WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should 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
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant
— AND —
J.A. (mother)
K.W. (father)
C.D. and M.M. (maternal grandparents)
Respondents
Before Justice D. Szandtner
Heard on September 4, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on October 14, 2025
J. Kaiman................................................................................... counsel for the applicant society
J.A. (mother)......................................................................................................... self-represented
J. Daby..................................................................................... counsel for the respondent father
L. Israel................................................................................. counsel for maternal grandparents
SZANDTNER J.:
Part One – Introduction
1The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society) has brought the within summary judgment motion pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.
2The summary judgment motion is in relation to its Amended Protection Application issued November 22, 2024 regarding the child S.D. born in May of 2022 to the parents J.A. (the mother) and K.W. (the father).
3The society’s application sought the statutory findings in relation to the child pursuant to s.90(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (the Act) and a finding that the child is in need of protection pursuant to s.74(2)(b)(i) and (ii), s.74(2)(h) and s.74(2)(k)) of the Act.
4The society seeks the following dispositional orders:
a) An order placing the child in the care and custody of C.D. and M.M. (the maternal grandparents) pursuant to s.102 of the Act.
b) An order permitting the maternal grandparents to consult with and obtain information and documentation directly from service providers and professionals involved with the child without the consent of any other individual.
c) An order permitting the maternal grandparents to travel outside of Canada with the child without the consent of or notice to any other person.
d) An order permitting the maternal grandparents to apply for and renew government-issued documents including but not limited to passports, health cards, social insurance numbers and birth certificates for the child without the consent or signature of any other person.
5The society seeks final orders for access to the parents as follows:
a) Access by the child to the mother shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision, and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
b) Access by the child to the father shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents, with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
6The mother is self-represented. She was noted in default on July 8, 2025.
7The father is not consenting to nor opposing the statutory findings nor the findings that the child is in need of protection sought by the society.
8The father opposes the final access order sought by the society. He filed an Answer and Plan of Care on March 14, 2025 seeking the following access to the child:
a) The father shall have access to the child at the discretion of the maternal grandparents as to the location, duration and frequency of access and such access shall not be unreasonably withheld. It is expected that the father’s access if positive shall expand to include day and then overnight access. The access shall be in accordance with any criminal court conditions that the father may be subjected to.
b) The father shall be permitted to send cards, letters and gifts to the child directly to the maternal grandparents or to any other place that the caregivers agree to.
c) The father shall have access by video and telephone access to the child on a weekly basis (the length of time to be discussed between the father and the maternal grandparents which shall be a minimum of 20 minutes, and increase to a minimum of 30 minutes starting when the child is 3 years old. This access shall take place if permitted while the father is incarcerated and when he is released from custody.
d) The maternal grandparents shall provide the father with written notice of the decisions they have made for the child through mail and email.
e) The father shall have the same rights as the maternal grandparents to obtain information pertaining to the child from third parties.
f) The maternal grandparents shall provide the father with the names, addresses and phone numbers of all physicians and health care professionals providing care for the child. The information shall be provided by mail and email to the father within 7 days and shall be updated as soon as the information changes.
g) Timely updates shall be provided to the father in regards to the outcome of all medical and dental appointments for the child by the maternal grandparents. The father may also obtain additional information directly from the health care professionals or third parties.
h) The maternal grandparents shall ensure that the child is exposed to his Caribbean culture, namely Guyanese.
i) An order that the maternal grandparents shall provide the father with their current telephone number and address and email address. Any change of information to be provided to the father 48 hours prior to any change.
9The maternal grandparents are consenting to the statutory findings and the findings that the child is in need of protection as sought by the society. They consent to the access order for the mother sought by the society but are seeking a “no access” order for the father. In the alternative, they seek a final order that access by the father to be fully supervised by a third party.
Part Two – Background
10On October 31, 2023, the mother was arrested by police. The child was brought to a place of safety on that date.
11The society’s intervention was a response to the police report of the mother’s arrest. Police reported that they found the mother in public with the child in a stroller which contained fentanyl. The child was described as soiled and underdressed for the weather. Police suspected she was intoxicated.
12Police charged the mother with failure to provide the necessities of life, child abandonment and possession of a schedule 1 substance. Her criminal conditions were that she have no contact or communication with the child except pursuant to a valid family court order made after October 31, 2023 or through terms as agreed upon through the society after October 31, 2023.
13On November 6, 2023 the mother attended child protection court for her first appearance. A temporary without prejudice order was made placing the child in the care of the maternal grandparents who had been deemed a place of safety.
14A temporary without prejudice order was made that access by the child to the mother was to be at the discretion of the society, with such discretion to include duration, frequency and level of supervision and in accordance with criminal conditions. A temporary order was made that access to the father shall be at the discretion of the society, with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
15The father was incarcerated at the time of the first court appearance. He was facing criminal charges laid on July 17, 2023 that he had assaulted the mother and bound by conditions that he not communicate or contact her. On September 23, 2023, the father attended the mother’s residence, she contacted police and he was arrested and incarcerated on September 24, 2023.
16On January 5, 2024, the court heard a temporary care and custody motion. The mother was represented by counsel and sought return of the child to her care. The temporary supervision order placing the child in the care of the maternal grandparents was confirmed. The court found that supervision terms would be inadequate to protect the child in the care of his mother. Her untreated drug addiction created risk to the child that required supervision of her access by the society to ensure the emotional and physical safety of the child. The father was incarcerated at that time and his release date and immigration status was uncertain. The potential threat of the father (if released) to the physical safety of the mother and child was also identified as a significant risk factor.
17The society amended its Protection Application in November of 2024. The Amended Protection Application was issued on November 22, 2024. It sought the statutory findings, findings that the child was in need of protection and a permanent custody order under s.102 of the Act placing the child with his maternal grandparents.
18The Amended Protection Application was served on the mother on November 27, 2024. The mother was noted in default on July 8, 2025.
19The father was served with the Amended Protection Application on November 22, 2024. He served his Answer and Plan of Care on March 15, 2025. The father was released from prison in June of 2025.
20The maternal grandparents filed their Answer and Plan of Care on July 24, 2025.
21The within summary judgment motion was heard on September 4, 2025.
22The society relied on the affidavits of its workers filed. The father was represented by counsel and relied on his affidavit evidence. The maternal grandparents were represented by counsel and relied on their affidavit evidence. The mother attended the hearing briefly but chose to depart. She did not seek to participate in the hearing. Counsel for the society, the father and the maternal grandparents made oral submissions.
Part Three – Legal Considerations for Summary Judgment
23The society brings this motion pursuant to rule 16 of the Family Law Rules (all references to rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules) – the summary judgment rule.
24The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment. Pursuant to subrule 16 (4), the party moving for summary judgment shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
25Pursuant to subrule 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.); Sweda v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200.
26Although subrule 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, paragraph 2 of paragraph 80.
27Subrule 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.
28Subrule 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.
29Pursuant to subrule 16 (6.2) the court may, for the purpose of exercising any of the powers set out in subrule 16 (6.1), order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation. In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted.
30Hyrniak 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 subrule 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.
31There 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 (Hryniak - paragraph 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.” (Kawartha, paragraph 63).
32As 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 Hryniak’s principle of reaching a fair and just determination on the merits (Kawartha, paragraph 76).
33Hryniak’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 CYFSA including the best interests of the child. (Kawartha, paragraph 1 of paragraph 80 and paragraph 64).
34The 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. (Kawartha, paragraph 3 of paragraph 80).
35The 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” (Kawartha, paragraph 72).
36A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of the issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent’s desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernable from the parent’s evidence that she faces some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society’s removal of the child from her care and has developed some new ability as a parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H. 2000 CanLII 3158 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 5853.
Part Four – Statutory Findings and Finding in Need of Protection
37The society seeks statutory findings pursuant to s.90(2) of the Act as set out in the Amended Protection Application. These statutory findings are consented to the maternal grandparents and are not opposed by either parent. The statutory findings will be made as set out by the society in its Amended Protection Application.
38The society seeks findings in need of protection under three separate headings: s.74(2)(b)(i) and (ii), s.74 (2)(h) and s.74(2)(k) of the Act.
39The mother is in default. The father does not consent to nor oppose the findings sought and the maternal grandparents consent to the findings sought.
40The court finds that the society’s evidence supports a finding under s.74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. This is a finding that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by that person’s failure to care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child adequately ((b)(i)) and pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child (b)(ii).
41The court bases these findings on the following findings of fact:
a) In the fall of 2023, the child was 18 months old.
b) The parents were in a volatile relationship. The mother reported being subject to repeated serious physical assaults by the father in the presence of the child to the police. These allegations led to multiple criminal charges and criminal conditions to not contact or communicate with her. The father breached these conditions on September 23, 2023 by visiting the mother leading to his incarceration. The father was continuously incarcerated until June 2025.
c) Following the father’s incarceration on September 24, 2023, the mother faced her own criminal charges with respect to an incident on October 31, 2023. Police reported that on that date, illegal drugs were found in her stroller, the child was soiled and underdressed for the weather and she was suspected to be under the influence of substances. Accordingly, the mother was charged and under criminal conditions not to contact or communicate with the child without a family court order made after the charges were laid.
d) During the society service period following the removal of the child to a place of safety with the maternal grandparents, the mother admitted to illegal drug use but was unable to connect to and successfully complete addiction programming.
e) The mother’s continued drug use affected her access with the child. Her attendance was poor. The quality of her visits was inconsistent.
f) The mother was consistently late for court appearances or failed to attend at all.
42The court finds on the evidence that the parents’ volatile relationship and the mother’s chronic drug use supports a finding that this very young child was in need of protection under s.74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Even when the father was incarcerated, the mother’s behaviour put the child at serious risk of harm through her continued illegal drug use.
43The court finds that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to the finding that this child is a child in need of protection.
Part Five – Disposition
44The legal test for making a disposition order is found at subsection 101(1) and section 102 of the Act:
101.(1) Order where child in need of protection – Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a 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 – That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and no more than 12 months.
Interim society care – That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.
Extended society care – That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.
Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision – that the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.
(1) Custody order – Subject to subsection (6) if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 101 (1) would be in a child’s best interest, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of person or persons.
(2) Deemed to be order under s.28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act – An order made under subsection (1) and any access order under section 104 that is made at the same time as the order under subsection (1) is deemed to be a parenting order or contact order, as the case may be, made under section 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, and the court,
(a) may make any order under subsection (1) that the court may make under section 28 of that Act; and
(b) may give any directions that it may give under section 34 of that Act.
45In determining the appropriate disposition, the court must decide what is in the children’s best interests. The court considered the criteria set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act in making its determination. This subsection reads as follows:
74(3) Best interests of child - Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) Consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Metis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Metis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(c) Consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,
(i) The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,
(ii) The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,
(iii) The child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
(iv) The child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,
(v) The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
(vi) The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.
(vii) The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,
(viii) The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,
(ix) The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,
(x) The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and
(xi) The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
46The society seeks a final order that the child be placed in the permanent care and custody of the maternal grandparents under a section 102 order. The society relies on the affidavit evidence of society workers to support its position that the child should remain in the maternal grandparents’ care under a final custody order.
47The child’s mother is in default. She is not opposing the placement of the child in the care of the maternal grandparents under a s.102 order.
48The child’s father is not consenting to nor opposing the placement of the child in the care of the maternal grandparents under a s.102 order.
49The child’s maternal grandparents are consenting to the placement of the child in their care under a s.102 order.
50The court finds that it is this child’s best interests to make a final s.102 order placing him in the permanent care of his maternal grandparents. The court makes the following findings of fact to support this finding:
a) The child S.D. has been residing in the care of the maternal grandparents since early November of 2023. He has resided with them for the majority of his life.
b) No concerns have been raised with respect to the care he is receiving in this home. He has a positive relationship and strong emotional ties with his caregivers.
c) The child’s older sibling resides in the home with him. She has resided with the maternal grandparents since 2016. They have had a s.102 custody order for the child’s sibling since 2018. The child has had the benefit of residing with a sibling.
d) This placement maintains his strong connection to his maternal family and his secure place within that family.
e) This placement maintains the continuity of the child’s care.
f) The child has been in this home under a temporary order for almost two years and requires the security of a permanent placement.
51The court finds there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to the s. 102 disposition order placing the child with the maternal grandparents.
Part Six – Access Orders
6.1 Positions of the Parties
52The society seeks final orders for access to the parents as follows:
a) Access by the child to the mother shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision, and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
b) Access by the child to the father shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents, with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
53The mother was noted in default.
54The maternal grandparents consent to the access order for the mother sought by the society but are seeking a “no access” order for the father. In the alternative, they seek a final order that access by the father to be fully supervised by a third party.
55The father opposes the access order sought by the society. He filed an Answer and Plan of Care on March 14, 2025 seeking the following access to the child:
a) The father shall have access to the child at the discretion of the maternal grandparents as to the location, duration and frequency of access and such access shall not be unreasonably withheld. It is expected that the father’s access if positive shall expand to include day and then overnight access. The access shall be in accordance with any criminal court conditions that the father may be subjected to.
b) The father shall be permitted to send cards, letters and gifts to the child directly to the maternal grandparents or to any other place that the caregivers agree to.
c) The father shall have access by video and telephone access to the child on a weekly basis (the length of time to be discussed between the father and the maternal grandparents which shall be a minimum of 20 minutes, and increase to a minimum of 30 minutes starting when the child is 3 years old. This access shall take place if permitted while the father is incarcerated and when he is released from custody.
d) The maternal grandparents shall provide the father with written notice of the decisions they have made for the child through mail and email.
e) The father shall have the same rights as the maternal grandparents to obtain information pertaining to the child from third parties.
f) The maternal grandparents shall provide the father with the names, addresses and phone numbers of all physicians and health care professionals providing care for the child. The information shall be provided by mail and email to the father within 7 days and shall be updated as soon as the information changes.
g) Timely updates shall be provided to the father in regards to the outcome of all medical and dental appointments for the child by the maternal grandparents. The father may also obtain additional information directly from the health care professionals or third parties.
h) The maternal grandparents shall ensure that the child is exposed to his Caribbean culture, namely Guyanese.
i) An order that the maternal grandparents shall provide the father with their current telephone number and address and email address. Any change of information to be provided to the father 48 hours prior to any changes.
6.2 Do the access orders create genuine issues for trial?
56The court has set out above the evidence the court relies on to make the statutory findings, the finding that the child is in need of protection and the disposition. These orders are unopposed by the mother, father and the maternal grandparents.
57The issue of father’s access is the only issue that is contested in the summary judgment motion before the court.
58The court turns now to the issue of the access orders for each parent.
59The mother is in default and does not oppose the access order sought by the society. The father takes no position on the mother’s access order. The maternal grandparents consent to the order sought.
60The court finds that the society’s access order is flexible and can respond to both the mother’s positive progress with her addiction issues and any future relapse. It is in the child’s best interests that the maternal grandparents can respond to these future changes immediately and without having to return to court.
61The court finds that the mother’s access order in the best interests of the child is as follows: Access by the child to the mother shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision, and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
62The father seeks an expansive access order that includes an evolution to overnights and access to information from third parties. This is a very significant expansion given that he has not had any contact with the child since he was incarcerated in the fall of 2023.
63The society opposes this order and seeks an order that gives the maternal grandparents discretion over the father’s access and no access to information. It takes the position that the order they propose provides the proper flexibility for the maternal grandparents going forward with respect to father’s access to the child.
64The maternal grandparents oppose this order and seek and order for “no access” and in the alternative an order for supervised access. Their position is that the father has not provided proper disclosure on the key issues of concern: his alleged criminal behaviour and his immigration status. They are afraid of his potential future behaviour with them, their daughter and the child. They are also concerned that he will be reintroduced to the child only to disappear when deported causing the child emotional harm.
65The court finds the following facts that are relevant to the father’s access order:
a) The father has not had any contact with the child since the fall of 2023. He is a stranger to the child.
b) The mother made very serious allegations against the father with respect to his repeated physical violence towards her in the presence of the child. These allegations resulted in multiple criminal charges.
c) The father has denied these allegations. However, he has admitted to breaching his criminal conditions and having contact with the mother. This breach led to his lengthy incarceration.
d) The father has not provided the court with detailed evidence of how his criminal charges were resolved and his release granted. He was asked to provide a transcript of any allocution and failed to do so. As a result, the court is unclear as to any admissions that were made in criminal court with respect to his actions with the mother.
e) The father’s affidavit evidence is that he is out on bail in relation to his immigration matter and reports two times per month to immigration. There is currently a removal order. He is applying to stay the removal order. He is also completing an application under Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.
f) The father has an immigration lawyer. However, he has not attached any immigration documentation to support the above information. He has not provided any evidence with respect to the likelihood of his success of his efforts to remain in Canada.
66The father has not clarified two major areas of risk that the maternal grandparents have to manage as caregivers: first the alleged serious violence within the child’s parents’ relationship in the presence of the child and secondly the risk of deportation of the father.
67The father simply denies that he perpetrated any violence against the mother. He has not addressed the allegations made by the mother that resulted in 35 criminal charges against him. He has not clarified for this court the reason for his release nor provided any information with respect to what he admitted to in court when he was released.
68The father has also chosen in his response to this motion to reveal minimal information and no documentation with respect to his immigration status.
69In both the criminal and the immigration spheres, the father has the assistance of counsel. He also is represented by counsel in the within proceeding. There is no valid explanation for this obfuscation and reticence.
70The father’s failure to disclose and clarify these two crucial areas of risk does not support his position that he should be granted significant and expansive access to the child. He was expected to put his best foot forward and he failed to do so. Very significant questions remain unanswered with respect to the criminal and immigration proceedings.
71This begs the question of whether the father’s failure to disclose this information creates a genuine issue for trial. The court must consider whether or not a trial will be able to bring clarity to these two serious potential risks to the child’s future physical safety and emotional safety.
72The court finds that it does not create a genuine issue for trial.
73The court has considered that it must exercise exceptional caution before proceeding on a summary basis in a child protection case. The court recognizes and has considered that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants.
74The court finds that it is in the interest of justice for the court to determine this case summarily. This process allows the court 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. The summary judgment process allows the court to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute.
75The court finds that it is able to do so based on the evidence before it, and without the need to use any expanded powers to weigh evidence or assess credibility. Cross-examination of witnesses would add little if any value to the court’s analysis.
76Even if the father had provided more complete information at a trial and was subject to cross-examination, there would remain the issues of the unknown trajectory of any ongoing physical threat he poses to the mother and the outcome of his current immigration appeal and removal order. These issues go to the heart of future risk to the safety and stability of the child.
77Given this unavoidable uncertainty, the court finds that the following order with respect to the father’s access is in the best interests of this child:
(i) Online visits once per month fully supervised by either of the maternal grandparents; the timing and duration of the online visits to be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents. Any online visits are to be in accordance with the father’s criminal conditions.
(ii) Fully supervised in person visits up to three times per year for up to two hours each visit; visits to be fully supervised by a professional supervisor to be paid in advance by the father and located in the child’s jurisdiction. The father is to provide 40 days notice of any proposed visit to the maternal grandparents so that they can ensure that the child is available. Any in person visits are to be in accordance with the father’s criminal conditions.
78This order is in the child’s best interests because it prioritizes the child’s emotional safety and stability. If the father is deported he can continue his online visits with his child. The access order also directly mitigates the serious risk factors that led to the finding that the child was in need of protection. The maternal grandparents will not have to manage the father’s behaviour with the child in person.
Part Seven – Conclusion
79A final order will go on the following terms:
a) There are no genuine issues requiring a trial.
b) The statutory findings for the child pursuant to s.90(2) of the Act are as set out in the Amended Protection Application (issued November 22, 2024) of the society.
c) An order making a finding under s.74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act that the child S.D. is in need of protection.
d) An order that the child, S.D. be placed in the care and custody of the maternal grandparents pursuant to s.102 of the Act.
e) The maternal grandparents shall be permitted to apply for all government documentation for the child (including but not limited to birth certificate, passport and passport renewals, health card and health card renewals, social insurance card, Ontario card) without the consent or signature of any other party.
f) The maternal grandparents or their designate may travel outside of Canada with the child without the consent of any other party.
g) Access by the child to the mother shall be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents with such discretion to include location, duration, frequency and level of supervision, and in accordance with any criminal conditions.
h) Access by the child to the father shall be as follows:
(i) Online visits once per month fully supervised by either of the maternal grandparents; the timing and duration of the online visits to be at the discretion of the maternal grandparents. Any online visits are to be in accordance with the father’s criminal conditions.
(ii) Fully supervised in person visits up to three times per year for up to two hours each visit; visits to be fully supervised by a professional supervisor to be paid in advance by the father and located in the child’s jurisdiction. The father is to provide 40 days notice of any proposed visit to the maternal grandparents so that they can ensure that the child is available. Any in person visits are to be in accordance with the father’s criminal conditions.
i) Any motion to change the terms of this final order within the next two years is to be brought at the Ontario Court of Justice located at 47 Sheppard and requires leave of the court.
j) The society is to be served notice of any motion to change the terms of this final order.
Released: October 14, 2025
Signed: Justice D. Szandtner