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 THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN Applicant
— AND —
PL, HD, ED, AND RL Respondents
Before Justice Leonard Kim
Heard on December 12, 19, 2025
Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
Patricia Marcuccio....................................................................... Counsel for the Applicant Lance Carey Talbot............................................ Counsel for the Respondent father, HD PL...................................................................................................................... Noted in Default ED...................................................................................................................... Noted in Default RL...................................................................................................................... Noted in Default Liisa Parise........................................... Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
L. Kim J.
Introduction
1This is a Summary Judgment Motion brought by the Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (“Society”) seeking a Finding that the child, K, born […], 2013, is a child in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(a)(i), 74(2)(a)(ii), 74(2)(b)(i), 74(2)(b)(ii), and 74(2)(h) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 1(“CYFSA”). They also seek an order placing him in Extended Society Care pursuant to s. 101(1)(3) of the Act. The Society asserts that there are live protection concerns that remain inadequately addressed by both parents. In conjunction with the length of time K has been in care and the lack of extended family willing to care for him, the end result in these proceedings is a foregone conclusion and there is no genuine issue that requires a trial.
2The father is seeking an order dismissing the motion based upon triable issues as they relate to the Disposition and Access, if any. Both issues require a trial or alternatively, supplementary oral evidence to be heard pursuant to Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules.2
3The father is of the view that any historical risks that existed before are no longer present. Although he concedes a Finding can be made in support of a risk of physical and emotional harm, his evidence in support of a Finding is on a narrower factual basis than what the Society seeks to rely on.
4As it relates to Disposition, he is seeking to have K placed in his care under a Supervision Order at his parents’ residence in the North Bay area for the time being, as he considers options to find a long-term residence with the child. Access at the grandparents’ home has been approved by the Society, but whether their family home could be used to facilitate a long-term placement has not been thoroughly explored by all parties. For this reason, the father insists that a trial is required, and the Summary Judgement Motion should be dismissed.
5The paramount purpose in Section 1 of the CYFSA is to “promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.” In every step of these proceedings, I must give effect to this paramount purpose. Mindful of the remedial objectives of the Act, I acknowledge that parents may need support in caring for their children and that I must consider the least disruptive course of action that is available and appropriate in the child’s best interest.
6Also important in my analysis are each specific factor listed in section 74(3) of the CYFSA when making an order in the best interests of the child. Notably, section 74(3)(a) of the Act requires me to consider the child’s views and wishes and give due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity in determining what order would be in the best interests of the child. Generally speaking, the child's views and preferences are given greater weight as they approach their teenage years, but their wishes are not determinative.3
7K’s views are presented to me through the OCL, Ms. Parise. They take no position as it relates to the Finding. However, on behalf of the child, the OCL insists that a trial is required to determine the appropriate Disposition and minimal access with his parents and sister in the best interests of the child.
8Because the father is the active responding party to these proceedings at this stage, I will focus my reasons on the protection concerns specific to the father and his response to the Society’s motion as it relates to the issue of Disposition.
9The Respondent mother was previously noted in default but nonetheless attended both motion dates in person on December 12 and 19, 2025. While she may not have any formal legal pleadings in this motion, the affidavit evidence from all sides supports the belief that her ongoing access to K is an important component of his emotional development that is proving to be meaningful and beneficial to him.
The Evidence in Support of a Finding (physical and emotional harm)
10I have reviewed the totality of the evidentiary record filed by the Society in support of their motion. On a balance of probabilities, I am prepared to make a Finding that K is a child in need of protection due to the physical harm he has suffered after being assaulted and threatened by his kin caregivers in June 2023. He is also at risk of physical and emotional harm based upon the historical inability on the part of both parents to provide him with a safe and stable home environment free from adult conflict, mental health crises and substance abuse and the lengthy gaps in time when both parents did not have contact or access with K.
11While living in group homes last year, he was frequently running away, damaging property and engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct and communication with staff and other youths in the group home setting. On at least one of those occasions, the police were involved and investigated. His current difficulties in the group homes in 2025 also exhibit a risk of emotional harm while in the interim care of the Society but I am unable to anchor this evidence to support a Finding. This is because there is no evidentiary link to conclude on a balance of probabilities that K’s current emotional distress he is experiencing is a result of the actions, failure to act or neglect by the parent or the person having charge of K as required in section 74(2)(h).
12Within the voluminous affidavit evidence filed, the Society attributes both historical and current risk factors in support of a Finding on the several grounds noted above. A summary of their involvement is warranted to inform the reasonableness of their concerns and understanding as to whether the father has adequately mitigated those risks today and what appropriate Disposition should follow.
What are the Protection Concerns?
13There is a long history of CAS involvement predating K’s birth beginning in 2006 with the older sibling, Kn. At the time, the protection concerns for both parents stemmed from mental health, substance use, domestic conflict, and instability. After K’s birth, in 2013–2014 and again in 2014–2016, K and Kn spent periods in kinship care with their maternal aunt with subsequent returns to parental care under conditions or supervision. The protection concerns focused on the mother’s deteriorating mental health and the increased stress this placed on the father. The Society closed its file in April 2014 following improved parental stability but in November 2014, the parents again voluntarily placed the children with the same aunt after a domestic incident involving conflict related to the mother’s medication.
14Between 2015 and 2018, the Society intervened due to concerns arising from a domestic incident and alleged marijuana‑trafficking concerns involving the father. The children were placed with their aunt under an interim without‑prejudice order, with parental access supervised. Throughout 2015–2016, both parents participated in mental‑health and addiction treatment. Kn returned to parental care in September 2015, and K returned in February 2016 under certain conditions. The Society provided services again in 2017 and closed its file in November 2018.
15In March 2022, due to the Respondent Mother’s mental‑health deterioration, K was placed with R.L. and E.D. (“maternal uncle and aunt”) in a kinship arrangement. Both parents acknowledged benefits for K in this placement with noted improvements in his behaviour, school, self-confidence and mood. This aspect of the protection concerns were addressed and the file closed in the spring of 2022.
16On October 26, 2022, K disclosed an allegation of sexual abuse against his father dating back to the year prior. A joint police–Society investigation was conducted, and the father was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. He became subject to no‑contact conditions. The father denies the allegations and disputes the Society’s interpretation of surrounding events. Several weeks later, K recanted these allegations and the criminal charges were withdrawn. The father maintains his innocence and insists that the allegations were false.
17On November 11, 2022, both parents consented to K remaining in the kinship placement, acknowledging they were not then able to care for him. On June 3, 2023, K disclosed to the Society and his school Education Assistant physical assaults and threats by the maternal uncle and aunt. Both kin caregivers were charged, and K was removed from their home. He was placed into Society care shortly thereafter pursuant to an interim order on June 8, 2023, and has remained in care ever since. Access by his parents is subject to supervision and at the discretion of the Society.
18Both parents struggled in their ability to secure, stable consistent housing. After experiencing periods of housing instability, since November 2024, the father has resided with the paternal grandparents in Callander, Ontario.
19In 2025, K moved between Trillium residential group homes (Coniston in July; Garson in October), with reported behavioural improvements thereafter.
20By late 2025, the two Societies were coordinating access to include monthly, supervised in‑person visits at the paternal grandparents’ home in Callander, subject to the grandparents’ willingness to support.
21By February 26, 2026, the release of this Ruling, K had spent approximately 995 cumulative days in Society care. He also spent significant additional time in kinship care, totaling nearly half of his life outside parental care.
The Protection Concerns Regarding the Mother
22The Society asserts that the mother’s current and ongoing struggles with her physical and mental health as well as substance abuse also support a Finding that the child is in need of protection on account of a risk of physical harm.
23On August 14, 2023, access with K was to be supervised by the maternal aunt. K disclosed multiple serious concerns regarding access with his mother. He was allegedly left unsupervised, and his mother had forced him to speak to his father contrary to no‑contact orders in effect at the time. She also “threatened to touch him down there”, allegedly touched his privates, show him a video of a cousin having sex and had cameras pointed at the bathroom and bedroom. These disclosures resulted in immediate suspension of access for the mother while they were investigated. The mother denied each of the accusations, however, this resulted in the maternal aunt no longer supporting the mother’s parenting time. K’s visits were to be approved by the Society going forward.
24The mother has experienced repeated hospitalizations, including kidney failure, heart complications, and missed dialysis sessions causing severe medical deterioration.
25Relapses into crack cocaine use, including in October 2025, directly impacting her ability to parent or safely exercise access. The combination of medical and housing instability has prevented her from meaningfully participating in any programming that would reduce the protection risks.
The Protection Concerns regarding the Father
26On July 19, 2023, maternal aunt reported that the father was using crack and speed, and that the mother had also used these substances but sought medical detox. He has also not engaged in any services to mitigate ongoing protection concerns that include previous substance abuse including crack cocaine.
27The father has remained largely inconsistent in communication and access, missed phone contacts, and had minimal involvement in K’s life historically. According to the Society, he cannot provide a permanent and safe home for K as he currently resides with his elderly parents in Callander, Ontario, near North Bay: a home only approved for the father to exercise supervised access.
The Father’s Progress does not satisfy the Society’s Concerns
28The father has a previous diagnoses of bi-polar and depression and only recently began taking his medication on a consistent basis. The Society submits that the father is not ready to care for K because he has only recently demonstrated stable mental health with his first appointment with the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) being on December 16, 2025.
29There is no viable plan for K’s care, housing, services, or schooling. Face‑to‑face access had not yet occurred until late November 29, 2025, with a second visit on December 20, 2025. In the Society’s view, these access visits would require supervision by elderly grandparents, who may not be capable or willing to assume caregiving.
30If these visits prove to be positive and in K’s best interests, the Society intends to schedule additional in-person visits with the father once per month going forward in accordance with the grandparents’ abilities to supervise.
Parental Non-Engagement and worsening Instability
31In January 2024, the parents reunited, ceased engaging with the Society, and failed to attend services or maintain contact. By March 2024, the mother was missing scheduled visits, prompting the Society to suspend her access pending further contact.
32In April–July 2024, both parents were largely unreachable. The mother reported serious medical illnesses (kidney, heart, lung concerns), recent crack use with the father, and admitted she could not care for K. In 2024, the father admitted that he had not seen K in approximately one year and was living transiently before returning to his parents’ home.
K’s Needs and Progress in Care
33K has struggled in recent years with his mental health and behavioural management. However, various service providers have implemented measures to address his challenges appropriate for his level of child development. He was moved to two therapeutic group homes in 2025 due to behavioural escalation. The Society is of the view that his functioning has improved significantly in those structured environments. Still, he requires ongoing mental‑health, behavioural, educational, and emotional supports, which neither parent has demonstrated the ability to provide.
34K is connected to several community resources that have been put in place for his best interests. For example, he enjoys playing weekly on a floor hockey team with the Special Olympics and in the fall of 2025, was assessed by Dr. Lariviere to ensure that his class at school was appropriate to meet his psychoeducational needs. He is also actively being treated by a pediatrician who prescribes him medication to deal with his emotional management.
The Absence of Family Placement Options
35To the best of the Society’s knowledge, no extended family members are able or willing to care for K. Kin caregivers previously caused harm and are barred from contact. In the past, both parents have repeatedly acknowledged that they cannot provide long‑term care for the child, and neither has mitigated the original or ongoing protection concerns.
36The father relocated to Callendar in November 2024 to live with his parents. Shortly thereafter, he stated to the CAS worker in Nipissing District, that there was no other family member to help care for the child. In doing so, he pointed out that his parents are too old to care for K, and his sister is not able to do so as she just had a baby.
37At the time, the father expressed to the CAS worker that the option to live with his parents was a last resort, and not a preferred place to live. According to the Nipissing-based child protection worker, Sherell Pizzoferrato, the paternal grandparents are only prepared to supervise access exercised by the father, for a few hours once per month.
38However, it appears that the grandparents were never directly asked by any child protection workers if they would be willing to support the father’s efforts to resume a caregiving role with K living in their home for a transitional purpose or for the long term.
39No affidavits from the paternal grandparents themselves have been provided in the father’s responding materials to this Summary Judgment Motion. More recently in October 2025, the father asserted in his affidavit that his parents are willing to support him financially and emotionally until he and K are settled in a long-term residence together.
Society’s Position
40Summary Judgment Motions are governed by Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.4 The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment on a balance of probabilities. The main question to be answered is whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. If there is not, the court has no discretion and must make a final order in the application.5
41The test of “no genuine issue for trial” has been referred to in several ways. It has been equated with “no chance of success” or that is “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed”. The test has also been enunciated as being when the “outcome is foregone conclusion” or where there is “no realistic possibility of an outcome other than that sought by the applicant”.6
42As enunciated by Ms. Marcuccio for the Society, as of November 2025, the core protection concerns have not been sufficiently mitigated despite over two years of opportunity for parental rehabilitation and the result of this case is a “foregone conclusion.” They submit that K has endured significant trauma, inconsistent caregiving, and repeated exposure to sexualized behaviour and neglect by his mother, physical abuse in kinship care, parental substance use, mental‑health instability, and chronic parental disengagement.
43They point to the fact that K has spent over 900 days in Society care, and nearly half his life outside his parents’ care. The Society strongly believes he is entitled to permanency and stability. Due to the absence of satisfactory programming completed by the father combined with the lack of a viable plan or alternative family willing to care for K, an order for Extended Society Care is required in K’s best interest.
The Position of the Respondent Father
44Mr. Talbot on behalf of the father concedes that the historical facts support a Finding of a risk of physical harm but on a factually narrower basis than the Society. In his view, the facts in support of such a Finding are focused only at the point in time when the maternal aunt and uncle had assaulted and threatened K in June 2023.
45Additionally, he also concedes that those facts are also supportive of a Finding that the child is in of need protection due to a risk of emotional harm. Additionally, he submits that the evidentiary basis in favour of a risk of emotional harm is supported by him being in care for such an extended period of time, and his resulting emotional and behavioral challenges in 2025 that have resulted in youth criminal justice involvement.
46While a Finding has been conceded, the father insists that there are no child protection concerns that exist today and this case is truly about Disposition, and a trial is required to decide whether an order for Extended Society Care or a Supervision Order would be in K’s best interest.
47The father is seeking the return of his son pursuant to a Supervision Order. According to the father, because K no longer lives with the very adults that had physically assaulted him, no risk of physical harm remains today. This, combined with the sobriety and stable mental health and residency established by the father, K could be returned to his care now because the risks that existed several years ago no longer exist.
48The father has an obligation to “put his best foot forward” in demonstrating that the concerns with respect to actual or risk of physical or emotional harm have been resolved or at the very least, mitigated.7 It is not sufficient for the father to rely on a possibility of the evidence before me to be weakened under cross-examination at trial.8
49I am aware that I should not deny a summary judgment motion based on speculation as to what evidence might emerge if a trial is ordered.9 However, the father asserts that he has already completed the essential components needed to address the prior protection concerns stemming from the child’s risk of physical harm and that general and historical concerns related to his mental health are insufficient to support an order for Extended Society Care.
50According to the father, evidence of stability warrants a trial because of two significant developments since 2024. First, he has established stable housing with his parents in Callander, Ontario, since November 2024. Secondly, progress with respect to addressing his bi-polar disorder with medication that he has recommenced since August 2025 have proven effective in stabilizing his mental health.
51He further submits that the initial supervision requirement for access was premised upon sexual assault allegations that were subsequently withdrawn by the police. He reminds me that the initial allegation K made against his father was subsequently recanted. In these circumstances, not only is he of the view that supervised access is unnecessary, but because there are no current protection concerns that exist today, the child should be returned to his care subject to supervision terms.
52This would align with K’s views and preferences. According to the OCL, K is opposed to the Disposition sought by the Society. He has expressed, through OCL counsel that he does not want to be a youth in extended care if family are available to care for him. He has expressed a willingness to see his father face to face in the fall of 2025 and this happened on November 19, 2025. There was another in-person visit with his father scheduled for December 20, 2025, the very next day after submissions on this motion were heard.
53Telephone contacts with his father have been consistent for the past several months and are continuing on an ongoing basis. He also has daily phone calls with his mother. It is submitted to me that this evidence collectively is emotionally meaningful and beneficial for K.
54According to the OCL, K’s behaviour has been characterized as being aggressive and challenging in the group homes but when he talks about going back to live with his family, he expresses happiness.
Law and Analysis
55The child at the center of these proceedings presents with many developmental, educational and behavioural challenges. I have made a Finding that K is a child in need of protection due to the physical and emotional harm he has suffered after being assaulted and threatened by his kin caregivers in June 2023. He is also at risk of physical and emotional harm based upon the historical inability on the part of both parents to provide him with a safe and stable home environment free from adult conflict, mental health crises and substance abuse.
56Although the father concedes a Finding, the evidentiary basis to support such a Finding is conceded only to a limited degree. He points to the physical abuse and threats inflicted upon K by the kin caregivers in June 2023 as the evidentiary basis in support of a risk of the physical and emotional harm. This does not appear to be the subject of much debate from the Society. What is debatable is whether this historical inability on the part of both parents to provide K with a safe and stable home environment free from adult conflict, mental health crises and substance abuse is still prominent today to require an order for Extended Society Care.
57This case is more about the Disposition as opposed to the Finding. As of the date of this Ruling, K has been in care for approximately 995 days after he was physically assaulted and threatened by kin caregivers (maternal uncle and aunt) in June 2023. He currently lives in a group home in the City of Greater Sudbury and was moved from another group home in the fall of 2025 due to behavioural challenges. He has experienced chronic instability in both group homes and the kinship placements for more than half his life. In recent months, his level of frustration and inappropriate behaviour appears to have raised some notable concerns.
58K has the benefit of legal representation through the OCL in these proceedings. He has recently reached the age of 13 and his views must be carefully considered and given significant weight as a teen-aged boy. He wishes to be returned to his parents or alternatively, to a placement with extended family and is explicitly clear in his desire not to be raised in care.
59When I consider the impact of these protection proceedings on his mental health, I am mindful that his current views through the OCL are consistent with what he expressed to a clinician almost two years ago in March 2024. At the time, he told Martine Rienguette that he missed his parents and he was concerned with the lack of access as noted in the affidavit of K Girolametto dated July 16, 2025 at para.18. K’s expressed desire to return into the care of his parents or extended family has been communicated to us for some time, and it remains alive today.
60The Society’s concerns with respect to inconsistent contact is well founded. It’s only in the past several months that meaningful telephone contact has commenced between K and his father. During this time, the father’s telephone contact has been consistent which has led to K to feel a sense of hope that he could be cared for by his father in the future.
61The true extent of this familial relationship may be evolving at the time I write this Ruling. As recent as November 2025, approximately one month before I heard this motion, K had expressed to the child protection worker that he wishes to have face to face contact with his father and paternal grandparents.
62The Respondent Father states that his mental health has stabilized and is he is compliant with his medications, attends regular monthly appointments with a nurse practitioner, and is connected with the CMHA for counselling and psychiatric services. He has had at least two appointments with a nurse practitioner and will continue to be followed for his medical needs.
63He is no longer struggling with transient, unstable housing because he currently resides in a home with the paternal grandparents, whom he asserts are willing and able to supervise access, assist with transportation, participate in safety planning, and support a gradual reintegration for K into his care.
64He proposes a reintegration plan that begins with supervised visits, with gradual increases in duration, and ultimately transitioning to K residing with him long term pursuant to a Supervision Order.
65Having reviewed the evidentiary record and listening carefully to the submissions of counsel, I cannot rule out the reasonable possibility that a family placement with the father, with the emotional and financial support of the paternal grandparents could provide a stable home environment for K. It is not disputed that access can safely be exercised in that same family home as approved by the Society. But there is an evidentiary gap as to why that same familial residence could not evolve into a foundation for something more for K today as a reasonable alternative to Extended Society Care.
66Although the father’s affidavit falls short of providing concrete evidence that K could live at the grandparents’ home long term, it is clear to me that the potential for this to happen exists.
67Nothing on the evidentiary record before me has definitively ruled out this possibility in a persuasive way. It is not disputed that the grandparents are willing to provide the father with emotional and financial support in caring for K. The father has lived there on a stable basis since November 2024, some 15 months and counting.
68Although 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 onto his shoulders. Even if the father’s evidence does not establish a genuine issue for trial, I must still be satisfied on the evidence before me that the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.10
69While I agree with the Society that the father’s plan currently lacks details regarding the implementation of service providers to address K’s special needs, there is no reason to doubt that referrals made by his treating professionals cannot be made with appropriate educational support, if an order is made placing K in his father’s care with specific terms in a Supervision Order. Because the Society has had care of the child since June 2023, there is some duty upon them to diligently pursue the prospect of a transition to services for K in the North Bay area, in the event I order it pursuant to a Supervision Order. The fact that this has not been done signals to me that perhaps the Society has not pursued this reasonable alternative to Extended Society care to a sufficient degree.
70In my respectful view, the prospect of such arrangements and the potential to form a strong and stable support for K and his father to stay long term with his paternal grandparents in the North Bay area was not adequately addressed by the Society. Having carefully reviewed the Contact Log dated November 12, 2025, as authored by the worker, Sherell Pizzoferrato (CAS of Nipissing and Parry Sound), I make the following observations:
First, this worker had assumed that supervised access was required. With respect, that requirement is not a given on the facts of this case because the underlying reasons for supervision may no longer be present save and except for the natural time required to permit K and his father to re-stablish their relationship with each other. Ms. Pizzoferrato’s assumption for supervision appears to be due to the nature of the charges the father was facing in October 2022 involving K when he had disclosed to his caregivers that his father had sexually abused him. I am also told by Ms. Marcuccio that supervision is perceived to be required to protect the adults that are in close proximity to K from the risk of further allegations of inappropriate sexual touching.
However, I remind myself that K had recanted his statement to police and that shortly thereafter, those charges against the father were withdrawn. The father maintains that they were false, and there is no evidence in the entire record before me that disputes his claim of factual innocence. Of note, recently upon moving to the Coniston group home in August 2025, K made another allegation of being touched inappropriately by others within the group home setting. Those allegations did not advance far, as they were internally inconsistent during the initial inquiries and not pursued any further. While there may be a need for supervision at the outset, the evidence in documentary form to date does not support a need for supervision to continue in the long term given the evolving access that appears to be moving in a positive direction and K’s age as a 13-year-old teen.
Secondly, it appears that the grandparents were not directly asked by this worker if they would be open to permitting K, their grandchild, to live in their home, with the father as the primary caregiver. This is a fundamentally important question for the Court to fully appreciate what options exist for a Disposition in K’s best interest alternative to an Extended Society care order. To me, this omission speaks to the level of assumed risk the worker from Nipissing CAS had in approaching access and exploring placement options. An assumption that may not be warranted and that prematurely narrowed the available options for K without adequate consideration and investigation.
Thirdly, I note that in the worker’s contact log, the father illustrated several characteristics of a parent who is prepared to place the best interests of K first. These included not wanting to arrange visits with him on school days to minimize disruption to his education and a willingness to travel to Sudbury and pay for his own accommodations. The father also expressed that he spoke to K for an hour on the telephone recently. Collectively, these factors point to a parent-child relationship that continues to evolve each day. This evidence adds weight to the father’s claim that in years past, when K was much younger, he had played a meaningful role in taking care of K’s basic needs as a parent. This is the factual backdrop that seems to have been lost in the Society’s approach to exploring a return to the father with the support of extended family in a more comprehensive way.
71I am also mindful of the reality that in a positive sense, contact, whether it be through phone calls or face to face interactions between the father and K, is in the process of progressing with an expected expansion to access within the grandparents’ home.
72In doing so, this may open the door for K to re-establish an emotional connection with his paternal grandparents and help him develop a sense of identity in this world. The grandparents have explicitly stated to Society worker, Ms. Lindsey Grenon, in November 2025, that they agree to fully support the father’s time with K. They have also expressed to this worker as early as August 2025 that although they haven’t seen K in two years, they want to see him.
73The willingness on the part of the paternal grandparents to financially and emotionally support the father’s access and parenting with K has sufficient promise of a more direct inquiry examining whether this could form the basis of a long-term placement as opposed to resorting to Extended Society care as a Disposition in K’s best interest.
74Access within the paternal grandparents’ home may include a long-term residency, stable and safe for K in his father’s care, with the additional love and support from his grandparents. Additionally, a placement of this nature with his family could provide K with a strong emotional connection with them and may ultimately alleviate some of the behavioural challenges he is expressing in the group home setting. Indeed, it would immediately remove him from the very environment where he has been perpetuating his negative behaviour and place him into the care of family members that are prepared to build on an existing family relationship at various levels. This option, while not perfect, warrants a trial because of its potential to provide K with the stability and permanency he desperately needs as he currently resides in a group home away from his parents and extended family.
75The father must put his best foot forward on this motion. I am entitled to assume that he has put before me all the evidence that he would be able to adduce at trial.11 However, as limited as this evidence may be in the current evidentiary record, there still appears to be the potential for a meaningful emotional bond to develop between K and his paternal grandparents. This has the potential to benefit K and his sense of familial identity as he grows and matures into a teenager. Respectfully, I cannot say that this placement option has been adequately addressed to permit me to justly adjudicate the claims of the father and the child in these proceedings.
76Indeed, if those contacts continue to be positive, there is an expectation that access would be significantly expanded in the weeks and months to come, especially considering K’s age, now a teen-aged boy of 13 years old. With that, comes an increased degree of independence on his part, and corresponding possibility to be parented by his father, through the terms of a Supervision Order. To extinguish any prospect of such a Disposition would be an overreach in my function in the context of this Summary Judgement Motion because the evidence filed in affidavit form falls short to permit me to fully appreciate the viable option that exists opposite that of Extended Society Care.
77I am mindful of the important emotional ties K has with his mother in conjunction with her own imminent health challenges. I cannot rule out the reasonable prospect that the father, with the financial and emotional support of his parents (as cited in his affidavit) may decide to move to Sudbury to promote K’s access with his mother. As K continues to grow in age and maturity, I also cannot rule out that his relationship with his father, and expressed wishes, would result in both of them mutually deciding to live in Sudbury long term after a summer of expanded in-person access together with the already expressed financial and emotional support of his grandparents.
78At the same time, it is entirely possible that the mother would be supportive of K moving to Callender to live with his father and grandparents in a stable home with extended family as opposed to being in care in a group home environment that is not meeting her son’s emotional needs. She may be willing to travel to Nipissing District or support the prospect of having K travel to visit her in Sudbury to supplement the daily telephone contact she currently has with him.
79Additionally, to what extent does the father’s caregiving experience with K prior to him being brought into care and the techniques he learned in the Triple P parenting Program equip him to meet this child’s emotional and behavioural needs? Although the Society may not be satisfied with the progress made by the father as it relates to managing his mental health and ability to parent a child with special needs, the sufficiency of what the Society deems necessary is a genuine issue that requires a trial. The evidentiary link that may connect this lack of satisfactory counselling and programming with an inability to care for K must be closely examined beyond a paper record with general assertions.
80It is clear to me that the father’s ability to parent K has not necessarily been settled to permit me to determine a Disposition to this degree of permanence. As the bond between father and son continues to evolve with each phone call and face to face visit, so too does the case in favour of a Supervision Order strengthen and the argument for Extended Society case weaken. With each passing day, the historical areas of concern emphasized by the Society, as it relates to the father, become less persuasive in advancing a Disposition of Extended Society care. This evolving and growing emotional bond between K and his father and mother, are vitally important to him and directly impact the very protection concerns surrounding emotional risk of harm.
81As explained by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Kawartha, the fairness principals enunciated in Hryniak must be applied in recognition of the special features of child protection proceedings.12 The 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.
82While the potential for an Extended Society Care order exists, I am of the view that the prospect of a Supervision Order placing K in the care of his father with the financial, emotional and housing support of his own paternal grandparents is also a reasonable possibility. This latter Disposition has not been thoroughly addressed by both parties in the materials filed in this Summary Judgment Motion to permit me to adjudicate this case fairly and justly.
83Even if an Order for Extended Society Care should be imposed, what degree of minimal access that should be ordered with K’s mother and father requires further evidence. As affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in CAS of Toronto v. J.G.,13 following an extended care order, the court must conduct a best-interests assessment to determine what form of access should be ordered. A holistic approach must be taken in consideration of the best interests of the child in assessing whether the relationship between the person and the child is “meaningful and beneficial” to the child, within the meaning of s. 105(6)(a) of the CYFSA.14
84Details required to determine duration, location, frequency and level of supervision are largely dependent upon how the access visits between the father and K have been progressing in recent months and as recent as December 19, 2025, or later, with the potential for more to come.
85Based on the motion record I have today, I am not satisfied that the minimal access visits of one visit per month as proposed by the Society is enough, given the potential for ongoing meaningful and beneficial access with both parents that continues to evolve in a positive way each day.
86I remind myself that in Hryniak, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted. First, I must 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). As explained above, I find that there are several issues that require a trial in consideration of the current evidentiary record filed in this motion.
87Secondly, if after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, I may resort to the additional fact-finding powers in Rule 16(6.1) to decide if a trial is required. Those additional fact-finding powers are:
- Weighing the evidence
- Evaluating the credibility of a deponent
- Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence
88When exercising these enhanced adjudicative powers, Rule 16(6.2) allows me to order that oral evidence be called by one or more of the parties and set time limits at my discretion.
89In exercising my discretion to order oral evidence, I am guided by the following factors to determine whether it is warranted:15
a. Whether oral evidence can be obtained from a small number of witnesses and gathered in a manageable period of time: In a careful review of the motion materials, no more than five to seven total witnesses would be sufficient to address what I find to be a core evidentiary gap. There is no reason to believe that this cannot be gathered immediately because it has much to do with current, updated reports and the current risks to K, if any. This information should be readily available.
Moreover, although the mother has previously been noted in default, her attendance in this motion is noted and her input would enhance the Court’s ability to weigh and consider what Disposition would be in the child’s best interests. To this end, I am of the view that the mother should be granted leave to provide oral testimony that narrowly focuses on what she believes would be in K’s best interests regarding Disposition in the current circumstances.
b. Whether any issue to be dealt with by presenting oral evidence is likely to have a significant impact on whether the summary judgment motion is granted: In this case, brief supplementary evidence in the form of oral testimony has the potential to decide the outcome of this motion as it relates to the Disposition and a minimal amount of access, if any.
c. Whether any such issue is narrow and discrete, i.e. whether the issue can be separately decided and is not enmeshed with other issues on the motion: The most time-consuming aspects of these proceedings have been largely conceded, as it relates to a Finding. The remaining issues in dispute are limited to two likely Dispositions and a specified amount of minimal access for the parents and K’s biological sister. Here, the grandparents could each provide oral testimony that expands on the extent of emotional and financial support they are willing to provide the father and tangibly, whether this will impact his ability to care for K long-term.
Furthermore, the Society could provide focused updated oral testimony that illustrates the nature and status of the ongoing access between the child and father, and any prospects of a long-term placement with the father, while residing at the grandparents’ home in the North Bay area.
The Society is also best-positioned to make inquiries with respect to the viability of referrals to service providers for K in the North Bay area to meet his special needs. Limited oral testimony on the existence of such services in that geographical setting could be provided for me to weigh in deciding a Disposition in K’s best interest. The OCL could provide an update on the views and preferences of K since the in-person visits with the father have re-commenced in the fall of 2025 and the mother could provide her input as it relates to the Society’s request to place her son in Extended Society care versus a long term placement with the father and how this would impact her own access with K, in consideration of her personal health challenges.
90In Hryniak,16Justice Karakatsanis provided valuable guidance in how Summary Judgment Motions can be used effectively with the new-fact finding tools in the applicable Rules to fairly resolve a dispute without the need for a full trial:
“On a summary judgment motion, the evidence need not be equivalent to that at trial, but must be such that the judge is confident that she can fairly resolve the dispute. A documentary record, particularly when supplemented by the new fact-finding tools, including ordering oral testimony, is often sufficient to resolve material issues fairly and justly.”
91The standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives me confidence that I can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles to resolve the disputes in this case.17
92Accordingly, based on the material filed in this motion, I am persuaded that a full trial is not necessary given the narrow scope of the additional evidence I require to decide the Disposition and Access issues in K’s best interest. More appropriately, these are important details that a mini-trial pursuant to Rule 16(6.1) and 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules,18 can assist in determining the outcome of this case justly, and efficiently.
The following Order shall go:
- There shall be a Finding that the child, K, is in need of protection pursuant to sections 74(2)(a)(i),(ii), 74(2)(b)(i),(ii) and 74(2)(h).
- The Summary Judgment Motion is adjourned as it relates to the issues of Disposition and Access.
- There shall be a mini-trial set for 1 day before me consisting of focused, oral testimony from required witnesses.
- The parties shall serve and file “will say” statements clearly stating the anticipated oral testimony for each witness, no later than 15 days prior to the mini-trial. Absent leave of the Court, each witness shall be permitted to testify within the scope of their “will says” only.
- Pursuant to s. 92 of the CYFSA, the paternal grandparents, father, mother, CAS workers L. Grenon, K Girolametto and S. Pizzoferrato and a group home staff worker who has ongoing direct interaction with K at the Trillium Residential Services Group Home in Garson are summoned to attend before me at the continuation of this Summary Judgement Motion and provide oral testimony on the identified areas in para. 6 below.
- The oral testimony from the witnesses shall address: i) What specific, additional counselling or programming does the Society require for the father to be deemed to have sufficiently mitigated the protection risks and why; ii) What is the extent of emotional and financial support the paternal grandparents are willing to provide the father to have long-term care of K; iii) How is K coping on a daily basis in the group home setting; iv) What minimal frequency of access should be ordered, if any, with the mother, father and K’s sister.
- Time limitations for the oral testimony shall be: 45 minutes total for the grandparents; 20 minutes each for the mother and father; 20 minutes for each CAS worker; and 20 minutes for the group home staff member.
Released: February 26, 2026
Justice Leonard Kim
Footnotes
- 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.
- Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
- CAS v. Haldimand and Norfolk v. H (J.), 2020 ONSC 2208 at para. 164.
- Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
- Rule 16 Family Law Rules, Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] S.C.J. No. 7 at para. 68.
- Kawartha, paragraph 72.
- Child and Family Services of Grand Erie v. J.L.S., 2023 ONCJ 311.
- CAS of Toronto v. M.R., 2016 ONCJ 215 at para. 130.
- CAS of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry v. A.G., 2021 ONSC 4172.
- Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, para. 2 of para. 80.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.T. 2000 20578 (ON CJ), 2000 O.J. No. 4736 (Ont. C.J.); Sweda v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200.
- Kawartha at para. 80.
- CAS of Toronto v. J.G, 2020 ONCA 415.
- Simcoe Mukoka CYFS v. S.M. et al, 2021 ONSC 5433.
- CAS of Hamilton v. M.(C.), 2021 ONSC 3936 at para. 56.
- Hyrniak, at para. 57.
- Kawartha, para. 63.
- O.Reg. 114/99.