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
B E T W E E N :
Child and Family Services of Grand Erie
Applicant
— AND —
V.C.
Respondent
— AND —
J.S.
Respondent
— AND —
Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory
Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley Heard on November 10, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on December 15, 2025
Vanessa Kaljaste counsel for the applicant(s)
Elizabeth Porter counsel for the respondent mother
Richard Bisika Mbokani Counsel for the respondent father
Constance Shawanda (not appearing) for Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory
Beasley, J.:
1This is a motion for summary judgment. The Child and Family Services of Grand Erie (CFSGE, the Society) seeks an order that the child, I.S., born […], 2020 be placed in the custody of E.C. and G.C., with access by V.C. and the child and with access by J.S. and the child to be supervised by the caregivers and occur a minimum of every other week for four hours, supervised by the caregivers, on terms on the Status Review Application.
2On the Protection Application, the Society seeks an order for statutory and protection findings for C.S., born […], 2024 and an order for extended society care with access on terms and conditions. Sibling access orders are sought for both children.
3The Respondent parents are the parents of three children: I.S., born […], 2020, Ch.S., born […] 2022, and C.S., born […], 2024.
4The parents are opposed to the relief sought by the Society. They seek the return of the two children to their care.
5I have reviewed the following materials: On behalf of CFSGE:
a. Affidavit of Kimberly Gosselin sworn November 15, 2022
b. Affidavit of Leanne Fortin sworn November 15, 2022
c. Affidavit of C. Lickers sworn August 15, 2025 and her two affidavits sworn November 5, 2025
On behalf of the parents:
d. Affidavit of V.C. sworn May 31, 2024 and October 27, 2025
e. Affidavit of S.C. sworn September 29, 2025
f. Affidavit of E.C. sworn September 29, 2025
g. Affidavit of S.B.C. sworn September 29, 2025
h. Affidavit of G.C. sworn October 26, 2025
i. Affidavit of J.S. sworn October 27, 2025
Issues:
6Can this matter be determined with the Summary Judgment process? Is there a genuine issue requiring a trial?
If the answer, is no, what are the next steps? If yes:
(a) Does I.S. continue to be in need of protection?
(b) Is C.S. in need of protection?
(c) What Order is in the Children’s best interests?
(d) What access is in the Children’s best interests?
Timeline
7The significant dates for this family are:
a. […] 2020: I.S. born
b. […], 2022: Ch.S. was born prematurely.
c. July 4, 2022: Hospitalization for seizures; injuries discovered.
d. August 6, 2022: Respiratory arrest; Ch.S. admitted to hospital.
e. August 29, 2022: Ch.S. dies
f. November 21, 2022: I.S. placed with maternal grandparents
g. […] 2024: C.S. born
h. May 9, 2024: C.S. placed with V.S. and M.S.
i. June 25 & August 26, 2024: Focused hearing
j. September 10, 2024: Justice Baker’s ruling dismissing unsupervised access motion
k. June 2025: Parents separate
Ch.S.
8Ch.S. was born prematurely on […], 2022 and discharged to his parents’ care at approximately 39 weeks of age. He died on August 29, 2022.
9The family had no prior child protection history before July 2022. I.S. was in the parents’ care at the time of Ch.S.’s birth.
10On July 4, 2022, Ch.S. was brought by his parents to the Brantford Emergency for vomiting and a seizure. He was transferred to McMaster Hospital. After initial hospitalization, Ch.S. was discharged on July 6, 2022 under a safety plan providing for constant supervision.
11On August 6, 2022, while in the parents’ care, Ch.S. suffered respiratory arrest and was rushed to hospital. He was diagnosed with severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. He remained in hospital until his withdrawal from life support and death on August 29, 2022. Ch.S.’s cause of death was severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalomyelopathy following respiratory arrest.
12Medical professionals ruled out metabolic or bleeding disorders and concluded that the injuries required significant force, inconsistent with normal infant handling or accidental falls.
13The autopsy confirmed: subdural haemorrhages, old and healing rib fractures and retinal haemorrhages.
Summary Judgment Test
14The Society brings a Summary Judgment Motion.
15Summary judgment motions in child protection cases are governed by Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules. The Society as the moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial (Rule 16(4)). The responding party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial (Rule 16(4.1)), but this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence is weak, the court must still be satisfied that the Society has met its burden.
16The Supreme Court in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014 SCC 7] established that summary judgment is appropriate only where the process:
a. Allows the judge to make necessary findings of fact,
b. Enables application of the law to those facts, and
c. Is a proportionate, fair, and just alternative to trial.
17In child protection proceedings, courts apply these principles with exceptional caution because such cases engage Charter rights and involve vulnerable litigants. The jurisprudence emphasizes that summary judgment should not be used to shortcut a fair determination where credibility, complex facts, or best interests of the child are at stake In Kawartha Haliburton CAS v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316:
13Pursuant to r. 16(4.1), the responding party to the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The responding party must put their best foot forward on the motion. The judge is entitled to assume that the parties have put before her or him all of the evidence that they would be able to adduce at trial (see: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.T., 2000 CanLII 20578 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 4736 (Ont. C.J.)).
14A summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by vague references as to what may be adduced if the matter is allowed to proceed to trial. The parents need more than genuine and heartfelt expressions of their desire to resume care of the child. There must be something discernable from the parent’s evidence to show they face some better prospects than what existed at the time of the Society’s removal of the child from their care (see: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., 2000 CanLII 3158 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.); Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. W. (B.)., 2015 ONSC 7621, at para. 90).
15Although r. 16(4.1) sets out the obligation of the respondent to the motion to provide “in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”, this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence does not establish a genuine issue for trial, the court must still be satisfied on the evidence before it that the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial (see: Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, at para. 2 of para. 80).
16As applied to child protection proceedings, a fair and just determination on the merits must recognize that such proceedings engage Charter rights for a vulnerable segment of our society. Consequently, courts have stressed the need to take a cautious approach to granting summary judgment in child protection proceedings. This cautious approach promotes the principle in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 of reaching a fair and just determination on the merits (see: Kawartha, at para. 76).
17Hryniak’s fairness principles for summary judgment must be applied recognizing the distinctive features of a child protection proceeding. In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial the court must exercise exceptional caution and apply the objectives of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act2 (hereinafter referred to as the CYFSA or the Act) including the best interests of the child (see: Kawartha, at para.1 of paras. 80 and 64).
18The court must conduct a careful screening of the evidence to eliminate inadmissible evidence. The court should not give weight to evidence on a summary judgment motion that would be inadmissible at trial (see: Kawartha, at para. 3 of para. 80).
19The child protection jurisprudence has crafted an approach to the fair and just determination of issues using summary judgment motions by recognizing that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants. The jurisprudence reflects an approach to the genuine issue “for trial” or “requiring trial” analysis that incorporates these considerations. The test of “no genuine issue for trial” has been referred to in a number of ways. It has been equated with “no chance of success” or that it is “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed”. The test has also been enunciated as being when the “outcome is [a] foregone conclusion” or where there is “no realistic possibility of an outcome other than that sought by the applicant” (see: Kawartha, at para. 72).
20Rule 16(6) provides that if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
21Rule 16(6.1) provides that in determining if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties, and the court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be only exercised at trial:
Weighing the evidence.
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.
22In Hryniak the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Hryniak sets out that the judge must first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence without using the additional fact-finding powers set out in r. 16(6.1). If, after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge may resort to the additional fact-finding powers to decide if a trial is required.
23There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (see: Hryniak, at para. 49). As the Supreme Court stated, at para. 50 of Hryniak, “the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute” (see: Kawartha, at para. 63).
24I have considered that I should exercise exceptional caution before proceeding on a summary basis in a child protection case. I recognize and have considered that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants.
Issue: Can this matter be determined with the Summary Judgment process? Is there a genuine issue for trial?
18I find it is in the interest of justice for the court to determine this case summarily. I am able to make the necessary findings of fact and to apply the law to the facts. It is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. I find that the summary judgment process and the evidentiary record is sufficiently comprehensive for me to make a fair and just determination on the issues and disposition without the need for a full trial. Further cross-examination of witnesses would add little, if any, value to the court’s analysis.
19I find that the Society has met their onus and established, on a balance of probabilities, a prima facie case for summary judgment with respect to each aspect of the relief sought. I further find that the responding parties have not established that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial on any issue.
20If this matter proceeded to trial there is no realistic possibility of an outcome other than that sought by the Society.
21The test is whether the outcome is a foregone conclusion or whether there is no realistic possibility of success for the responding party (Kawartha Haliburton CAS v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316). Courts may weigh evidence, assess credibility, and draw reasonable inferences on a summary judgment motion (Rule 16(6.1)).
22Ch.S. suffered unexplained. He suffered multiple injuries including subdural hematomas, retinal haemorrhages, and rib fractures while in parental care. Despite years of opportunity, parents have not provided a credible explanation. Speculation about a stroller accident, tight handling of 2 children, or a roommate does not amount to evidence.
23The 2024 focussed hearing evidence consisted of the three medical experts and they were cross-examined by the parents’ counsel.
24On September 10, 2024, the court previously found that the risk to I.S. and C.S. was too high for unsupervised access. That finding remains unchanged; no material improvement has occurred.
Focused Hearing – 2024
25A two-day focused hearing occurred on June 25, 2024 and August 26, 2024 before Justice K.A. Baker to determine the degree of risk to I.S. and C.S. Up until then, the parents’ access to I.S. and C.S. had been fully supervised and the parents’ motion sought four hours of unsupervised access to the children.
26On September 10, 2024, Justice K.A. Baker determined that Ch.S. had suffered serious and life-ending unexplained injuries in the care of his parents. She found the risk to I.S. who was four years of age and C.S. who was four months old at the time, to be extremely high. Justice Baker determined that without any explanation for the injuries, it was difficult, if not impossible, to mitigate the risk to the siblings. She declined to allow unsupervised access.
27Dr. Baird, Dr. Ramsey, and Dr. Tugaleva testified and were cross-examined by the parents' counsel.
28Medical experts testified that Ch.S.’s injuries were highly indicative of inflicted trauma. Dr. Burke Baird explained that Ch.S.’s CT scan revealed multiple subdural hematomas, extensive retinal haemorrhages, and rib fractures at different stages of healing, all consistent with severe acceleration-deceleration head trauma. He noted femoral metaphyseal fractures, which are rarely accidental and require significant force beyond normal infant handling. Dr. Baird emphasized that a fall from a stroller or routine handling could not account for these injuries and that a two-month-old infant could not generate such force. He concluded that the simultaneous presence of rib fractures at different stages of healing indicated at least two episodes of highly forceful thoracic trauma.
29Dr. Elena Tugaleva, who conducted the autopsy after Ch.S.’s death on August 29, 2022, confirmed subdural hemorrhages, retinal hemorrhages, and old rib fractures. She reported faint bruising on the forehead and an abrasion on the leg and concluded that respiratory arrest was caused by severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalomyelopathy, likely linked to chronic subdural hematomas and possible traumatic events. Dr. Tugaleva stated that the injuries were concerning for inflicted trauma, although she acknowledged no definitive findings favouring accidental or inflicted causes.
30Dr. David Ramsey supported the concern for inflicted injury and testified that short falls, such as from a stroller, do not generally cause significant injuries like those seen in Ch.S. He agreed that subdural hematomas and rib fractures in an infant raise a very high suspicion of inflicted trauma.
31Contributing factors included chronic subdural hematomas and possible traumatic events. No medical condition was found to explain Ch.S.’s injuries.
32Justice K.A. Baker, in a judgment dated September 10, 2024, concluded that the evidence was overwhelming that Ch.S. suffered severe and forceful trauma on more than one occasion while in the care of his parents. His injuries were not consistent with accidental causes. The court found that the parents’ explanations, including a stroller fall or handling errors, were implausible. The injuries were highly characteristic of inflicted trauma, and the risk to surviving children I.S. and C.S. was deemed extremely high.
Parents’ Position
33V.C. and J.S. maintain that they have always provided safe, loving, and attentive care for their children. They emphasize that I.S. thrived under their care, meeting or exceeding developmental milestones, and that they strictly followed medical advice for her gluten and dairy-free diet. Both parents actively participated in early learning programs, parenting classes, and prenatal support for all three children. Witnesses—including family members and a former neighbor—confirm that the home was clean and safe, and that the parents were nurturing and hands-on.
34V.C.’s affidavit details extensive prenatal and postnatal care for all children, including regular medical appointments and emergency visits for I.S. when concerns arose. She accessed parenting resources, lactation support, and completed courses such as The First Five Years and programs at EarlyON and HOPE Pregnancy Centre. No professional ever raised concerns about her parenting. She describes Ch.S.’s premature birth, NICU stay, and follow-up care, noting that all medical recommendations were followed. She denies ever force-feeding Ch.S. and explains that injuries discovered at McMaster Hospital were shocking and unexplained. She highlights medical uncertainty regarding timing and cause of injuries, and confirms that other caregivers—including a roommate—had access to Ch.S.
35V.C. and J.S. cooperated fully with police, CFSGE, and medical staff, even considering a polygraph test before being advised it would not change the Society’s position. They explored every possible explanation for Ch.S.’s injuries, including the possibility of accidental pressure while holding both I.S. and Ch.S. and concerns about the roommate’s aggressive tendencies. They stress that Ch.S. was a happy baby and never showed signs of distress prior to hospitalization.
36The affidavit also addresses allegations of poor home conditions, mental health issues, and financial instability, denying them and providing context (temporary disarray during hospital stays). V.C. confirms that she and J.S. have never engaged in domestic violence, have completed anger management intake, and attempted couples counselling despite no history of relationship conflict. She disputes claims of substance abuse, explaining that limited marijuana use during pregnancy was medically advised for severe nausea.
37V.C. underscores strong family support: her parents and siblings have acted as supervisors and disrupted their lives to maintain contact with I.S. and C.S. She expresses frustration with CFSGE’s inconsistent messaging, including promises about supervised living arrangements for C.S. that were later rescinded. Despite these challenges, both parents remain committed to cooperation and agree to any court order that would allow unsupervised access or gradual reunification.
38J.S.’s affidavit complements this by challenging CFSGE’s reliance on the “unexplained injury principle,” emphasizing lack of medical certainty, multiple caregivers, and his compliance with court orders. He details securing stable housing and employment, completing programs, and requesting a full trial to test evidence and credibility.
Alternative Injury Explanations Presented by Parents
39The parents deny harming Ch.S. and argue injuries may have resulted from other causes. The parents emphasize medical uncertainty. No expert pinpointed exact timing, and multiple caregivers had access.
40No charges have been laid with respect to the injuries or death of Ch.S..
41It has never been clearly established how Ch.S. was injured.
42The parents present four alternative injury explanations:
a. Roommate’s Possible Involvement
b. Accidental pressure while holding both children
c. July 1, 2022 stroller incident
d. Ch.S.’s medical factors and pre-existing conditions
43V.C. and J.S. allowed a roommate known to have epilepsy, to stay with them temporarily starting June 25, 2022. The roommate was alone with Ch.S. for short periods (less than 15 minutes) while V.C. did laundry or retrieved mail. After Ch.S.’s hospitalization, the parents asked the roommate to leave; he became angry.
44V.C. later contacted the roommate’s ex-partner, who confirmed she does not allow him near her children due to his aggressive tendencies. V.C. immediately reported this information to police.
45V.C. speculated that when holding Ch.S. and picking up I.S. simultaneously, she may have squeezed Ch.S. too firmly around his ribs. She emphasized uncertainty but raised this as a possible explanation for rib injuries.
46While Ch.S. was in the stroller on July 1, 2022, the stroller hit the curb and flipped forward. S.C.’s affidavit confirms that a gust of wind pushed Ch.S.’s stroller into a curb, causing it to tip forward. V.C. quickly grabbed the handle to prevent harm; Ch.S. did not cry, and no immediate signs of injury were observed.
47Ch.S. was born prematurely at 34 weeks and had a minor brain bleed detected in the NICU, which was believed to have healed before discharge. V.C. notes that Ch.S. was later diagnosed with RSV, a cold, and a urinary tract infection during his final hospitalization, which could have contributed to respiratory distress. She disputes later hospital statements denying these diagnoses.
48V.C. explicitly denies ever force-feeding Ch.S. or shaking him, despite a doctor’s suggestion that tongue abnormalities could indicate forced feeding. She raised the tongue concern herself during an earlier hospital visit, which was initially attributed to enlarged saliva glands.
49These explanations are consistent with the parents’ claim that injuries were not intentional and may have resulted from accidental events or other individuals’ actions, combined with Ch.S.’s medical vulnerabilities.
50When Ch.S. was admitted to McMaster Hospital in July 2022, imaging revealed subdural hematomas, retinal haemorrhages, and rib fractures. These findings were considered suspicious for non-accidental injury by medical professionals.
51The matter was reported to the police and CFSGE immediately after the injuries were discovered in July 2022. Both parents were interviewed by police and CFSGE. No charges have been laid.
52The alternate injury theories were presented to the Court in the 2024 Risk hearing. The 3 medical experts testified and were cross-examined by the parents’ counsel. Justice K.A. Baker determined the risk too high for unsupervised access and that the risk could not be mitigated.
53In Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services v S.M. et al. 2021 ONSC 5433, paragraph 46, the mother unsuccessfully relied upon critique of Dr. Kadar’s report provided by Dr. Amy Ornstein of the Suspected Trauma and Abuse Response Team from October 2018. In this case, there is no alternative medical opinion clarifying the causes of injury or disputing the medical evidence relating to Ch.S.’s injuries and death.
54Justice K.A. Baker found the parents’ explanations—including a stroller fall, handling errors, or blaming a co-tenant—implausible. The court held that the risk to the surviving children I.S. and C.S. was extremely high.
Unexplained Injury Principle
55I find that that the Society has established that Ch.S. suffered unexplained injuries. I agree with Justice K.A. Baker that without any credible explanation for Ch.S.’s injuries, mitigation of risk for his siblings is not possible.
56The unexplained injury principle is a recognized principle in child protection matters. The Society has established that Ch.S. suffered unexplained injuries while in his parents’ care.
57In V.R. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3508, at paragraph 124, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice affirmed the trial judge’s decision stating clearly that “the unexplained injury principle is a recognized principle in child protection matters”. At para. 126, Horkins J. used the description of the principle from Prince Edward Island (Director of Child Welfare) v. H.(A.), 2009 PECA 19:
In child protection case law, there is something called “the unexplained injury principle” and that is injuries suffered by an infant which are of a serious nature and which remain unexplained are in and of themselves grounds for removal of the child and for the continuation of that removal. Where there is no evidence of intervention by a third party, a failure to explain the cause of the child’s serious injury has been held to constitute grounds for finding a child in need of protection and for a refusal to return the child to previous caregivers.
Does I.S. continue to be in need of protection?
58Yes, I.S. continues to be in need of protection. I.S. was found to be in need of protection on June 13, 2023. The situation remains the same. The injuries suffered by Ch.S. remain unexplained. The risk to I.S. remains.
59Since I.S. has already been found in need of protection, the case before me is a status review. The test for status review is twofold. The first test is to determine if the child continues to be in need of protection and requires a further court order for her protection. The second test is a consideration of the best interests of the child.
60I find that an order for extended society care is in I.S.’s best interests.
61Further to Child, Youth and Family Services Act, s 101, where a child in found to be in need of protection court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests: supervision order, interim society care for a period not exceeding 12 months, extended society care or consecutive orders of interim care and supervision.
62A court is to inquire what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention. This family had no previous child protection involvement before Ch.S.’s injuries became known. The less disruptive alternative is preferred. Community placement is to be considered If the child is First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the court shall place the child with a member of the child’s extended family if possible or, if it is not possible, a family in that community.
63The risk to I.S. cannot be mitigated in the care of her parents. I.S. has been in the care of her grandparents since 2022.
Is C.S. in need of protection?
64Yes, C.S. is in need of protection. The injuries suffered by Ch.S. remain unexplained. The risk to C.S. remains.
65I find that an order for extended society care is in C.S.’s best interests.
Best Interests of Children
66I find that it in the children’s best interests for the orders sought by the Society to be granted. The children need permanency. I will order that I.S. be in the custody of E.C. and G.C. and that C.S. be placed in the extended care of the Society.
67I.S. has lived with her maternal grandparents since November 21, 2022. She is now 5 years of age. They provide stable care, support her schooling, and manage her developmental needs. E.C. and G.C. seek custody of I.S. It is in I.S.’s best interests to have a stable and permanent home.
68C.S. has lived with his paternal aunt and uncle, V.S. and M.S., since May 9, 2024. C.S. is about 19 months old. He has been in the care of V.S. and M.S. since shortly after his birth. V.S. and M.S. provide stable care, follow medical recommendations, and maintain structured routines. V.S. and M.S. are prepared to adopt and maintain cultural connections.
69The placements for both children allow for them to be in the care of family and to maintain family and indigenous heritage connections.
70The children are First Nations children belonging to Wiikwemikoong First Nation.
71Both sets of caregivers are committed to permanency: E.C. and G.C. seek custody of I.S., and V.S. and M.S. seek adoption of C.S..
72Ms. V.S., the paternal aunt, described a history of instability and conflict with the parents, including accusations, threats, and erratic behaviour. The ongoing conflict with the parents, including verbal aggression and disregard for routines during visits, which left C.S. unsettled.
73Ms. V.S. expressed fear for her family’s safety due to threats from the parents and emphasized that adoption is in C.S.’s best interest for stability and cultural continuity.
74She noted the parents’ separation in June 2025, ongoing financial instability, and lack of engagement in therapy or grief counselling.
75The parents strongly oppose adoption of C.S. by his foster family, fearing loss of sibling bonds and exposure to physical discipline practices inconsistent with their parenting philosophy. They highlight ongoing efforts to maintain contact, including daily video calls, supervised visits, and the provision of breast milk and homemade food. They argue that permanently severing parental rights would be unjust, given their progress and commitment.
76I find extended care with a plan for adoption for C.S. to be in his best interests.
Best Interests of the Child and Access
77The Society seeks an order for access for both children with their parents and each other:
(a) For I.S.: with access by V.C. and the child and with access by J.S. and the child to be supervised by the caregivers and to occur a minimum of every other week for four hours, on terms and conditions
(b) For C.S., with access by V.C. and the child and with access by J.S. and the child to be supervised by the caregivers and to occur a minimum of four times per year, on terms and conditions
(c) An order for sibling access between I.S. and C.S., in the discretion of the children's respective caregivers, minimum once per month;
(d) The children to be access holders and the parents to be access recipients
78Sections 105(5) and (6) of the CYFSA sets out the following:
(5) A court shall not make or vary an access order under section 104 with respect to a child who is in extended society care under an order made under paragraph 3 of subsection 101(1) or clause 116(1)(c) unless the court is satisfied that the order or variation would be in the child’s best interests.
(6) The court shall consider, as part of its determination of whether an order or variation would be in the child’s best interests under subsection (5),
(a) whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and
(b) if the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.
79The Court of Appeal in the Kawartha case as well as a more recent case, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415, has confirmed that the CYFSA changed the test with respect to access following an extended care order and that the court is obliged to conduct a best interests assessment to determine what form of access should be ordered. There is no onus on the parent to show that access is meaningful and beneficial, but in each case, a holistic assessment needs to be made, taking into account the best interests of the child and looking at the concepts of “meaningful and beneficial” only as one part of the overall analysis.
80Section 1(1) of the CYFSA provides that the paramount purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. Section 74(3) of the CYFSA sets out the criteria the court must use to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child. The relevant subsection is 74(3)(c), which provides that the court shall consider any relevant circumstances including the following
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 place 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.
81I find that access is appropriate and in the children’s best interests. The access needs to be supervised as the risk remains high. The children are placed with kin. Access with the parents will ensure that the children know the parents and have continued exposure to their Indigenous heritage.
82I find that the Society has demonstrated a prima facie case in support of an Order that the child, I.S. be placed in the custody of E.C. and G.C. and that the child, C.S. be placed in the extended care of the Society for the purpose of adoption, with access to the mother and father on terms and conditions.
83I find there would be a significant risk should a young child like I.S. or C.S. be returned to the care of a parent who either caused Ch.S. serious injury, failed to notice Ch.S. suffered serious injury or failed to protect Ch.S. from that injury. I cannot forget the undisputed fact that Ch.S. suffered significant serious injury while in the care of the parents. The unexplained injury principle in and of itself militates against a return to either parent. In my view, the degree of risk is high, and continues to be high. In addition, in my view, the inability to determine exactly how Ch.S. was injured and who was responsible, coupled with the passage of time raises the degree of risk to extremely high. C.S. and I.S. are secure and cared for in their respective placements at this time. Disrupting their young lives is not in their best interests. My Order will include an order for access with each parent and between the siblings.
Order
On the status review application:
- A final order pursuant to s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child, I.S. born […], 2020 (herein referred to as “the child”), shall be placed in the custody of E.C. and G.C. This order shall be deemed to be an order under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. In a motion to change these orders:
a. Child and Family Services of Grand Erie and the children’s aid society where the child ordinarily resides then are not automatically parties.
b. Child and Family Services of Grand Erie and, if applicable, the children’s aid society where the child ordinarily resides then shall be served with a copy of the motion to change a minimum of 15 days before the first court date or forthwith if the motion to change is brought on an urgent basis.
c. The motion to change shall be brought in the court where the child ordinarily resides then.
d. The person bringing the first motion to change shall be named as the applicant and every other party shall be named as the respondent.
e. The motion to change shall be given a new court file number.
- A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that access/parenting time between the child and the Respondent V.C. shall be on the following terms and conditions:
a. “Visit participants” here means the child, the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child, V.C., and every other person participating in the visit.
b. All access will be supervised by the caregivers.
c. Access will be a minimum of every other Saturday for four (4) hours. Any additional access to be offered to the parents will be in the discretion of the caregivers and will be arranged as agreed to by the caregivers.
d. Additional visit participants may be suggested in advance of the actual visit and, if the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child agrees, the additional visit participant may take part in visits.
e. Everyone participating in visits will work collaboratively to determine the dates, times, and locations of visits.
f. When scheduling visits, visit participants will primarily consider the best interests of the child when determining those points. If the visit participants cannot agree to a location, date, and/or time, those points will be selected by the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child, who will primarily consider the best interest of the child when doing so.
g. Everyone at visits will do their best, and this will be demonstrated by engaging consistently and lovingly with the child, using positive parenting techniques, and putting the child’s needs first.
h. All visit participants will also not:
i. Demonstrate behaviours that may put the child at risk as a result of substance use.
ii. Use any kind of physical discipline, like spanking.
iii. Be verbally or physically threatening to anyone.
iv. Talk about adult topics, like court proceedings, criminal activity, violence, and self-harm.
i. All visit participants shall maintain regular communication with each other, which means they will:
i. Ensure they have each other’s current contact information, such as their active telephone number, and tell each other as soon as possible if there are any changes to that contact information. They will also make best efforts to maintain communication with each other.
- A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that access/parenting time between the child and the Respondent J.S. shall be on the following terms and conditions:
a. “Visit participants” here means the child, the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child, J.S., and every other person participating in the visit.
b. All access will be supervised by the caregivers.
c. Access will be a minimum of every other Saturday for four (4) hours. Any additional access to be offered to the parents will be in the discretion of the caregivers and will be arranged as agreed to by the caregivers.
d. Additional visit participants may be suggested in advance of the actual visit and, if the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child agrees, the additional visit participant may take part in visits.
e. Everyone participating in visits will work collaboratively to determine the dates, times, and locations of visits.
f. When scheduling visits, visit participants will primarily consider the best interests of the child when determining those points. If the visit participants cannot agree to a location, date, and/or time, those points will be selected by the persons responsible for parental decision-making about the child, who will primarily consider the best interest of the child when doing so.
g. Everyone at visits will do their best, and this will be demonstrated by engaging consistently and lovingly with the child, using positive parenting techniques, and putting the child’s needs first.
h. All visit participants will also not:
v. Demonstrate behaviours that may put the child at risk as a result of substance use.
vi. Use any kind of physical discipline, like spanking.
vii. Be verbally or physically threatening to anyone.
viii. Talk about adult topics, like court proceedings, criminal activity, violence, and self-harm.
j. All visit participants shall maintain regular communication with each other, which means they will:
i. Ensure they have each other’s current contact information, such as their active telephone number, and tell each other as soon as possible if there are any changes to that contact information. They will also make best efforts to maintain communication with each other.
A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that there shall be additional sibling access between the child I.S. born […], 2020, and C.S. born […], 2024, in the discretion of the children’s respective caregivers.
A separate order with the Applicants being G.C. and E.C. and the Respondents being V.C. and J.S. with custody to the Applicants and access as set out in this Order for the Respondents respecting I.S. born […], 2020.
On the Protection Application:
A final order pursuant to section 90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child is determined to be: C.S. born […], 2024.
The child is a First Nations child belonging to Wiikwemikoong First Nation.
The child was brought to a place of safety before the hearing, from [address removed], Brantford, Ontario, from the care of his parents V.C. and J.S.
a. A final order that the child, C.S. born […], 2024, shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to section 74(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
b. A final order pursuant to section 101(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child, C.S. born […], 2024, shall be placed in the extended care of Child and Family Services of Grand Erie.
c. A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child, C.S. born […], 2024, shall have a right of access to V.C., with C.S. to be the access holder, and V.C. to be the access recipient, and with such access to be on the following terms and conditions:
Visits will be supervised and a minimum of four (4) times per year.
Additional visit participants may be suggested in advance of the actual visit and, if the Society agrees, they may take part in visits.
Everyone participating in visits will work collaboratively to determine the dates, times, and locations of visits.
d. When scheduling visits, everyone will primarily consider the best interests of the child when determining those points. If the visit participants cannot agree to a location, visits will be at a location selected by the Society. If the visit participants cannot agree about date and/or time, the Society will set the date and time, and will particularly consider the best interest of the child when doing so.
e. The Society will have the final say over whether visits need to be supervised. If the Society believes a visit needs to be supervised, the family will propose supervisors, and the Society will then assess them and determine their suitability. If the family is unable to propose a suitable supervisor, or the Society feels additional assessment is required, the Society may involve a Family Visit and Support Worker.
f. Everyone at visits will follow the lead and direction of the supervisor and/or Family Visit and Support Worker.
g. Everyone at visits will do their best, and this will be demonstrated by engaging consistently and lovingly with the child, using positive parenting techniques, and putting the child’s needs first.
h. Everyone at visits will also not:
- demonstrate behaviours that may put the child at risk as a result of substance use
ii. Use any kind of physical discipline, like spanking.
iii. Be verbally or physically threatening to anyone.
iv. Talk about adult topics, like court proceedings, criminal activity, violence, and self-harm.
If the Society has a reasonable cause to have serious concern about a visit, it can immediately end the visit.
Visit time that is missed because the Society cancelled will be made up. Visit time that is missed for any other reason will not need to be made up.
The Society may suspend visits if the Society has a reasonable belief that visits pose a serious risk of harm to the child.
If the Society suspends visits, this plan will be followed:
a. As soon as possible, the Society will tell the visit participant that visits have been suspended and explain why.
b. The Society and visit participant must then meet as soon as possible and make a plan together that will address the reasons why visits were suspended.
c. If a plan can be made, visits shall be reinstated immediately.
d. If a plan cannot be made within 60 days of the visits being suspended, the Society shall bring a status review application within 45 days after those first 60 days.
- All visit participants shall maintain regular communication with the Society, which means they will:
a. Ensure the Society has their current contact information, such as their active telephone number.
b. Attend and participate in scheduled meetings with the Society and make best efforts to find a mutually agreeable time to meet.
c. Let the Society know as soon as possible if there are any changes to their contact information or if they cannot come to a scheduled meeting or visit.
- A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child, C.S. born […], 2024, shall have a right of access to J.S., with C.S. to be the access holder, and J.S. to be the access recipient, and with such access to be on the following terms and conditions:
a. Visits will be supervised and a minimum of four (4) times per year.
b. Additional visit participants may be suggested in advance of the actual visit and, if the Society agrees, they may take part in visits.
c. Everyone participating in visits will work collaboratively to determine the dates, times, and locations of visits.
d. When scheduling visits, everyone will primarily consider the best interests of the child when determining those points. If the visit participants cannot agree to a location, visits will be at a location selected by the Society. If the visit participants cannot agree about date and/or time, the Society will set the date and time, and will particularly consider the best interest of the child when doing so.
e. The Society will have the final say over whether visits need to be supervised. If the Society believes a visit needs to be supervised, the family will propose supervisors, and the Society will then assess them and determine their suitability. If the family is unable to propose a suitable supervisor, or the Society feels additional assessment is required, the Society may involve a Family Visit and Support Worker.
f. Everyone at visits will follow the lead and direction of the supervisor and/or Family Visit and Support Worker.
g. Everyone at visits will do their best, and this will be demonstrated by engaging consistently and lovingly with the child, using positive parenting techniques, and putting the child’s needs first.
h. Everyone at visits will also not:
i. Demonstrate behaviours that may put the child at risk as a result of substance use.
ii. Use any kind of physical discipline, like spanking.
iii. Be verbally or physically threatening to anyone.
iv. Talk about adult topics, like court proceedings, criminal activity, violence, and self-harm.
i. If the Society has a reasonable cause to have serious concern about a visit, it can immediately end the visit.
k. Visit time that is missed because the Society cancelled will be made up. Visit time that is The Society may suspend visits if the Society has a reasonable belief that visits pose a serious risk of harm to the child.
l. If the Society suspends visits, this plan will be followed:
i. As soon as possible, the Society will tell the visit participant that visits have been suspended and explain why.
ii. The Society and visit participant must then meet as soon as possible and make a plan together that will address the reasons why visits were suspended.
iii. If a plan can be made, visits shall be reinstated immediately.
iv. If a plan cannot be made within 60 days of the visits being suspended, the Society shall bring a status review application within 45 days after those first 60 days.
m. All visit participants shall maintain regular communication with the Society, which means they will:
Ensure the Society has their current contact information, such as their active telephone number.
Attend and participate in scheduled meetings with the Society and make best efforts to find a mutually agreeable time to meet.
iii. Let the Society know as soon as possible if there are any changes to their contact information or if they cannot come to a scheduled meeting or visit.
A final order pursuant to s.104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that the child, C.S. born [..], 2024, shall have a right of access to his sibling I.S. born […], 2020, with each to be the access recipient with access to be a minimum of once per month with the location, duration, and time to be agreed upon between the caregivers of C.S. and I.S.
Child and Family Services of Grand Erie is given leave to amend the child’s name and date of birth in the final Order to conform to the Statement of Live Birth once filed with the Court.
Released: December 15, 2025
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley