mother is pretending when workers are there and she acts all nice. When the workers leave, she becomes a different person. He told the workers in Vancouver that everything was okay because he felt like his mother would find out if he told them that things were not going well and that she would hit him if he said the truth.

57It feels like no one is listening to him and they are just forcing him to go to Vancouver.

58When he was in Vancouver his mother refused to let him speak to his aunts and uncles. She had to let him speak to his foster family. He does not know if his mother has a problem that makes her go up and down. When the clinical investigator asked who helps him, he answered, his foster parents, foster siblings, aunts and uncles, friends, dogs and brother. He said if his mother moved to Toronto and would let him visit people (maternal family, foster family and friends) then he would see her. He said if he had to go to Vancouver, he would want to be able to be in touch with everyone, but he really does not want to go to Vancouver. If he had three wishes, they would be to remain in Toronto, live with his foster parents, and hang out with his friends.

August 25, 2025

59L. said he has not had any contact with his mother lately because “she is bad on calls.” She does not listen and she swears on the calls. She will keep talking and talking and does not give him a chance to talk. She tells him all the things she has been doing, but if he tries to speak, she says that he is interrupting and she swears, so he cannot speak at all. He would like his virtual visits to be 30 minutes long, he does not want any in person visits. She will play with them if the worker is supervising, but if not, she will stop playing with them. When they were in Vancouver, his mother was on her phone talking to her partner all the time.

September 15, 2025

60L. said he had a call with his mother on September 12, and that she was asking a lot of questions but was talking more than asking him questions. She was talking a lot and he was quiet. He described one call when he was upset because his mother was swearing and saying why don’t you want to come back. She was talking about her partner Z. and that the boys had a good time with him. She showed him a video as proof that he was having a good time with her partner. He said he and his brother were not enjoying their time with him, that they were forced to meet him. He wants no visits with her, and calls only on Mondays and Fridays. When the clinical investigator asked him what was in his “house of worries,” he said it was that he might be sent back to live with his mother.

October 7, 2025

61L. said that recent calls have been good. His mother had not sworn except yesterday when she described that she would give him a “bad ass haircut.” Before the calls he feels nauseous and worried. He worries that she might blow up or might get mad and he never knows because she is up and down. He feels butterflies in his stomach before the calls. He feels relieved after the calls. The nervousness starts in the morning at school of the days there will be calls and he keeps on thinking about what is going to happen after school when the phone call comes. His first preference is to stay in foster home, second to uncle, third to aunt.

Child T.

August 18, 2025

62When asked about the people who are important to him, he noted his brother, foster family and maternal family. Only when specifically asked about his mother did he include her. He said the others show they love him by taking care of him and helping him with stuff. He’s not sure about his mother because sometimes she is up and down. She can have a good day or a bad day and he does not know if it will be good or bad. On good days they go out and do activities. She does not fight with people. She does not yell and scream. On bad days she screams and yells and talks about people. She asks the children questions like, why don’t you want to stay here, she gets upset and she gets up and goes into her room.

63During his Vancouver visit, she had five good days out of fourteen. The problems could start in the morning. He said his mother will be mad and talk or yell when they are eating breakfast. He said she “acts good in front of people like the Children’s Aid.” He said his mother is sad because she keeps on asking them if they want to move to Vancouver and they say no. His mother gets angry. Once she smashed the table and ran to her room. She is an emotional kind of person. He and his brother are scared because they do not want to go to Vancouver to live with their mother because they think something bad is going to happen. His mother is sometimes mean or bad. She yells at different people for no reason: Waitresses, customers or baggage persons. On their last trip it happened 3 or 4 times. When the clinical investigator asked what could make things better if he went to Vancouver, he said, “Nothing.”

64If his mother got help because she has ups and down that would be good. It has been explained to him that she has waves of up and down.

65If he had three wishes they would be to remain in Ontario; be a millionaire, and to be just 10 years old, doing nothing and not having to worry. He would have a good life and be free to do whatever he wants and not think about bad stuff. He would just be having fun like a normal 10-year-old. When the clinical investigator asked how old he feels, he said he feels like he’s 30 years old when he has to do this kind of stuff like talking to the clinical investigator and his lawyer.

August 25, 2025

66T. said he spends most of his weekends with his aunts and uncles. They have a lot of fun together. Whenever he and his brother speak to their mother she keeps on bringing up that they do not want to go to Vancouver to live with her. There were a couple of phone calls that did not go well because their mother kept asking them about Vancouver. Both he and L. have told their foster parents they do not want to speak to their mother.

67When the clinical investigator asked T. about his best memories of his mother, he hesitated and then said maybe going to Wonderland or a theme park or Playland in Vancouver. His worst memory of time with his mother was when stepfather was there. He said the police came multiple times a week to check on them. His best memories of foster parents included that the foster parents always have his back. He has no worst memories of his foster parents. He would like video calls with his mother once per week for 15 min (currently three times per week). He does not want any in person visits with his mother.

September 15, 2025

68T. said he does not really like the calls that much. On the previous call his mother was arguing with the worker and he wanted to end the call. His mother kept going on and on. She was arguing because they did not want to talk but she wanted to keep talking so he said they have to go now. She said she gets her 30 minutes so he needs to stay on the phone. He recalls that when he came into care it was because his mother kept on arguing and the police came. She was yelling in the middle of the night all the time. He would want fewer calls, no calls ideally. One of the reasons he wanted no calls is that he does not imagine that his mother could be any different. He does not believe that she can change. She always argues with people. She is sometimes mean to people. Even if she said she changed, he still would not want to see his mother. His mother embarrasses him. When filling in a “pizza” of his feelings about his mother, he included the following: Embarrassment, anger, being scared. He did not include love, even when specifically asked. In his “house of worries” he included worrying about whether he and his brother are going to move to Vancouver, and worrying about not seeing people that he really likes ever again.

October 7, 2025

69T. said, “The calls are okay but I really don’t want to talk to her and wish they were shorter.” He said thirty minutes is long and it is mostly his mother talking. Having a worker on the call makes them a bit better. He said that before the scheduled call, “I feel not that good. I feel upset. I think she’s going to go off.” After the call, he feels free. If he cannot stay with foster family, he would like to live with aunt or uncle. He said that no matter what, he still does not want to live with his mother.

Children’s Services Worker’s interviews with the children

70The Children’s Services Worker always met with the children together. The following is a summary of the interviews.

April 24, 2025

71The possibility of a trip to Vancouver was discussed with the boys. They both said they did not want to go. Child L. said he was both worried and afraid. He said his mother talks with homeless and random people, she yells at them and this makes him worried. Child L. said he was nervous about returning to live with his mother and that he worried about being cut off from his aunt and foster family. Child T. agreed with child L. Both boys worried about being isolated in Vancouver with no one to contact if things go badly. When asked what they meant by that, child L. said he would have no one to call, nowhere [familiar] to go and this made him feel worried and scared. Child T. expressed the same.

May 23, 2025

72The boys continued to express concern about the planned trip to Vancouver. They were happy to know it was postponed.

June 24, 2025

73Child L. asked, “Do we have to go?” He said they are both scared. The Children’s Services Worker told them they would have their tablets with contact information if they needed to reach out and that a worker would check on them while they were there. They both said this did very little to help with their comfort levels. Child L. said he is afraid of his mother; he worries about how she interacts with people in the community and that she will yell at people who are minding their own business. He worries about who may come in and out of the home. They both expressed concern about being far from the people they are connected with. They worry about ending up in a foster home in Vancouver. When the Children’s Services Worker said that things went well during the Toronto visits, they still said they did not feel safe with their mother during those visits: They said they did activities, they had a sleepover, but they felt scared. They did not elaborate more on this. They said they did not like having this many calls (at that time it was five times a week). They find the calls disruptive and described them as being for their mother, not for them.

Interviews with B.C. agency workers

74The children’s views and preferences as expressed to the clinical investigator are consistent with what they told the two BC workers, in two interviews in the first week of the visit and one interview in the second week.

First week of Vancouver visit

75In the first visit on July 10, 2025 at the mother’s home they said Vancouver is okay, a lot quieter than Toronto, they like Toronto better.

76In the second visit at the community centre where each child was interviewed privately, child T. said the visit was “alright” and gave it a 6 or 7, when asked to rank it out of 10. When asked why, he said he overheard his mother talking to someone and using bad words. When asked what he likes about living with his mother, he said I don’t know. When asked to rank how comfortable is he being in Vancouver with his mother, he said 5 out of 10. When asked about a future in Vancouver, he said, I’m not up to it. When asked why, he said I don’t know.

77When the worker met with child L., he immediately told her about an incident that happened at the Wendy’s at the airport as soon as they arrived in Vancouver. He said his mother swore at a Wendy’s employee saying “leave me the fuck alone” until the worker left. He also described an incident on July 10, 2025, where his mother initiated a conversation with him and his brother about staying in Vancouver and his mother got angry with him when he said he did not want to stay. When he told his mother that he likes it with his foster family, his mother said, they’re not your family, they don’t even like you. When the worker asked what is working about the visit, he said being with his brother, that they have fun together. When the worker asked what does he enjoy about being with mother, he said going to the beach. When the worker asked how comfortable is he with his mother, he said, not comfortable, and ranked his comfort level as 4 out of 10. When the worker asked what would it take to make a 10? He said if they lived in Toronto and his mother did not make a scene. He said his mother makes a lot of scenes. When the worker asked what he is excited about, he said that it is the weekend which means there is only one week left. He said his mother picks fights and argues and “takes it out on me a bit.”

Second week of Vancouver visit

78Child L. said he would not want to come back unless the visit was shorter, and said that the second week was better than the first. When asked why, he said he felt unsafe going with his mother outside the apartment. He was scared she would get into arguments and cause a scene. He was in an unfamiliar city where he does not know anyone, and does not have any friends. Child T. also said the second week was better than the first, that his mother was not on the phone as much with friends, and was not arguing as much with people.

The children’s physical, mental and emotional needs: s. 74(3)(c)(i)

79The mother has demonstrated she is able to meet the children’s physical needs. During the in person access she has cooked with them; and has ensured their safety while playing sports and while swimming. Her apartment has been seen by two B.C. workers and they have no concerns. The boys’ bedroom is appropriately furnished. The mother has looked into a dentist and optometrist, and programs to meet their need for physical activity, and has enrolled them in school. She has enquired into a family doctor but needs them to be in B.C. before she can register them.

80The mother has not demonstrated she is able to meet the children’s mental and emotional needs. The problem is twofold: 1. Her behaviour and 2. Her lack of insight into the negative impact her behaviour has on the children.

81She testified that she believes she does have insight and she will gain insight from counselling and then the children “can express what they feel and I can gain understanding of their emotions to alter any behaviour they perceive to be stressful.” The evidence does not support her belief.

Relocation to Vancouver

82The mother does not acknowledge that her relocation to Vancouver in November 2023, shortly after the children came into society care in September 2023, negatively impacted the children’s relationship with her. She maintains that this move across the country, to a place where she had no previous ties, was necessary for her mental health; that she needed to place this much distance between her and maternal family to place boundaries, and that she has always said her decision was permanent. She justified the move in cross-examination as being supported by the society, saying, “The number one thing the society asked to me to do is demonstrate mental stability, not build a bond with the children.”

83The mother testified that moving, for example, just a couple of hours away from the boys would “absolutely not” have sufficed because maternal aunt S. “has never failed to show up when she was undesired.” At the same time, she acknowledged that the last time maternal aunt S. went to the mother’s home was in 2021. The evidence supports the opposite, not that maternal family harass mother, but that mother harasses the maternal family, as evidenced by the following: The boys’ placements with maternal uncle and then with maternal aunt S. both broke down because of the mother’s behaviour; maternal aunt S. blocked the mother on social media to prevent her from communicating with her; there is a peace bond prohibiting mother from communicating with maternal uncle; maternal aunt T. also expressed concerns to the society about mother’s communications with her; and maternal family is considering presenting a plan to adopt the boys, but only if they can be sure they do not have any contact with the mother.

84The mother also gave the climate and scenery as reasons to stay out west when asked if she would return to Ontario: “Vancouver has a different climate altogether. Doesn’t snow six months out of the year. So no, there is nowhere out east that I could’ve moved to, and in fact, this is the only province that has mountains, ocean, a lot of green space, less noise, less people, so the answer is no.” She said she would never, “N-E-V-E-R,” return to Ontario.

85The mother does not acknowledge that the impact of her move to Vancouver is that in the past two years, from the time the children were 8 years old to 10 ½ years old, the children have only had access with their mother as follows:

(a) 1 supervised visit in May 2024 in Toronto;

(b) 16 visits, gradually moving from supervised to unsupervised, including 2 overnights, in March/April 2025 in Toronto;

(c) 2-week overnight visit in Vancouver.

86The Family Services Worker acknowledged that this is not “ideal.” She said, “We would have liked to have regular frequent in person visits if she had remained in Ontario. She came for six weeks that’s the best we could ask for.”

87The Children’s Services Worker expressed it in terms of “data points,” that it would be better if the boys had consistent experiences where “they see mother is focused on their needs.” The mother’s psychotherapist in recommending reunification counselling also acknowledged that it would be better to do the counselling first before the return.

88The mother does not take any responsibility for the paucity of the visits. She maintains that her location has “no impact” on access, that it was up to the society’s discretion, that if the society had said she could come for more visits she would have come for more. She said, if the society were going to give her five days she “would’ve flown to Toronto and seen them five days.”

89This is not supported by the evidence. At the time the mother relocated to Vancouver the society was exercising its discretion with respect to access by offering weekly in-person visits. Any time the mother came to Toronto, the society arranged visits.

August 4, 2025 incident

90On August 4, 2025, during their first phone call with their mother after their Vancouver trip, the boys asked their mother how her partner Z. was. Their mother responded saying, why are you asking, you don’t even like him. The boys denied this. The mother then proceeded to read them a letter their lawyer had written to the parties which said the boys did not like spending time with the mother’s partner during their Vancouver visit. The letter also included that the boys ranked the visit 3 out of 10 (after their return); and that the boys said that the mother was not engaging with them because she was always smoking weed, that their mother screams at people in public and makes them uncomfortable, and that when they said they did not want to live in Vancouver she got upset.

91On August 20, 2025, the boys told the Children’s Services Worker that after their mother read them the letter she was swearing and saying these are the reasons you don’t come back to me. She said, you guys lie to me, you don’t love me, then she said the f-word and hung up. The children said they do not want to have any more calls with their mother. Child L. said, “She’s going to swear and get angry at us and keep on making us feel bad.”

92On August 25, 2025, the boys told the Children’s Services Worker they did not want the calls to take place. They said they would do them, but it was out of obligation as opposed to flowing from their wish to talk to their mother. They said the calls were about her talking at them and less about her inquiring about their life or letting them share with her what was happening in their lives.

93On August 26, 2025, the Children’s Services Worker had a phone call with the mother to discuss re-starting the calls. The mother was focused on getting to the “truth,” and the need to have the children admit that they lied. The worker asked if her goal is to reconnect or get the truth and the mother said both. The mother said she wanted the children to explain why they wanted to see her partner, and even insisted on seeing him, when they were in Vancouver and then went home and said they were not comfortable with him. The worker asked if the mother could move on without having the children say that they lied, and the mother said no.

94On August 27, 2025, the Children’s Services Worker supervised the call with the mother and the boys. The boys told their mother they felt she was “calling us out” by reading what their lawyer said, that it made them uncomfortable. They said “you were just talking and talking.” The mother responded, “I did not keep talking and talking. That’s a lie.” She asked why they were asking about her partner if that was the worst part of their trip. She said they had wanted her partner to come to the beach with them and then said differently in the letter from their lawyer. She asked, which is truth and which is a lie. She asked, are you saying I forced you to see my partner, and they said yes. Child L. said he did not want a call Friday because he did not want to argue. He said that they always argue to which his mother said, then don’t argue. She said, should I bother talking to you ever again? Both children told her they do not want to talk to her again. She ended the call.

95The boys told the Children’s Services Worker that this is how the calls went, that this is similar to the August 4th call and an example of why they do not want contact with their mother. The worker then spoke to the mother to check on her and the mother said, “If my children are going to lie, say things to stay where they are, I give up.” She said she was at a point where she felt like, “you can have my children.”

96On September 4, 2025, after further work with the mother, the Children’s Services Worker told the boys their mother wanted to speak with them. They both said no. She offered to speak to their mother first and asked if they needed more time, and they said no to both. She asked if there was anything their mother could do? They both said no. She suggested having someone present to support the call; staring with emails with their mother. They both said no. They both said they do not want to have any contact with their mother by phone or email.

97On September 4, 2025, the Children’s Services Worker asked the mother how the mother imagines repairing the relationship. The mother said there was no tear to repair. She said her children are lying and manipulating. She said she did not give them everything they wanted so they went back and complained. She said when they were with her, they wanted to play with her, sleep with her, hold her hand. The worker was ultimately able to persuade the mother to write a loving email to the boys.

98On September 5, 2025, the Children’s Services worker read the boys the email from their mother expressing her love. Child L. said that after calls with his mother he feels sad, that there is a heaviness about it. The boys said when they think about the calls they feel sad. They said it creates stress and worry for them. They do not want to have calls. They want time.

99On September 25, 2025, the boys told the Children’s Services Worker they do not want any access, virtual or otherwise with their mother. They feel worried related to the calls. Child T. said he did not feel the same worry when they paused the calls in August. Child L. described the pause as “freedom.” Child L. said that when calls are scheduled he thinks about them, he worries about what they will be like, he does not know how his mother will be on the calls. He worries on days he does not have calls as well. It is always there.

100In cross-examination by OCL counsel, the Children’s Services Worker agreed that mother reading their lawyer’s letter to them could undermine boys’ ability to be frank with people who are providing services to them. But at the same time the worker said she had “empathy” for the mother, that this was hard information for her to hear. The worker agreed that the mother talks “at” the children.

101In cross-examination by OCL counsel, the mother continued to assert that the children were lying. When asked how it made them feel to have her read the letter to them, she said, “Well, they felt like they were caught in that instance lying, and any child, when they behave badly or do something wrong, has a bit of guilt, I would suspect.”

102When OCL counsel asked how she could have handled it differently, she answered in a sarcastic, mocking tone, referencing the Children’s Services Worker’s earlier suggestion to her that she handle it with “curiousity”:

I would gather them both together since it was unclear who said what. I would say, guys, what’s going on here? I heard through the grapevine that you said something like, you know, Z. wasn’t the coolest person on the planet. What do you think about it? What happened here? You didn’t tell me nothing. You want to share something? Okay let’s use an instrument. Let me demonstrate. Take a song, ‘I love Z., he loves me, do you love him too?’ Something like that. Curiousity.

[The mother sang the underlined portion.]

Engaging in conflict

103The incident precipitating the children coming into care was the mother’s conflict with a neighbour which escalated to her being involuntarily admitted to hospital and then arrested and jailed. This was not the first instance of conflict with the neighbour. The children recall conflict and police involvement when they lived with their mother.

104The children continue to worry about the mother getting into conflicts with people. Examples occurred as recently as their visit to Vancouver this past summer:

(a) The mother became angry when a staff person at the Wendy’s at the airport asked them to leave if they had finished eating;

(b) The mother became angry with a Flair customer service representative, and then the manager, over whether they would reimburse her for a baggage fee she had mistakenly paid.

105The mother describes the incidents as her being in the right and the staff people being wrong and denies swearing or yelling. I accept the boys’ description of the incidents. They have been consistent in their statements to many workers over many months, and consistent with each other. They are not prone to exaggeration.

106The mother denied at trial that the boys’ placements with maternal family broke down due to the mother’s conflict with them. She testified that she supported their placement with maternal uncle and that “the placement broke down because [maternal uncle] was having affairs.” She testified that she would not have concerns with maternal uncle if the society “kept a hand on it”, but when asked if she would be comfortable with the boys being placed with maternal uncle today, she said no.

107Even a seemingly innocuous message from maternal aunt T. wishing her a happy new year for January 1, 2025 led to the mother sending her multiple messages and music videos to the point that maternal aunt T. contacted the society out of concern for the mother’s mental health. The mother testified that the reason she responded in this way was that she thought her sister’s new year’s message was “insincere.” The mother testified that her sister and “my family, in general, they like to bury things and just show up and everything is forgotten, and I’ve said to them until they acknowledge demonstrate remorse, like I’m capable of doing, random messages to me saying we need to get past this, no, we need to talk about the issues my friends, then we will get past them.”

108The mother testified that her siblings “have never gone to therapy, all right. So, they are people that claim that others are sick when they themselves are not well and haven’t done any initiative to speak with a specialist themselves. [Mother’s sister] sometimes accuses of me, you need to see someone, and I tell her, I’ve been seeing someone for 14 years, what about you? I don’t need to. You think that all of these things that you have done, I’m just going to give you a hug and you’re going to say sorry? Not exactly my friend.”

109The mother was almost entirely focused on her issues with maternal family in her testimony at trial. The court interjected repeatedly to redirect her and to explain the difference between relevant and irrelevant evidence. To cite a couple of representative examples, when the mother was describing how her mother’s mother had an affair, and the court told her this was irrelevant, she immediately continued in the same vein with, “We do not know who my grandfather was;” and when the mother testified that when she was 9 years old she had to babysit a neighbour’s child, and the court told her this was irrelevant, she immediately continued by explaining that said neighbour was Indian-Jamaican.

110On February 19, 2025, during a virtual visit between mother and the boys supervised by a society worker, the mother told the boys she was going to get a certain society worker fired and then started speaking negatively about maternal aunt. The mother then wrote in the chat that maternal aunt’s husband “raped me.” Child L. turned off his camera. Child T. looked visibly shocked. The worker intervened and asked mother to focus on the boys and the visit and the mother said “How about you focus on yourself and fuck off” and then left the call.

111When asked in cross-examination by OCL counsel if she thinks it is appropriate to tell the boys that, she answered “Not in the way it was done, and maybe a counselor should have been there, but I think it’s important that boys understand what rape is, particularly since they’re now getting sexual education in grade 4… rape is a part of life, and it’s important that they understand when woman says no, it’s no, and when they are associated with people who allow that, it’s dangerous.”

112When asked if she thinks it is inappropriate to speak negatively about adults in the boys’ lives, she said, “I think it’s important to raise caution and indicate if they’re in danger.”

113It was clear from the testimony of maternal uncle and maternal aunt S. that the mother’s conflict with them is one-sided.

114Maternal uncle testified that “I love my sister but there are limits to what you can do despite how much you love the person. If I did not love my sister and her children I would not have put in all this effort.” He said the mother has sent him numerous voicemails, messages with insults and rumours, and has even sent such messages to his friends outside of Canada. He does not wish to have any contact with her at this time as he needs “a time out, a pause on the relationship” to “let her deal with her issues.” He is willing to be assessed by a psychiatrist as the mother requests, if the court requires it. Though he points out that he has raised three children, the oldest of whom is a pilot with Air Canda; that he himself works at the airport in a sensitive position which involves how people’s data is protected, and given he is 57 years old he believes that if he had any psychiatric issues they would have manifested themselves by now.

115Maternal aunt S. testified that she does not understand what the mother’s mental health issues are, saying, “Just from knowing her all her life, she is not the same person she used to be. Something wrong but cannot say what it is.” She thinks it is some kind of mental problem from the manner in which the mother speaks, the tone, the things she says, the insulting and threatening statements. She said the mother does not care what she says, does not recognize that it affects the person she says it to, and that it does not sound normal. The mother has said to her, “I will kill you, I will stab you, I will shoot you in your garage.” She said the insults are non-stop. She said the mother in her calls to the boys makes it seem like the maternal family are bad people. She has had to block the mother from WhatsApp; she is really afraid.

116Mother asked maternal aunt S. in cross-examination if she was aware that maternal aunt’s husband raped the mother and raped his own daughter; and that he is a “pedophile” with “forty children.” Maternal aunt S. said she was not aware. She does not reside with him. Her husband has not resided in Canada since 2006. The mother’s final question to maternal aunt was, “Do you understand that I never want to talk or see you again?” Maternal aunt calmly answered, “Now you are telling me, I understand this.”

The children’s relationship with a parent: s. 74(vi)

117The main reason the society changed its position to support a return of the boys to their mother’s care was the society’s positive assessment of the mother’s visits in Toronto March/April 2025: 16 visits, gradually increasing from supervised to unsupervised with the last two being overnight visits.

118The Family Services Worker supervised at least six of those visits. In cross-examination by the mother, the worker described the mother as being calm, in a good mood, engaging, approachable, and very attentive to the boys. She observed that the mother brought arts/crafts, baking ingredients and pans, colouring/painting supplies to the visits, that the mother always came with an activity planned; and the mother also played basketball in the gym with the boys.

119The worker described two visits specifically as follows:

(a) The worker spoke with the boys after the first visit, on March 3, 2025. Before the visit they had said they were feeling nervous because they had not seen their mother for a long time. During the visit, the worker observed them to very quickly become more at ease with their mother: Talking to her comfortably, playing sports with her at the gym onsite. After the visit, they said they were still feeling a bit nervous but were still willing to move forward with the next visit;

(b) The worker also supervised the March 17, 2025 visit. When she asked the boys to describe their comfort level on a scale of 1 to 10, they gave it a 6 (when the last visit was a 7). Child L. explained it was because their mother said something negative about the lunch their foster mother had sent with them. The mother acknowledged at trial that she had taken a photo of the lunch to prove it was inadequate. When asked if that was appropriate to do during a visit, she countered by asking how else could she obtain such evidence.

120The worker testified that the mother coming to Toronto and having intensive visits for six weeks “really changed the game.” She observed the mother meeting the boys’ needs during the visits; and coming prepared and on time. She observed the boys to be at ease, chatting, laughing; not walking on eggshells. She said the goal was for the mother to rebuild trust with the boys and that the mother did that by coming to Toronto in March/April 2025; that was the best way to strengthen their relationship.

121When the mother asked the worker in cross-examination why the children should be returned to her, the worker said it goes back to the March/April 2025 visits, where the worker observed the following:

(a) The mother was very engaged, calm, organized, appropriate with the children;

(b) The mother was always on time and prepared;

(c) The mother communicated well with the worker.

122The mother’s mental health outreach worker was present during the B.C. workers’ visits to her home in Vancouver. He described observing “natural rapport” between mother and the children as they were waking up and she was making breakfast for them. He did not witness any discernable apprehension or uneasiness on either side. He was impressed with how at ease and relatable the boys were given strangers in their home asking questions. He observed the boys were very comfortably lounging on the couch, showing us (he and the B.C. worker) their bed, toys, racetrack. He described them maybe as exhibiting a little self-consciousness with the B.C. worker standing opposite them and that it was an awkward situation, but he observed them to be “completely at ease” with their mother. He did not observe any apprehension or stress.

123The mother described the visits in her testimony as follows: “The minute they see me, the bond is real. They run to me, they hug me, they love me, they kiss me. We – our connection is strong and keeping in mind that we speak virtually.” During overnight visits she described the boys as “insisting on coming to sleep in the same bed and storytelling and catching up, dancing and music.”

124The Children’s Services Worker testified that she found the mother to be responsive, giving the example that the mother followed through with the worker’s suggestion that she write an email to the boys even if the mother thought it was not a great plan. The worker in cross-examination by the mother said, “You show up for your kids. You are dedicated to the time. If you miss a time, you want it made up. You want to know and understand what is happening in their life.”

125However, the Family Services Worker also agreed with OCL counsel about all of the following:

(a) The relationship between the mother and the boys is strained;

(b) The bond is not secure from the boys’ perspective;

(c) This concerns the boys;

(d) The boys do not want to live with her, and sometimes they feel they do not even want to see her;

(e) The boys get anxious on days that they have calls.

(f) The boys could use therapeutic intervention;

(g) The boys say they do not know what version they will get of their mother on any given day; that their mother can switch from being nice to being extreme and that causes them concern.

Risk that the children may suffer harm through being returned to the mother; and the degree of risk that justified the protection finding: s. 74(3)(c)(x) and (xi)

126The protection finding was based on the mother’s mental health crisis in March 2023 which resulted in her being involuntarily committed to hospital and then arrested and jailed upon her release from hospital, thus being unavailable to care for the children.

127Justice Sherr noted, in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866, at para. 114, that the court needs to assess 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 the following:

(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.

128No evidence was provided at trial regarding any mental health diagnosis or treatment recommendations other than what mother advised the society and the court:

(a) The mother took a leave from work on April 6, 2021. She contacted her family doctor because she was not feeling well and needed to see a psychiatrist. She saw a psychiatrist in January or February 2022 and believes she was diagnosed with complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and generalized anxiety. She does not remember the name of the psychiatrist who made the diagnosis or have a copy of any report. She continues to be on leave from work and is in receipt of a disability pension;

(b) The mother completed a series of sessions at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) for Cognitive Processing Therapy with Tess Fisher in November 2022;

(c) The mother advised she has a medical prescription for marijuana, in the form of vaping and edibles – cookies and gummies, for social anxiety and insomnia. She takes it daily to help with sleep, and otherwise as needed. The society has not asked for a copy of this prescription.

129The only reports the society workers and the mother’s professional supports have seen are two reports by psychiatrist Dr. Rowe dated May 29, 2024 and March 20, 2025. The reports were not entered into as evidence as the society did not call the doctor as a witness.

130The following was not disputed:

(a) Dr. Rowe’s reports do not contain a diagnosis;

(b) Dr. Rowe’s reports make reference to the following reports which the society did not seek and no witness has read: Discharge summaries from St. Michael’s Hospital, November 2022 and March 2023; case conference assessment from CAMH October 2023; admission/discharge summary from Trillium Hospital December 2023-January 2024;

(c) Dr. Rowe recommended the mother participate in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which the mother is engaging in with her psychotherapist Mr. Cameron;

(d) Dr. Rowe queried whether the mother has facets of Borderline Personality Disorder and recommended Dialectical Behavioural Theory. The mother disputes the necessity of such treatment and the society has not required it of her.

131The society workers’ evidence at trial was that having an actual diagnosis is not necessary; that what matters are mother’s mental health symptoms and whether the symptoms are being addressed.

132Mother’s psychotherapist Mr. Cameron described the mother’s symptoms as defenses she uses to deal with her traumatic history which may appear in a heightened form when triggered and which include the following:

(a) Having a perfectionist and controlling approach to others;

(b) Exhibiting a grandiose stance so that she “measures up” to others;

(c) Having an elevated need to have her opinion heard and accepted.

133The mother displayed the above symptoms during the trial itself. The following are some examples:

(a) In her opening statement, she did not mention the children. She began by honouring the Indigenous communities in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. She then spoke about honouring her African heritage. She sang the Canadian national anthem and the South African national anthem. She described her parents being part of the African National Congress, fighting for liberation, and coming to Canada as refugees. She said this case is about the refugee diaspora, about preserving heritage and about finding truth and reconciliation;

(b) In her 90 minute closing statement she said twice that this case is about the children but otherwise did not talk about them. She rambled: Talking about her issues with maternal family; lecturing the court on the difference between a judge and a justice; advising OCL counsel to seek therapy as his back spasms, which led to one of the trial days being vacated, were likely caused by stress;

(c) During part of her own witness’s testimony (psychotherapist Mr. Cameron), the mother was wearing boxing gloves. During parts of maternal aunt S.’s testimony, the mother was walking around holding a painting and then holding it up to a wall. At times, the mother held a book open in front of her entitled “Quantum Physics;”

(d) She denied being “grandiose.” She also said, “What I care about is legacy, like Nelson Mandela, like Jesus. That’s what I care about.”

134The mother has demonstrated no insight into how her symptoms have negatively impacted the children.

(a) She does not acknowledge she had a mental health crisis in March 2023. In her testimony in-chief she described the incident which precipitated the children being removed from her care as follows, “During that interaction I was speaking to the police calmly from my balcony. They demanded I come down. I refused to do so;”

(b) She said she believes the children “demonize” her because she refuses to give them their tablets early in the morning;

(c) She believes the children want her to move to Toronto;

(d) She believes that when the children speak about being nervous talking to her, she experiences the same nervousness and she believes she has the toolkit and insight to deal with it;

(e) She denies the children’s claim that she swears at people. She describes her conflict with the Flair representative as calm and justified.

135When asked in cross-examination by OCL counsel whether she agrees if any of her negative behaviour is a result of her mental health. She said, “No, it’s the result of situation beyond my control. As I stated to you, I can’t even sleep right now. My children are taken away from me. While you can call it, taken, or to me they were held hostage. So why don’t you speak to the parents of the hostages in Israel and ask them how their behaviour was while they were waiting for the hostages to be returned.”

136When asked in cross-examination by OCL counsel how she responds to the children saying they do not want to see her, she said “I respond that distance affects that. I think that what my children want is for me to move back to Toronto, and you, sir, have convinced them that’s a possibility when it’s not. You’ve been dragging them around. I, I think that they care more about their friends right now than me. I think also that in the circus that they live in, with 10 people and 2 dogs, they get to do whatever they want, and they know that mommy has a regimen and they have structure, discipline, not physical but reward for good behaviour and consequences for bad behaviour, and that’s not something that they’re no longer familiar with. They run around doing whatever they want, mini adults.”

137The following are excerpts from emails from the mother to the society worker at the time on December 4, 2023:

[maternal aunt] is someone whom through life has neglected her responsibilities and DEMANDS HANDOUTS FROM ME. I, on the other hand have worked since I was 15 years old, 30 years NO! YOU are also very prejudice [society worker], I make way more money than you YET YOU ARE USE TO DENIGRADING AFRICAN PEOPLE BY Assuming WE ARE ON WELFARE, YOU ARE QUITE RUDE! YOU WILL PAY FOR THE FULL TICKET, WE CAN PAY FOR A ONE WAY TICKET FOR OUT BOYS TO BE HERE, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ANYWHERE, WE ARE IN CANADA! YOU HAVE DISRUPTED OUR ENTIRE FAMILY LIFE, WE ARE NOT SPENDING ANOTHER PENNY FOR YOUR NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good lluck to you, she’s my sister I have rescued her my whole life, but not this time SHE WENT TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FAR. SHE IS A EVIL AND A JEALOUS PERSON, SHE DISGUST ME. WE ARE SO HAPPY SHE DOES NOT CARRY THE MAJOLA NAME ANYMORE, WE ARE VERY WELL KNOW AND SHE BRINGS great embarrassment to OUR FAMILY AND LEGACY!

TELL THAT WHORE [A.] SHE WILL LOSE HER “WINGS”, SHE WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN. SHE IS GOING TO PRISON!!!!!!!

YOUZE A FAKE A FONY

YOUZE A LIAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

YOUZE A RRRRRRRRRACISSSSSSST PREJUDICE BIGOT

YOUZE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IN TTTTTTTTTTTTROUBLLE

If I were you, MIGHT I SUGGEST, YOU position words EVALUATE AND CALCULATE YOUR ACTION “CROWN THIEVES”

EVERYONE IS WATCHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you ACTIONS.

STOP THE GAZA WAR NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are clearly incapable of ACCEPTING the truth. Your society is a fraud who HURTS CHILDREN AND PARENTS.

YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WATCHING CHILDREN BEHEADED, RAPED, BRUTALIZED AND BOMB.

So I have 3 words for you and it’s not let’s DANCE. ACTUAL I’LL SPELLLLLLL IT

FUCK THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY AND ALL IT’S EMPLOYEES WHO WATCH CHILDREN DYING BY THE MINUTE, NOT ADVOCATE FOR THE MODERN APARTHEID, FUCK ISRAEL, I’M THE REAL JEW, I’M NOT ANTISEMETIC FOR SAYING – YOU PEOPLE STOLE EVERYTHING BUT GUESS WHAT SOON WILL TAKE IT ALL BACK --------

Therefore we are agreeable, LAWYER UP!

BYE BYE BY HONEY BUNEY, IF YOU WERE ON MY TIME, MAN YOU WOULD BE SHINING, BUT NOW YOU SINKING SO FST LIKE THOSE BOMBS YOUR FRIENDS ARE THROWING AT PALESTINE, MURDERERS YOU ALL ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOOD LUCK!

SHALOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

138When asked at trial if she agreed the contents are concerning, she said, while the delivery might be concerning, the facts are true.

139When asked if she was experiencing a mental health crisis at that time, she said, “Absolutely not. I was experiencing frustration, and my issues are listed in the body of that email, and I stand firmly by what I said at that time and to date. Maybe the delivery, maybe the caps, maybe the word W-H-O-R, couple of swear words, but the … content I stand by with firmly. And it’s not a crisis. It is me explaining exactly what I’ve said to you in the course of this case.”

140When asked if she understands it is fundamental to cooperate with the workers, she said, “Absolutely I do. And that’s why I took measures to get [former worker A.H.] removed from this file, and I’ve been cooperating very well” with the current workers.

141The mother initially testified that she has no issue with children being placed with maternal uncle. She said she was discouraged when the placement broke down because it meant the children went to maternal aunt S. who lied and maternal grandmother who allegedly assaulted the mother. She said while she had concerns about maternal uncle watching pornography and sleeping with her then-friend A.C., she was satisfied he could care for the boys, with supervision. But when OCL counsel asked if she would support a court order placing the children with maternal uncle, she said, “Definitely not. And I will expand. He hasn’t apologized to me, okay? He hasn’t taken – shown any remorse for all the things. You want to isolate one incident. Tell me how you backtrack and forgive someone who slept with all your friends.”

142In the court’s endorsement dated February 18, 2025, when the society was still seeking interim care, the court noted that “Mother has significant distrust with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and is unable to speak professionally towards the workers, as a result of actual and perceived failing of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. Mother focuses a lot of energy and time on ridiculing the workers and threatening to have them fired. The Mother is encouraged to try to address the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto staff professionally.”

143The mother’s supports, her mental health outreach worker Mr. Tataryn and her psychotherapist Mr. Cameron, testified as to the mother’s emotional dysregulation during that court appearance and even during a therapy session a week later.

4.1.c: OCL plan

144The plan presented by OCL counsel is for the children to be placed in the extended care of the society, with no access to the mother, with a view to adoption by maternal family. I find this plan to be in the best interests of the children for the following reasons.

145The mother’s behaviour, stemming from her mental health issues, has negatively impacted the children:

(a) Her move to Vancouver has resulted in minimal access and insufficient opportunity to repair the parent child relationship, which the Family Services Worker acknowledges is “strained;”

(b) Her continuing to engage in conflict has resulted in her children being fearful of even having access with her;

(c) Her inconsistent behaviour makes them worry about whether this will be a good day or a bad day for her.

146The mother has many strengths. She is intelligent, articulate and resourceful. She is organized and punctual; for example, for access and for trial, with the latter being particularly noteworthy as the start time for her was 7 a.m. Vancouver time each day, and she was never late. She has demonstrated an impressive commitment to therapy, maintaining the same therapeutic relationship for 14 years, although there is a concern regarding transition given her therapist is 72 with retirement on the horizon. She has demonstrated a strong interest in her children’s educational, athletic and artistic development.

147What she is not able to do however, is consistently focus on the children and meet their emotional needs.

148The children’s views and preferences have been consistent not to return to their mother’s care. While they would like to stay in their current home, they have been clear that even if that is not possible they do not wish to return to their mother.

149The society’s position is that the children’s views are not determinative, and points to positives such as the workers’ observations of the March/April 2025 access visits and the mother’s commitment to therapy.

150However, the court is not relying solely on the children’s views, but rather on the basis for their views: Their experience of their mother’s behaviours. Furthermore, some of what they have described the court has observed during the trial; namely, the mother speaking aggressively and confrontationally, the mother talking “at” people, engaging in frequent monologues about irrelevant matters, the mother being difficult to redirect even by people in authority (judge, counsel), never mind her 10-year-old children.

151As a result of the mother’s behaviours, the children have strong negative feelings towards her. They do not trust her. This case is taking an emotional toll on them; one striking example being when child T. said he feels “30 years old.”

152The society’s position that mother should be given “a chance” is not in the best interests of the children. She has had a chance for two years to repair the relationship. Instead, she moved to Vancouver, she had minimal access, she harangued them during virtual visits, and she has shown no insight into the impact her behaviour has had on them emotionally. Even at trial, when given an opportunity to reflect on how she could have handled things differently, she insisted it was appropriate to tell them she had been “raped” by maternal aunt S.’s husband, and gave a mocking, singsong illustration of how she could have approached what she still characterized as their “lying” about her partner Z.

153Taking “a chance” under these circumstances would place the children’s emotional wellbeing at risk.

4.2: Access

154Section 104(1) provides that the court may make an order for access in the child’s best interests. And s. 105(6) sets out two additional factors to be considered when making an access order for a child in extended society care; namely, whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and whether it would impair future opportunity for adoption.

155While there is some evidence of positive interactions during supervised access, there was no evidence supporting a finding that the relationship between the mother and the children is meaningful and beneficial from the children’s perspective. They are not sure they love her. They do not include her in their list of people who are important to them. They worry on days they are scheduled to have a call with her because they do not know if this will be a good day or a bad day for her.

156If mother was the access holder, access could impair future opportunity for adoption. The maternal family’s clearly expressed position is that they would not present a plan to adopt the children if they were required to have contact with the mother, though they are not opposed to the boys having contact with her. Previous placements with them broke down as a result of the mother’s behaviour.

157However, as Justice Sherr notes in para. 266 of the R.S. decision, whether the child’s relationship with a parent is meaningful and whether access would impair the child’s opportunities for adoption, while important, are only two of many factors to consider. It is a best interests test.

158At para. 326 of R.S., Justice Sherr lists some of the reasons access could be in the best interests of a child, which are applicable here given the children’s racial, cultural, language and religious background:

a) It is very important for children to know their story, their history and where they come from.

b) Many children will want to search out their birth parents at adolescence if they have no contact. It can help them remove any fantasy about their birth parents and have a more realistic understanding of who they are.

c) It can help build a child’s identity – to know who they are.

d) It can help a child be more secure in where they’ve come from and where they are going. It might provide the child with a greater sense of security moving forward.

e) It helps the child understand their roots, heritage, culture and religion – about foods and events that are important in their culture.

f) It helps the child understand why decisions were made about them and why they live where they live. It can inform them that they were and are loved by the birth parent.

g) It definitely promotes self-esteem and can help meet the emotional needs of the child.

h) It can provide the child with readier access to medical information. This can be very important if genetic concerns develop. This is also important information for the adoptive family to have.

i) It allows the adoptive family to reinforce the child’s ability to understand their story and their history.

159While the children’s views about not wanting to return to their mother’s care have been consistent throughout this proceeding, their views about access have varied depending on how the visits have gone. When the first supervised visits in March/April 2025 went smoothly, they agreed to two overnight visits. When they returned from Vancouver they have often been reluctant to participate in calls, particularly after their negative experience on September 4, 2025 when their mother read their lawyer’s letter to them. Even after that, they did eventually agree to resume calls. Recently, they have said they want calls less frequently and they have also said they do not want calls at all.

160Maternal family appear committed to presenting a family plan for adoption. They worry about what will happen to the boys if they are raised by the state in foster care. They love the boys and want them to grow up with their family. They were approved to care for the boys when the boys were first removed from their mother. However, this adoption plan is far from definite. Given the uncertainty of what the boys’ permanent plan will be, it is in their best interests to maintain contact with their mother to connect them with their language, culture and heritage. Limiting the contact to virtual, six times a year, will balance their wishes with the importance of that connection.

5. Order

Final order to go as follows:

1. The children [names and dates of birth] shall be placed in the extended care of the society.

2. The children shall have supervised, virtual access to their mother a minimum of six times per year. The length of each virtual visit shall be in accordance with the wishes of the children. Any additional access, whether virtual or in-person, shall be at the request of the children and in accordance with their wishes. The children shall be the access holders. The mother shall be the access recipient. All communication between the mother and the children’s caregivers regarding access shall be done through the access supervisor. The mother shall not communicate with the caregivers directly.