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.
COURT FILE NO. C44982/24
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO
SHERRI SMOLKIN, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and –
C.M., J. L.-K. and J.B.
THE RESPONDENT C.M., ACTING IN PERSON
THE RESPONDENT J. L.-K., IN DEFAULT
LAUREN ISRAEL, for the RESPONDENT, J.B.
RESPONDENTS
HEARD: FEBRUARY 23 to 27, 2026
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
1This was the trial of an amended status review application brought by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society) regarding the subject child J, who is 10 years old (the child).
2On April 4, 2024, the respondent C.M. (the mother), was arrested and charged with child abandonment under the age of 10. The child was taken from her care and brought to a place of safety that day. He was placed in the care of the respondent, J.B. (the maternal grandmother), as a deemed place of safety, on April 5, 2024, and continues to live with her in Sudbury. The mother and the respondent J. L.-K. (the father) exercise access with the child in Sudbury.
3On December 4, 2024, Justice Melanie Sager found the child to be in need of protection, pursuant to subclauses 74 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) (risk of physical harm) and clause 74 (2) (h) (risk of emotional harm) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act 2017 (the Act). She placed the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, subject to society supervision, for four months. The society was given discretion over the mother’s and father’s access.
4The society is now seeking an order that the child be placed in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, pursuant to section 102 of the Act. It seeks incidents of custody, including orders that the maternal grandmother may obtain or renew government documentation for the child, and travel internationally with the child, without the consent of any other party.
5The mother submits that intervention through a court order is not necessary to protect the child in the future. If the court agrees, this means that the child would immediately return to her care since she was the child’s pre-intervention caregiver. In the alternative, she asks that the child be placed in her care and custody, subject to society supervision, for three months, or if the court deems fit, for six months.
6The father has not participated in this case and is in default.
7The society asks that the mother’s access to the child take place a minimum of once a month, in person, if she can arrange travel to Sudbury for the access, or to such other location as may be agreed upon by her and the maternal grandmother. It also seeks an order that the mother have telephone access with the child, a minimum of once a week.
8The society seeks an order that the father’s access with the child shall be as agreed to by the father and the maternal grandmother.
9The mother seeks an order that the maternal grandmother have access to the child for the first three months after the child is returned to her, bi-weekly, in Toronto. She did not present a clear position on what access she sought for the maternal grandmother after three months and said she would leave that up to the court.
10The mother seeks to increase her present access if the child is not returned to her care. She submitted she leaves the amount of the increase up to the court.
11The maternal grandmother agrees with the orders sought by the society.
12There are two final orders between the mother and the father under the Children’s Law Reform Act (the CLRA). On May 11, 2022, Justice Sager ordered that the mother have primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the child. She also ordered incidents of decision-making responsibility, including an order that the mother may obtain or renew all government documentation for the child without the father’s consent.
13On February 6, 2024, Justice Sager ordered that the father may exercise reasonable parenting time on reasonable notice to the mother of no less than 48 hours in writing, at the mother’s discretion.
14The society and the maternal grandmother ask that the terms of this order change and replace the parenting terms contained in the two final CLRA orders.
15The child has been diagnosed with moderate to severe autism. He is mostly non-verbal and requires intensive support services.
16The society called its Family Service Worker (the FSW), two child protection workers from the Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury and Manitoulin (Sudbury CAS) and a Behaviour Analyst (the Behaviour Analyst) who has been working with the child, as witnesses at trial.
17The maternal grandmother testified. She called no other witnesses. She filed a Developmental Assessment and an Independent Education Plan (IEP) for the child, and the child’s report cards.
18The mother testified. She filed a trial document brief that included a psychiatric report about her dated September 25, 2025. She called no other witnesses.
19The issues for the court to determine are:
a) Is intervention through a court order necessary to protect the child in the future?
b) If so, what disposition orders are in the child’s best interests?
c) What access and communication orders are in the child’s best interests?
Part Two – Court assistance to the mother
20The mother was unrepresented at trial. She had counsel throughout these proceedings, including when these trial dates were set. On January 26, 2026, Justice Sager, on consent, accepted a Form 4, Notice of Change in Representation from the mother to act in person. Justice Sager endorsed the following:
The mother assured the court that the order being requested would not delay the trial of this matter as she will either obtain new counsel or represent herself at the trial. She assured the court that she understood what was required of her to prepare for the trial and that she understood the terms of the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form and more specifically what she had to do for trial and the deadlines by which documents/affidavits must be served and filed.
21Justice Sager completed the trial management conference the same day.
22The mother worked hard to prepare her case. Her affidavit brief was well-organized. She followed the court’s directions in preparing and filing her material.
23The court was mindful of its obligation to assist self-represented litigants.1 It is this court’s view that this obligation to assist is enhanced in child protection cases where the stakes for families are so high. See: Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 369, per: Justice Debra Paulseth.
24The court provided the following procedural assistance to the mother:
a) It spent additional time explaining the trial procedure.
b) It provided her with the Ontario Court of Justice Guide to Conducting Trials for Self-Represented Litigants.
c) It permitted her to have a support person attend with her during the trial. The support person was permitted to sit with her at the counsel table and did so on one day.
d) It took additional time during the trial to explain legal terminology and the basis for its evidentiary rulings.
e) It took additional time to explain the purpose of opening and closing submissions.
f) When the mother began giving evidence during her opening statement, it had her sworn in, so that her evidence could be admitted for the trial.2
g) The mother was permitted to read from notes on her phone when giving her evidence.
h) It offered the mother breaks after each witness’s testimony to organize her questions and thoughts. Sometimes, the mother took those breaks, and at other times she proceeded with her questioning.
i) It provided the mother with opportunities to give additional oral evidence.
j) The court took an active role in screening the admissibility of the society’s evidence It limited the purposes for which certain evidence could be used. It also indicated to the society that there were admissibility issues with portions of police records it had included in its trial document brief. These records were only marked for identification. The society did not seek to introduce the police records as exhibits during the trial.
Part Three – The parties
25The mother is 37 years old. She has a bachelor’s degree in social work from Toronto Metropolitan University. She did a social work placement and worked very briefly after she graduated. The mother testified that she has not worked in her field of study since the child was born. She said she is upgrading her social work knowledge at her own pace online. She is in receipt of social assistance, receives the Canada Housing Benefit and has occasionally worked as a bartender.
26The mother and the father had the one child together. The mother testified that the father was violent to her. She has engaged in domestic violence counseling for many years. She applied in this court under the CLRA in July 2021 for parenting and support orders, resulting in the final parenting orders made by Justice Sager. She was the child’s primary caregiver until he was removed from her care.
27The mother testified that she has lived since October 2024 with L.A. She said he works full-time and that he provides her with financial assistance.
28The mother has no other children.
29The maternal grandmother is 64 years old and single. She had a very brief relationship with the mother’s father. They separated when the mother was 18 months old. She said he was in and out of their lives, chose to live on the street and had a history of psychiatric care. He is now deceased.
30The maternal grandmother was born in Sudbury. She worked in Toronto for the same company for 32 years until she retired at age 55. In 2022, she returned to live in Sudbury.
31The mother and the child lived with the maternal grandmother from when the child was six weeks old to when he was 18 months old. They lived with her again when the child was four and one and a half years old. The maternal grandmother was very involved in the child’s life until she moved to Sudbury in 2022. She did not see the child in the eight months prior to the child being removed from the mother’s care due to conflict with her.
32The child was placed by the society in the maternal grandmother’s care on April 5, 2024. They live together in Sudbury. The maternal grandmother testified she is in receipt of three different pensions. She receives Ontario Autism Project (OAP) funding to meet the child’s special needs.
33The father is 33 years old. He is in a new relationship and has a young child from it. He is employed as a crane operator. He has a positive relationship with the maternal grandmother. He sporadically arranges with the maternal grandmother to see the child in Sudbury. He has also had video visits with the child.
34The father is required to pay child support to the maternal grandmother pursuant to a temporary order made by Justice Sager in the CLRA case. That case is returnable in April 2026.
35The parties all agreed that the mother and the maternal grandmother have had a troubled relationship for many years. The society has made efforts to reduce their contact with each other on parenting exchanges to reduce the child’s exposure to their conflict.
Part Four – Credibility and reliability
36The court found the evidence of the FSW and the two Sudbury CAS workers to be both credible and reliable.
37These three workers provided balanced evidence. They set out the mother’s strengths, as well as her weaknesses. One of the Sudbury CAS worker criticized the maternal grandmother for her role in her conflict with the mother – she was not one-sided. These workers all kept detailed and contemporaneous notes of their interactions with the mother, the maternal grandmother, and the child. This made their evidence more reliable.
38These three workers provided their evidence in a calm and straightforward manner. They answered questions directly. Their evidence was not seriously challenged in cross-examination.
39The Behaviour Analyst was also a credible and reliable witness. She has been instrumental in coordinating the child’s treatment. She showed a detailed understanding of the child’s needs and services. She had limited interactions with the mother but was able to describe those interactions in a straightforward and credible manner. Her evidence was also not seriously challenged in cross-examination.
40The maternal grandmother was a credible witness. Her evidence was consistent and supported by the other witnesses. Her evidence about the child was detailed and reliable. The court treated the reliability of her evidence about the mother with more caution, as she has had a complicated and conflictual relationship with her. The mother focused much of her cross-examination of the maternal grandmother on historical grievances. The grandmother’s evidence was consistent and not shaken on cross-examination.
41The consistency of the society witnesses and the maternal grandmother enhanced the credibility and reliability of their evidence.
42The mother was not a credible or a reliable witness.
43The mother showed no insight at trial about the significant protection concerns. She attributed blame to everyone other than herself for the child being out of her care. She took this position despite having signed a Statement of Agreed Facts (the SAF) in the original protection proceeding that set out numerous protection concerns.
44This skewed perspective infused every aspect of the mother’s testimony. Her evidence about the protection concerns, her level of cooperation, her engagement with service providers, the reasons for her inconsistent access, the maternal grandmother’s caregiving abilities and the child’s progress, was consistently contradicted by the society witnesses. Her unregulated conduct, at times, was confirmed by the society witnesses, the maternal grandmother, and her own text messages.
45The mother struggled in cross-examination when challenged about her conduct. She was defensive, often avoidant, took little responsibility for her actions, and lashed out at others, including society workers, school staff, shelter workers, a bus driver, the police, the Behaviour Therapist, and her landlord. Some of her rationalizations for her conduct were convoluted and made little sense.
46The mother asserted that she did everything possible to provide continuity of care for the child’s transition to the maternal grandmother after he was brought to a place of safety on April 4, 2024. This was not the case. The mother had received substantial funding through the OAP to provide services for the child. She refused to provide the OAP number to the maternal grandmother to help the transfer of the funding. She refused to give her the child’s health card when asked. She refused to provide her with the child’s school records.
47Most egregiously, the mother collected $25,000 from the OAP, had not disbursed any of the funds for the child, and has still not refunded this money. This delayed the maternal grandmother’s ability to obtain OAP funding. The maternal grandmother had to pay privately for services the child needed until she obtained it. The OAP deducted $25,000 from the maternal grandmother’s funding in 2024 because the mother had not paid it back to them. The mother’s explanation was that she held on to the money because she expected the child to be returned to her care. She said she will rectify this situation once this happens. The court finds that her actions were not child-focused and vindictive. This adversely affected her credibility.
48The mother also gave the society inconsistent information about the OAP funding. She told the FSW in May 2025 that there was no problem with her OAP account and it was in good standing. In July 2025, she told the FSW that she did not want to talk about the OAP issue since she had been transparent about it. The society did not learn until her cross-examination that she had kept the $25,000. The mother testified that she had spoken to staff at the OAP, they had no idea what she was talking about, and she had not followed up about this any further. The mother provided no evidence that she still has any of this money.
49The evidence showed that the mother was secretive and did not share valuable information with the society. Her conduct with the OAP payment is one example. She did not disclose her psychiatric report to the society until January 2026. It was completed in September 2025. She did not share with the society that she will continue to be seen by the psychiatrist. She did not share until the trial that she has had at least five other psychiatric evaluations with serious diagnoses and recommendations. She did not share any of those reports with the society. She did not think they were relevant although her mental health is a critical issue in this case.
50The mother also gave the FSW inconsistent information about her alcohol and drug use. In January 2025, she told her that she had abstained from substance use since August 2024. In March 2025, she said that she occasionally drank alcohol and took ketamine, but not when in a caregiving role.
51Where the mother’s evidence conflicted with the evidence of the maternal grandmother and the witnesses called by the society, the court preferred the evidence presented by the society’s witnesses and the maternal grandmother.
Part Five – The protection application
52The society issued its protection application on April 9, 2024. On the same day, Justice Sager made a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, subject to society supervision. Justice Sager gave the society discretion over the mother’s and father’s access.
53On July 24 and August 15, 2024, Justice Sager conducted a temporary care and custody hearing. She reserved her decision. On August 22, 2024, she gave oral reasons for decision. She ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the maternal grandmother and that the mother’s access be in the society’s discretion and in accordance with her bail conditions.3
54On December 4, 2024, Justice Sager made final orders on the protection application based on the SAF signed by all the parties. The mother and father were represented by counsel at that time. The mother consented to protection findings that the child was at risk of both physical and emotional harm.
55The SAF set out the following details of the society’s earlier involvement with the child:
a) It had intermittent involvement with the mother dating back to November 2020.
b) The involvement was due to conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother, and concerns related to the mother’s alcohol or drug use in a caregiving role with the child.
c) The involvement was also due to family violence between the mother and the father in the child’s presence. The father was charged with assault, and a no-contact order was put in place.
56The SAF set out that the child was brought to a place of safety because:
a) Toronto Police conducted a wellness check on the mother and the child on April 4, 2024, after receiving a call that the mother had assaulted a custodian at her residence.4
b) Toronto Police reported that the mother was intoxicated to the point she could not stand up or speak. The child was present and sleeping.
c) Toronto Police pointed out that there was a white powdery substance which the mother identified as ketamine.
d) Toronto Police stated the apartment was in a poor state with food and feces throughout the apartment. A vape was found on the child’s nightstand.
e) The mother was charged with child abandonment under the age of ten. She had criminal conditions prohibiting her contact with the child except in the presence of a society worker, or with the express written permission of the society, or except for a family court order made after April 17, 2024.
f) There was no alternate caregiver to attend to the child’s special needs.
57The parties agreed to a disposition that the child be placed in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother for four months, subject to society supervision. The court ordered that the mother’s access to the child would be in the society’s discretion with regard to duration, frequency, location, and level of supervision, and in accordance with her criminal conditions. The court further ordered that access take place a minimum of twice a month. The court ordered similar access for the father, without the provision for minimum access.
58The SAF set out the following facts in support of the parties’ request for the disposition and access orders:5
a) The child is doing well with the maternal grandmother. He appears very calm and focused on activities. He is following direction well. He continues to eat and sleep well. The maternal grandmother continues to introduce new foods to the child which he seems to enjoy.
b) The maternal grandmother has a schedule and routines for the child.
c) The maternal grandmother has supports in Sudbury.
d) The mother acknowledged having historical substance abuse issues and now states that she is focused on managing them moving forward.
e) On October 11, 2024, the mother advised that she is completely abstaining from substances and is willing to regularly take randomized tests several times each week.
f) The mother has been engaging with the society and participating in home/office visits and email communication.
g) The mother’s home continues to be clean and appropriate.
h) The mother has attended twelve in-person visits at the Sudbury CAS office. No safety concerns have been reported regarding the access.
i) The mother has engaged with the Jean Tweed program since May 2024, where she has discussed substance abuse concerns and a safety plan to present to the society.
j) The mother reported she has been attending the Recovery Reimagined Skills Group program at Michael Garron Hospital since May 2, 2024. This program offers outpatient substance use and trauma recovery programs. The mother reported she has attended more than six sessions comprising in total 30 weeks of programming.
k) The mother reported she has attended the Healthy Families Program since July 16, 2024. This is a collaboration between CMHA Toronto6 and the society regarding mental health and addictions services treatments. She reported she connects with these services two to four times each month.
l) The society, the father and the maternal grandmother continue to have concerns related to the mother’s mental health and substance misuse.
m) On September 24, 2024, the mother’s family doctor reported that the mother had not mentioned the child had been removed. She expressed concerns about the mother’s stress levels due to the child’s level of disability and the mother’s lack of supports. The mother had not made recent disclosures of substance abuse to her.
n) The mother’s mental health diagnosis on record is post-traumatic stress disorder.
o) The mother created a safety plan with the help of her counselor at Jean Tweed. The society contacted her supports. However, some of those supports said they had child welfare involvement. Some of the supports did not respond to the society.
p) L.A., the mother’s partner, requires further evaluation as a support for the mother and as a caregiver for the child. He does not have a history of child welfare concerns. He attended for one visit with the child in Sudbury. No concerns were reported. He has lived with the mother in her new apartment since October 11, 2024. He appears to be the mother’s most suitable source of support.
Part Six – Additional protection concerns as of December 4, 2024
59The mother testified that aside from being unavailable to care for the child when she was arrested on April 4, 2024, there has never been a legitimate protection concern. She took this position despite signing the SAF. She called the society’s protection concerns “garbage”. She said the child should have been returned to her care on April 5, 2024.
60The mother deposed that the police attended her home on April 4, 2025, due to a malicious call by her landlord. She said the police lied about her being intoxicated. She claims there was no ketamine in her home. She said when the police asked her what the white powder was, she sarcastically answered, “it must be ketamine, I am such a degenerate”. She says it was baking powder that she uses to promote longer lasting make-up.
61The mother was effectively cross-examined about the protection concerns. The evidence informed the court that the protection concerns about the mother were even more serious than those set out in the SAF.
62The maternal grandmother deposed that the mother has had a long and troubled history with alcohol and drugs. The mother has also struggled with her mental health. The mother confirmed much of this history.
63The mother admitted that she began abusing drugs and alcohol at age 13. She used hard drugs, including ketamine, cocaine and ecstasy. She often sneaked out of her home at night. The maternal grandmother often did not know where she was. At age 20, the mother stole the maternal grandmother’s car, was intoxicated and got into a motor vehicle accident. The car was totalled. She was convicted of driving while impaired.
64The mother completed a residential rehabilitation program before the child was born.
65The maternal grandmother reported that the mother abstained from drugs when the child was a baby. She said the mother was attentive to the child and met his needs.
66The maternal grandmother deposed, and the court accepts, that when the mother and the child moved back into her home when the child was four and one and a half years old, the mother began abusing alcohol and drugs. She often left the child alone with the maternal grandmother to go out and party. She often did not tell the maternal grandmother when she was leaving. She sometimes did not return for a day or two. On one occasion, the mother came home late and drunk, and the maternal grandmother refused to let her back in the house. In response, the mother threw objects at her front door, threatened to kill her and broke windows. The maternal grandmother called the police. The mother and child left her home.
67The mother and the child then lived with the mother’s friends, the father, and in a family shelter. The mother moved to an apartment with the child. However, she was in frequent conflict with her landlord.
68Between 2021 and April 4, 2024, the society received at least thirteen referrals from community members expressing concern about the mother’s abuse of drugs and alcohol while caring for the child. The mother acknowledged she knew about each report. She claimed each report was false. She attributed malicious motives to most of the callers.
69The court does not accept the mother’s evidence. The reports made to the society were by multiple people, many of whom had no connection with one another. There were reports made by two shelter workers, a teacher, a school principal, a school bus driver, Toronto police, and the property manager where the mother was living. The reports were very consistent about the mother’s substance abuse while in a caregiving role.
70The mother acknowledged that the child’s school had reported to the society that she had often missed picking up the child. She provided excuses for this but denied alcohol abuse.
71The mother acknowledged that shelter workers made reports to the society about her being intoxicated, belligerent and leaving the child unsupervised. The mother denied that this was true. She acknowledged there was one occasion when the child went outside while she was sleeping. She blamed another mother at the shelter for not watching him.
72The mother acknowledged that in February 2024, she woke up to the police in her apartment. They had been called by her landlord who alleged she was intoxicated and not supervising the child. The child was awake while she slept.
73The mother produced a text exchange she had with a bus driver in March 2024 where she said she could not pick up the child because she had consumed alcohol. At trial, she said she had taken, “a shot of whiskey” in the afternoon. The child’s teacher also reported her belief that the mother was intoxicated that day to the society.
74The mother conceded she had taken one shot of alcohol on the day the child was brought to a place of safety.
75The court finds that the mother was impaired due to substance abuse on several occasions while in a caregiving role. It finds that she sometimes left the child unattended.
76The evidence showed that the mother did not adequately meet the child’s medical needs while he was in her care. The child has had surgery to correct breathing issues since he was placed with the maternal grandmother. The mother had not addressed this issue. She did not believe the surgery was necessary. The child is now breathing and sleeping much better. The mother also did not take the child to the dentist early enough. He had extensive dental work on March 11, 2024, at the Hospital for Sick Children. He had eight teeth extracted, one tooth pulp therapy, three crowns and six teeth restored.
77The evidence also established that the mother’s mental health history is much more significant than she previously represented. She conceded that she has had at least five earlier mental health assessments.7 She has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
78The mother admitted that recommendations were made in her prior psychiatric assessments. It was unclear if she followed any of them. She said she would not take medication.
79The maternal grandmother observed that the child exhibited the following behaviours when he came into her care:
a) He wanted to take his clothes off.
b) He could not brush his teeth.
c) He shoveled food into his mouth, often gasping for air, and ate with his hands.
d) He constantly turned water taps on to swirl water and watch it drain.
e) He continually flushed the toilet and tried to put objects in it.
f) He would not allow her to touch his ears or cut his nails.
g) He would bolt if given the opportunity.
h) He would sit on the floor and not move to get his way.
i) His vocabulary was limited. He could say some words but no sentences.
j) He was insisting on constant screen time with his I-Pad.
k) He would shred every piece of paper he could find.
l) He would not make eye contact.
m) He would constantly put things in his mouth.
n) He snored loudly and appeared to have sleep apnea.
o) He would not have a bowel movement in the toilet and would inconsistently urinate in the toilet.
80The evidence indicates that the mother was overwhelmed caring for the child, who had significant special needs. She abused alcohol and drugs while caring for him. She neglected his needs. The protection concerns at the time of society intervention were profound.
Part Seven – 2025
81On January 10, 2025, the society provided the mother with a written list of expectations. The mother attached it to her trial affidavit, labeling it, “Inappropriate Letter of Expectations”. The court reviewed the letter. The expectations were reasonable and proportionate.
82The mother exercised day access bi-weekly in Sudbury. The Sudbury CAS monitored the visits. The visits went well. In February 2025, her day visits became unsupervised. Sudbury CAS workers would drop in to see her and conduct the access exchanges.
83The mother also, except on Wednesdays, called the child daily. The maternal grandmother facilitated these calls.
84On February 5, 2025, the criminal charges against the mother were withdrawn.
85The mother missed her visit on March 10, 2025. She overslept and missed the train to Sudbury. The mother told the FSW it was because her “tickets would not scan.” However, the mother mistakenly texted the FSW, thinking it was her friend, and explained she missed the train because she had slept through her alarm.
86On March 13, 2025, the society issued its status review application, seeking a further supervision order of four months with the maternal grandmother.
87On March 19, 2025, the mother sent the FSW multiple text messages. She called the FSW, “a piece of shit”, stated that the child was removed from her care “based on nothing” and wrote “maybe YOU are, in fact, the one who needs to be tested to see what drugs you’re on…my eyes don’t lie”. The mother apologized to the FSW on March 27, 2025.
88On March 30, 2025, the FSW met with the mother. The mother told the FSW that:
a) There were no issues with the OAP funding and that she was in good standing and eligible for funding as soon as the child was returned to her. This was not true.
b) She did not want extended visits for the child arranged in her home in Toronto because if he were to set foot in her house, she would not let him leave.8 At trial, the mother said the FSW took this statement too literally.
c) The maternal grandmother is a liar, a gaslighter, has never mothered or loved her properly, and is simply using the child as a pawn in her game to punish her.
d) She was deeply insulted that she was being asked to complete some education about autism.
e) She was dissatisfied that the maternal grandmother was restricting the number of the child’s service providers she could speak with.
89On June 15, 2025, the society expanded the mother’s access to a single overnight bi-weekly in Sudbury.
90The society offered the mother an extended visit with the child for four days in early July 2025. She did not exercise this extended access.
91The FSW met with the mother on July 8, 2025. The FSW wanted to discuss what supports the mother had if the child was returned to her. The mother told her it was ridiculous that the society was asking for this. She said it was not a child protection concern for the child not to have supports. She reiterated that there have never been any identified parenting issues with her. The FSW asked her about the OAP funding and the mother refused to talk about it, claiming she had previously been transparent about this.
92The mother missed her visit in Sudbury on July 13, 2025. She did not have a credit or debit card to pay for a security deposit at the Sudbury hotel.
93The FSW reported that on July 18, 2025, she had a call with the mother. The FSW deposed she suspected the mother of being under the influence of alcohol because she was slurring her speech and having tangential thoughts. After the call, the mother sent the FSW a series of text message, some of which included the following statements:
a) Really disgusting that you would say that my child was apprehended while I was high when YOU WERE NOT THERE. YOU DON’T KNOW WTF HAPPENED.
b) Go FUCK YOURSELF WITH THE SOCIETIES’ DICK.
c) I won’t cry when you lose your job.
94The mother admitted at trial that she has sent many vile and angry text and email messages to the FSW and to the maternal grandmother. She has often raised her voice with them. The maternal grandmother attached several of these messages to her trial affidavit. Many were abusive. They showed that the mother is very angry and struggles with her impulse control. They reflected considerable immaturity.
95The maternal grandmother deposed that the mother sometimes sends her random texts in the middle of the night with video and music links.
96The maternal grandmother testified that the mother is sometimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol during video calls. She said that the mother sometimes looks exhausted and is unable to keep her eyes open. She sometimes spaces out. She will move her head all over the place and cannot keep her face in the video screen. She most recently saw this on January 26, 2026. The mother denied this. She claimed that on January 26, 2026, she had just woken up from a nap.
97The mother was given the opportunity to speak with the child’s Behaviour Therapist. The Behavior Therapist testified that she offered to meet with the mother during her visits with the child to provide education about the behavioural techniques being used with him. The mother turned down her offer. She would only agree to virtual education because she did not want this education to interfere with her parenting time.
98The Behaviour Therapist asked the mother to sign consents so she could speak with the society about their work together. The mother refused. As a result, the mother and the Behaviour Therapist are not working together. The mother testified that any work she did with the Behaviour Therapist was none of the society’s business.
99The mother was given the opportunity to engage with the child’s autism coordinator. She also turned this opportunity down, claiming that she wanted to work with all the child’s service providers.
100The mother deposed that she disagrees with many aspects of the child’s care. She does not agree with most elements of the child’s ABA therapy.9 She does not agree with how the child is being toilet-trained, fed, and the techniques used to get him up from a sitting position.10 She did not agree to the removal of his tonsils. The mother stated the child was toilet-trained while in her care11 and regressed with the maternal grandmother because she uses pull-ups instead of underwear.
101The mother often told the FSW that she felt the child was doing poorly with the maternal grandmother.
102On August 18, 2025, the society amended its status review application seeking a custody order with the maternal grandmother under section 102 of the Act.
103On October 19, 2025, the mother missed another visit. She blamed the Toronto Marathon. This made little sense to the FSW.
104The child’s service team meets monthly to discuss the child’s needs and his progress and to coordinate services. The mother was invited to attend two of these meetings. The Behaviour Therapist, the FSW and the maternal grandmother all testified that the mother took a combative tone at these meetings. The Behaviour Therapist and the maternal grandmother said the mother made insulting statements about the child’s care. The mother claimed she was just advocating for the child.
105On October 24, 2025, the mother responded to an email sent by the maternal grandmother to several people regarding a request made by the child’s physiotherapist about getting him up from a sitting position. The mother responded that she would not take this advice, and she had “just surveyed 10 people who agree with her”.
106The child had successful surgery on November 4, 2025, to remove his tonsils.
107On December 1, 2025, Justice Sager found the father in default of the amended status review application.
108The mother had an extended visit with the child from December 24 to 30, 2025. The maternal grandmother deposed that the mother called her in a panic on the third day stating she had run out of food. She said that the mother did not follow up with her again about this.
Part Eight – Disposition
8.1 Legal considerations
109The society has brought this application pursuant to section 113 of the Act.
110The society filed, and the court considered, the society’s plan of care pursuant to section 100 of the Act. That plan is consistent with the position it took in this case. That plan is supported by the maternal grandmother.
111A status review application is not a re-hearing of the original protection application. A consent order that ends an action is of the same effect as a judgment of a court following a trial or hearing for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata. The original order is presumed to be correct. See: C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S., 2020 ONSC 1847.
112Section 114 of the Act provides that where a status review application is made under section 113, the court may, in the child’s best interests, vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 101 (1), make a further order under subsection 101 (1) or make an order under section 102 of the Act.
113Subsection 101 (1) of the Act provides that where a court finds that a child is in need of protection, it must first satisfy itself that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future.
114In determining if a court order is necessary to protect a child in the future, the court can consider protection concerns other than those that resulted in the child coming into care. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 3482.
115In determining what order is required to meet the child’s best interests, the court must consider the degree to which the risk concerns that prompted the original order still exist. This must be examined from the child's perspective. The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or the absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order for protection or from circumstances which have arisen since that time. (Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M. (C.), 2 S.C.R. 165 (S.C.C.).
116The Supreme Court of Canada stated in M. (C.) that, even in the absence of proof of present parental deficiencies of the natural parent, the court must look to other relevant factors to determine whether a court order is necessary to protect the child from other harms. The Supreme Court cited with approval [at paragraph 37] a passage from the Ontario Court of Appeal:
“Regardless of the conclusion reached at this first stage, the need for continued protection encompasses more than the examination of the events that triggered the intervention of the state in the first place. As the Court of Appeal further noted:
We do not agree, however, that this means, in the absence of proof of some deficiency in the present parenting capacity on the part of the natural parent, that the child must be returned to the care of the natural parent. A court order may also be necessary to protect the child from emotional harm, which would result in the future, if the emotional tie to the care givers, whom the child regards as her psychological parents, is severed. Such a factor is a well recognized consideration in determining the best interests of the child which, in our opinion, are not limited by the statute on a status review hearing. [Ont. CA at paragraph 2]
This flexible approach is in line with the objectives of the Act, as it seeks to balance the best interests of children with the need to prevent indeterminate state intervention, while at the same time recognizing that the best interests of the child must always prevail”
117In any analysis, first and foremost, there must be a consideration of the paramount purpose of the Act, as set out in subsection 1 (1), which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. As long as it is consistent with the paramount purpose, other purposes of the Act as set out in subsection 1 (2) are also designed to support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and to utilize the least disruptive course of action available. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.F., 2020 ONCJ 526, per Justice Roselyn Zisman.
118If intervention through a court order is determined to be necessary to protect a child in the future, the court shall make one of the orders set out in subsection 101 (1) or section 102 of the Act in the child’s best interests. These read as follows:
Order where child in need of protection
101 (1) 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 not 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.
102 (1) 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 interests, 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 the person or persons.
119Subsection 101 (2) of the Act requires the court to determine what efforts the society or another agency or person made to assist the child before intervention under Part V of the Act.
120Subsection 101 (3) of the Act requires that the court look at less disruptive alternatives than removing a child from the care of the persons who had charge of the child immediately before intervention unless it determines that these alternatives would be inadequate to protect the child.
121Subsection 101 (4) of the Act requires the court to look at community placements, including family members, before deciding to place a child in care.
122The court considered the criteria set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act in determining the child’s best interests. This subsection reads as follows:
Best interests of child
74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis 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.
123It is important not to judge a parent by a middle-class yardstick, one that imposes unrealistic and unfair middle-class standards of childcare upon a mother, provided that the standard used is not contrary to the child’s best interests. See: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. B.-H.(R.), 2006 ONCJ 515.
124The length of time a child is in care is at all times a relevant consideration in determining placement when a child is found to be in need of protection. Time is considered from a child’s needs and perspective. The time consideration, like all considerations in child protection matters, should be child-focused. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.S. (Ont. S.C.J.); Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.R., 2024 ONCJ 233.
125A 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 an 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 discernible from a parent’s evidence that they face some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society’s removal of the child from their care and has developed some new ability as a parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.); Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.R., 2024 ONCJ 233.
126In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.B., 2014 ONCJ 518, this court discussed the importance of a parent providing a child with a safe, stable, and secure home, at paragraph 112, as follows:
The major protection issue is the mother’s ability to be able to provide the child with a safe, secure and stable home. This is a critical aspect of being a parent. Children need stable housing. They need their parents to have a stable plan for them. Children need their parents to be consistent and reliable and to exercise good judgment. They need to be protected from conflict and crisis. The mother has just started to take some steps to be able to address these protection concerns, but she is still not close, at this time, to establishing that she can provide these basic needs for the child. The mother has had difficulty looking after herself, let alone the needs of a vulnerable child. Terms of supervision would be inadequate to protect the child.
8.2 Continuing need for a protection order
8.2.1 The mother’s narrative
127The mother’s narrative is summarized as follows:
a) Aside from being unavailable to care for the child when she was arrested on April 4, 2024, there has never been a legitimate protection concern. The child should have been returned to her care the following day.
b) Intervention through a protection order is not necessary to protect the child in the future.
c) Multiple people have lied to create the impression that there are protection concerns.
d) She did not abuse alcohol or drugs while in a caregiving role for the child.
e) She has always been a good mother for the child. She met all his needs. She did not neglect him.
f) She arranged appropriate services for the child and can do so again. She has many supports.
g) The child is closest to her.
h) She is the person who best understands the child’s needs and how to facilitate his development.
i) The child has suffered trauma from being removed from her care and will suffer long-term emotional harm if he is not returned to her care soon.
j) She fears that the child feels that she has abandoned him and no longer loves him.
k) She is a strong advocate and people have punished her for this.
l) The society and the maternal grandmother have marginalized her. They have excluded her from participating in the child’s care. The child has suffered because of this. He has not received continuity of care because she has been unable to share her knowledge of the child with his service providers.
m) She deposed that the maternal grandmother would rather impede her progress than promote the child’s needs.
n) The maternal grandmother is not meeting the child’s needs (even though she backed off this proposition towards the end of the trial).
o) She has addressed all the society’s protection concerns. Her home is clean and appropriate. She has no issues with substance abuse. She has no mental health issues that affect her parenting. Her mental health issues are mostly about her anxiety and trauma arising from being in six motor vehicle accidents.
p) She has complied with all reasonable expectations of her.
8.2.2 There is a continuing need for a protection order
128The court agrees that the mother now has a clean apartment. That protection concern has been addressed. However, there are multiple protection concerns that continue to exist. Some have increased since the child was brought to a place of safety, some are new.
129The court finds that intervention through a protection order is necessary to protect the child in the future for the reasons summarized below:12
a) It would place the child at an unacceptable risk of harm if the child was placed with the mother without terms of supervision. That would be the outcome if the court found that intervention through a court order was not necessary to protect the child in the future.
b) Intervention through a court order is required to make sure the child receives the continuity of the care and services he is presently being provided. The mother does not have appropriate services in place for the child.
c) The court is not confident that the mother will work cooperatively with service providers who do not endorse her views. She often does not follow professional advice, preferring her own research on the internet.
d) The court is not satisfied that the mother has adequately resolved her substance abuse issues.
e) The court is not satisfied that the mother is adequately managing her mental health issues. Her anger is often unregulated.
f) The mother’s judgment, insight and self-awareness are very poor. She lacks insight into the protection concerns. This makes it unlikely that she can meaningfully address them.
g) The mother has a skewed view of the child’s development and his needs. She is adamant he has regressed despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from multiple professional sources.
h) The mother has missed several visits with the child. She has turned down opportunities for extended visits in Toronto so her ability to care for the child for an extended time could be assessed.
i) There are concerns about the mother’s access, including her ability to stimulate the child and to follow instructions about his care.
j) There is a high risk that the child’s needs will not be adequately met if he is returned to the mother’s care.
k) The child has high special needs. He requires multiple services and a caregiver who can work well with service providers. He requires stability and security. The mother has been unable to demonstrate that she can consistently meet these needs.
8.3 The child
130The child has been diagnosed as moderately to severely autistic. He requires very substantial supports for his social communication skills and for his repetitive behaviours. The Toronto District School Board classified him with Intellectual Delay in an assessment dated March 2, 2022. The report set out that:
He exhibits an extremely high level of need in terms of cognitive abilities, academic skills, and all aspects of his learning program; behaviour skills and social-emotional responses; fine-motor skills and adaptive skills such as self-direction and independent functioning.
131The court accepts the maternal grandmother’s evidence of the child’s presentation when he came into her care, as set out in paragraph 79 above. There may have been multiple reasons for that presentation. His autism, the stress of being removed from his mother, and the mother’s inability to meet his needs.
132The child has made excellent gains while in the maternal grandmother’s care. This was confirmed by the FSW, the two Sudbury CAS workers and the Behaviour Therapist. These gains are also reflected in the child’s school report cards.
133The child has made gains in communication, in toileting, brushing his teeth and engaging in activities.
134The child goes swimming once a week. He is now walking on his own down the stairs into the swimming pool.
135The society witnesses all testified that the child has a close and loving relationship with both the mother and the maternal grandmother.
136The views and wishes of the child could not be ascertained because of his significant developmental limitations.
8.4 Services provided to the child and the mother
137The child has received or is receiving multiple services. These include:
a) Services through the Children’s Community Network (CCN) in Sudbury. They coordinate services for the child and have provided multiple courses for the maternal grandmother to assist her in caring for the child. CCN also facilitates a monthly meeting with all service providers to coordinate their work with the child.
b) The Behaviour Therapist, who uses ABA techniques with the child. She sees the child twice each week at the school. Each visit is for two to three hours. The maternal grandmother hired the Behaviour Therapist in October 2024.
c) A private speech and language pathologist. The maternal grandmother hired her in November 2024.
d) A private occupational therapist that the maternal grandmother hired in 2025. She works with the child at school for one and a half hours each week. The child has been learning to lace and use buttons. She is also working with him on his printing.
e) A private physiotherapist to improve the child’s walking. The maternal grandmother hired her on June 3, 2025.
f) A clinical and school psychologist through the JASPER program.13 The child has attended two sessions of 20 visits each. The child will start attending another session in March 2026.
g) The child is in grade 4 at a self-contained school for children with exceptionalities. He has a teacher with ABA training. The class has six students with three Educational Assistants.
h) The child has a pediatrician, dentist and optician.
i) The child has been followed at the Hospital for Sick Children for his breathing and sleep issues. His surgery was done there.
138Services were also provided for the mother as follows:
a) The society has facilitated her access in Sudbury by paying for her train fare and hotel room.
b) The society arranged for Sudbury CAS workers to conduct the parenting exchanges because her conflict with the maternal grandmother was too high.
c) The Sudbury CAS workers have also monitored her visits. They testified that they offered her parenting advice, but she has not been receptive to it.
d) She was invited to the CCN meetings to learn more about the child. She attended two meetings.
e) The Behaviour Therapist offered to come and give her hands-on training in person with the child. She turned this down.
f) She was given the opportunity to obtain education from the CCN coordinator. She turned this down.
139The court finds that the society has met its statutory obligation to provide services for the child and the mother.
8.5 Community and Family Plan
140The society has met its obligation to explore alternate family and community plans for the child by placing him with the maternal grandmother.
8.6 The Plans of Care
141The society’s plan is to place the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother pursuant to section 102 of the Act, with terms of access to the mother and father as previously set out.
142The society submitted it has no protection concerns about the maternal grandmother. It feels she has provided the child with a high level of care.
143The maternal grandmother agrees with the society’s plan of care.
144The mother’s plan is for the child to be returned to her immediately. She does not want any further society involvement. In the alternative, she seeks a short supervision order.
145The mother has suitable accommodation for the child in Toronto. She deposed that it has three bedrooms and the child will have his own room. There are parks and activities nearby. It is close to public transportation.
146The mother and child shall live with L.A. and their two dogs.
147The mother has lived with L.A. since October 2024. He works full-time and will support her and the child. The mother is in receipt of social assistance and the Canada Housing Benefit. The mother hopes she will be able to have the OAP funding transferred to her. She hopes that the OAP will agree to deduct the $25,000 she kept from her ongoing funding. She has not confirmed with anyone at the OAP that this is possible.
148The mother intends to enroll the child in a school for students with developmental delays. She intends to remain at home full-time to assist him.
149The mother intends to continue to see her domestic violence counselor at Jewish Family and Child Services, attend the Recovery Reimagined Skills Groups at Michael Garron Hospital and participate in the Healthy Families program. She also intends to regularly see a psychiatrist.
150The mother, in her trial affidavit, provided long lists of health-related supports, developmental supports, school supports, and professional supports. In cross-examination, it was apparent that most of these were the product of Google searches. The mother had not spoken to most of the people on her lists or had not spoken to them recently about what services or support they would provide.
151The mother also provided a long list of personal supports. Some had their own child protection histories. Some of the listed supports did not respond to the FSW. The mother called none of these prospective supporters as witnesses at trial.
8.7 The maternal grandmother
152The evidence informed the court that the maternal grandmother has provided an excellent level of care for the child, in very difficult circumstances. This was a consistent theme from every witness other than the mother.
153The maternal grandmother was described as open to learning about the child’s needs and learning techniques to improve the child’s development. She has been able to apply that education and interacts very well with him.
154The maternal grandmother has been proactive in obtaining multiple service providers for the child. She has recognized that the child’s needs are far too great for one person to manage alone. She has assembled a team of professionals who work closely together to support the child.
155The service providers all spoke positively about the maternal grandmother’s cooperation and collaboration with them.
156The maternal grandmother described a very structured schedule for the child in her trial affidavit. It reflects the maternal grandmother’s high level of skill, organization and commitment to the child.14
157The child has flourished in the maternal grandmother’s care. He is making considerable gains. He is happy, loved, protected, and well-cared for.
158The evidence did not support the mother’s allegations that the maternal grandmother was frustrating her relationship with the child or placing her own needs ahead of the child’s needs.
159The maternal grandmother was not without fault. She has contributed to the conflict with the mother. One Sudbury CAS worker described the fights between the mother and the maternal grandmother as silly and said the maternal grandmother was sometimes passive-aggressive. The maternal grandmother also resisted the mother’s involvement with the child’s service providers.
160That said, the maternal grandmother has always facilitated the mother’s access with the child and the mother’s frequent video calls with the child. She expressed sadness that the mother has not made the gains required for the child to be returned to her care and hopes that this can happen in the future. She commented on how this was not how she envisioned her retirement.
8.8 The mother’s strengths
161The evidence informed the court that the mother has the following strengths:
a) She is educated, well-read, intelligent and articulate.
b) She demonstrated a good sense of organization in preparing for this trial. Being organized is an important attribute for any parent – especially for one with a special needs child.
c) It was evident how much she loves the child and wants to raise him.
d) She is a strong advocate.
e) She has been observed as being gentle, patient, soft-spoken and loving with the child.
f) She was on time for all visits she attended with the child.
g) She has obtained appropriate accommodation for the child.
h) She continues to seek support from her domestic violence counselor, the Recovery Reimagined Skills Groups and the Healthy Families program.
i) When she does not feel challenged or threatened, she was described by witnesses as pleasant and charming.
j) She conducted herself, in very stressful circumstances, in a respectful manner at court.
8.9 Placement analysis
162Notwithstanding the mother’s strengths, it is not in the child’s best interests to be placed in her care for the reasons that follow.
8.9.1 Services and supports
163The maternal grandmother has established a network of highly skilled and coordinated supports for the child, including his school. This was confirmed by all the society witnesses. She has presented a comprehensive plan that addresses the child’s special needs. The child is thriving in her care. He has made considerable developmental progress. He has received a high level of care from her for almost two years, after experiencing neglect and compromised parenting in the mother’s home. He is stable, safe and secure. She has the OAP funding to obtain the services the child requires. The child’s physical, emotional and developmental welfare would be placed at an unacceptable risk of harm if he was removed from her care.
164The mother does not have support services in place. The child is not on any waitlist for services. It was unclear if she had called any service provider for the child. It is uncertain whether she can obtain the OAP funding to obtain private services for the child because she has never returned the $25,000 advanced to her. It seemed she expected that she could just call them and the problem would be fixed. She has not taken meaningful steps to find out. This funding is important to finance the private services required for the child to meet his potential.
165The mother claimed that the school would provide the necessary services until she received the OAP funding. She provided no evidence that this was the case. She just made the assertion.
166The mother proposed that the maternal grandmother could act as trustee of the OAP funds until she sorts out the funding. First, the court has no jurisdiction to make this order. Second, the maternal grandmother has not agreed to this. And third, given the level of conflict they have over the child’s treatment needs, this would just increase the conflict between them. It is not a realistic option.
167The mother failed to call any witnesses who would support her plan. Noticeably absent was her partner L.A. He is a vital part of her plan as he will be living with her and the child.
168The mother could not comprehend at trial why it would be relevant to have L.A. testify. The society and the court were left with no idea about L.A.’s parenting role, his understanding of that role, his understanding of the parenting issues, his understanding of the child’s needs, his commitment to those needs and his ability to meet those needs. The society has been prepared to assess L.A., but the mother has resisted this. L.A. has not provided a police records check. He has had only one in-person visit with the child. It was supervised and took place a long time ago.
169The court also considered that it was very unclear about what supports the mother had in place for the child before he was brought to a place of safety. He did not have private supports. The mother had received the OAP funding in December 2023 but no services had been arranged. The child was not on any waitlists. The mother blamed the child’s teacher for the delay in setting up these supports. No evidence was provided about any supports provided by the school. The mother testified that she had twice removed the child from his schools. It was unclear why she did that. This evidence calls into question the mother’s ability to arrange the required supports for the child and to consistently support a school placement.
170The child requires a network of professionals working together. He is a huge challenge for any one person to parent, and any caregiver for him needs a reliable personal support network. The maternal grandmother has established this network. The mother has not. The court is not confident that she can do this.
8.9.2 The mother’s inability to work well with service providers
171The evidence creates serious concerns about the mother’s ability to collaborate effectively with service providers. She is resistant to professional advice.
172The mother has not followed the behaviour and toileting techniques implemented for the child by his service providers because she does not agree with them. She does not want to apply any ABA therapy techniques and did not take advantage of the opportunity to learn how they were being used with the child. She did not want to follow feeding advice. She did not want to follow the physiotherapist’s advice on how to get the child to sit up. She did not want to use pull-ups for the child because she believes he should be in underwear. She did not want to follow the advice of the Sudbury CAS workers to leave her motel room more frequently and be more engaged with the child on visits.
173The child’s medical and dental needs were not adequately met when he was in the mother’s care. The mother resisted the child’s tonsil surgery in November 2025 that rectified his breathing and snoring issues. There is no basis to believe she would do any better in meeting his medical needs at this time.
174The mother has shown a pattern of conflict with many people including teachers, the school principal, the child’s bus driver, her building management, the police, the maternal grandmother, the Behaviour Therapist and the FSW. It was telling that not once did she take any accountability for these conflicts.
175The child needs a caregiver who can work effectively with his support providers. The maternal grandmother has shown that she can do this. The mother has not shown that she can do this.
8.9.3 The mother’s difficulties in placing the child’s needs ahead of her need to be right
176The evidence showed that the mother has difficulty placing the child’s needs ahead of her need to be right. There were many instances of this, including:
a) Her refusal to give the maternal grandmother the child’s health card, OAP number and school reports once the child was placed with her. This delayed funding for the child’s services and resulted in a change of school for the child in Sudbury.
b) Her refusal to obtain personal autism education from the Behaviour Therapist and refusing to sign a consent permitting the Behaviour Therapist to speak to the society. She did not take the opportunity to see for herself what techniques were being used with the child, despite her concerns about ABA therapies.
c) Her refusal to obtain education from the CCN autism coordinator. The mother told the FSW that she would not work with this coordinator unless she was permitted to work with all the child’s service providers.
d) Turning down access visits in Toronto.
e) Turning down an extended access visit in July 2025.
f) Missing several visits for poor reasons.
g) Despite complaining that the child’s service providers were not seeking her opinion about the child’s needs, she has never sent them a letter or documents outlining her understanding of those needs.
177The child needs a caregiver who will consistently place his needs first. The court is confident the maternal grandmother will do this – she has turned her life upside down to ensure the child’s needs are met. The court is not confident that the mother will do this.
8.9.4 Concerns about the mother’s substance abuse
178The court remains concerned about the mother’s alcohol and substance abuse. It is a long-standing issue. The mother has historically used hard drugs. The court found she minimized her substance abuse at trial. She claimed there were no protection concerns although she signed a Statement of Agreed Facts setting out significant protection concerns, including agreeing to findings that the child was at risk of physical and emotional harm in her care. She dismissed the thirteen reports of her substance abuse and belligerent behaviour from 2021 to 2024 as malicious lies and libel. This is highly unlikely since many of the reports came from unrelated professionals. She also admitted that she did not pick up the child from school in March 2024, after taking a shot of whiskey, and to taking a shot of whiskey on the day the child was brought to a place of safety.
179It is positive that society workers have not observed the mother being impaired while with the child. The mother also provided clean urine screens from October 2024 to March 2025. However, it is very concerning that the FSW believes the mother was impaired during her dealings with her in July 2025, and the maternal grandmother, who knows her best, has observed her being impaired on video calls. Some of the texts sent by the mother reinforce the maternal grandmother’s and the FSW’s concerns.
180The mother has attended addiction programs. However, she provided no evidence about her engagement with those programs or any gains she made. The mother claimed she only went to AA twice because her lawyer told her to do this. She saw no need for it.
8.9.5 Concerns about the mother’s mental health and her ability to regulate her emotions
181The mother’s mental health and her ability to regulate her emotions remain a concern. She has been secretive about her mental health as set out in paragraph 49 above. She was unclear about why she had seen five or six different psychiatrists for assessments. She confirmed that recommendations were made in those assessments. She could not remember what they were (other than the report she filed for trial). It is unclear if she complied with any of them. She was adamant she was resistant to taking medication.
182The report of the mother’s psychiatrist, dated September 15, 2025, was filed at trial. He did not testify. He saw her one time. Much of the report was based on the mother’s self-reporting.
183The psychiatrist noted that the mother had previously been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. The psychiatrist diagnosed the mother with:
a) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
b) Major Depressive Disorder (in full remission).
c) Substance Abuse Disorder (in sustained remission).
184Based on the mother’s reporting, the psychiatrist wrote:
….Romantic relationships have been very bad. Endorses abandonment concerns and paranoia that others will leave her. Anger can be extreme and difficult to regulate, particularly when she perceives gaslighting or emotional manipulation.
In terms of substances, she started using marijuana at age 13. She then used mushrooms, ecstasy, meth, cocaine and ketamine…she reports she has not used substances since becoming pregnant with her child.15
185The mother claimed at trial that her extreme anger is internal, not external. However, the FSW and the maternal grandmother have frequently experienced her extreme and unregulated anger.
186The psychiatrist recommended that the mother attend weekly psychotherapy. He said this could be Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. The mother testified that she went to two sessions for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and withdrew. She provided no documentary evidence about her participation in this program.
187The psychiatrist indicated that medication was an alternative for the mother if the therapy was unsuccessful. However, this was optional as the mother’s symptoms were relatively low.
188The mother provided no evidence that she has been receiving regular psychiatric care or evidence that she has followed psychiatric recommendations.
189Having mental health issues does not preclude a parent from parenting a child. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866. However, given the mother’s unregulated anger at times, this remains a protection concern – especially when we are dealing with a special needs child, and when considered in combination with the other protection concerns set out in this decision.
8.9.6 Concerns about the mother’s judgment, insight and self-awareness
190The evidence created significant concerns about the mother’s judgment, insight and self-awareness, including:
a) Her adamant denial of protection concerns despite compelling evidence to the contrary. Her pattern has been to deny or minimize her problems.
b) Her perspective that the child regressed in the maternal grandmother’s care despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
c) Her perspective that many of the behaviour techniques being used for the child are wrong, despite his significant progress.
d) Her refusal to take advantage of services offered to her.
e) Her refusal to take advantage of extended access in her home.
f) Her lack of understanding of why it would be important for the court to hear from some of her supports, especially L.A., and why the society is concerned that she may entrust caregiving responsibilities to persons with their own child protections issues.
g) Her propensity to blame everyone else and take no accountability for her actions.
191The mother’s lack of insight, judgment and self-awareness help explain her resistance to seeking the appropriate help she needs to meaningfully address the deep-rooted protection concerns. She has convinced herself that there are none. She copes by blaming others. She has attended some programs just to satisfy the society and the court. Sadly, she is a poor candidate to make any sustained changes to reduce the protection concerns.
8.9.7 Facilitation of the child’s relationship with the other caregiver
192The mother claimed that she is the caregiver who is more willing to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other caregiver. The evidence did not support this. The maternal grandmother has facilitated the mother’s in-person and virtual access with the child. The mother’s proposal was for the maternal grandmother to have access for three months. After that, she was not sure what access the maternal grandmother should have.
8.9.8 Would the mother comply with the terms of a supervision order?
193Even if the child was returned to the care of the mother, it would have to be pursuant to strict terms of supervision. For the court to make a supervision order, it would need to be confident that the mother would comply with the order. See: Windsor-Essex CAS v. L.H., 2004 ONCJ 196, [2004] O.J. No. 3889 (OCJ) and this court’s comments in Jewish Family and Child Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227.
194The evidence informs the court that the mother would not consistently comply with a supervision order. She deeply distrusts the society. She believes it is responsible for keeping her child from her. She has been secretive with it – secretive about her mental health and about her supports. She stated she would only give the society the information that is required by the court. The mother has also been dishonest – as evidenced by her dealings with the OAP. The court has no confidence that the child can be adequately protected from these significant protection risks through a supervision order.
8.9.9 Conclusions about placement
195The court finds that the physical, emotional and developmental risks of placing the child in the mother’s care are far too high.
196The evidence was overwhelming that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the maternal grandmother’s care. The court finds that:
a) The society’s and the maternal grandmother’s plan will best meet the child’s need for continuity and stability.
b) The society’s and maternal grandmother’s plan will best meet the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs.
c) The society’s and maternal grandmother’s plan will best meet the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
d) The society’s and the maternal grandmother’s plan will better address the child’s needs than the plan proposed by the mother.
8.10 Custody vs. Supervision order
8.10.1 Jurisdiction to make a custody order
197The court must first determine if it has jurisdiction to make a custody order under section 102 of the Act which changes the existing final parenting orders made by Justice Sager under the CLRA.
198A court can make a custody order under the Act that has the effect of varying an existing final order under the CLRA. However, there need to be three specific pre-conditions: first, all persons who are parties to the final order under the CLRA must be parties in the CYFSA proceeding; second, all parties in the CYFSA proceeding must be served with the claim of any party who seeks an order under section 102; third, a court must find that there has been a material change in circumstances. All applications under the CLRA, including change motions, are pursuant to section 21. Section 29 sets out the legal criteria to change an order and section 28 sets out the powers of the court. See: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v S.A.R., 2015 ONSC 2534; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866.
199All three criteria are met in this case. The mother and the father were parties in the CLRA case and in this case. All parties in this case were served with the society’s claim to seek a custody order under section 102 of the Act. And, under the test in section 29 of the CLRA, there have been numerous material changes in circumstances affecting or likely to affect the best interests of the child since the final orders were made under the CLRA. The most material changes are the removal of the child from the mother’s care, the child being in the primary care of the maternal grandmother for the past two years, and the mother’s and father’s limited parenting time with the child.
200The court has jurisdiction to change the parenting terms in the two final CLRA orders.
8.10.2 Analysis
201Although no one sought a disposition of a further supervision order, the court asked the parties to make submissions about this option.
202The court asked the maternal grandmother if she had any health issues that may prevent her from parenting the child. She told the court that she had a recent scan where they saw something and needed to do further testing to determine if she has bladder cancer.
203The court considered whether it was in the best interests of the child to make a further supervision order to get more medical information about the maternal grandmother’s health. It decided this was not in the child’s best interests for the following reasons:
a) The child has been in care for 23 months. It is in his best interests to move forward with a permanency plan.
b) It is important for the child’s service providers to know where he is permanently living to put plans in place for him.
c) The only risk to the child in the maternal grandmother’s care is the emotional risk of being exposed to the conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother. That risk will increase if the tug-of-war over who he will be living with continues. The mother needs a clear message that he will be living long-term with the maternal grandmother. A supervision order will not accomplish this.
d) It is not in the child’s best interests that there be another trial on a subsequent status review application in six to twelve months. This will place the mother and maternal grandmother under considerable stress that may adversely affect the child.
e) At this point, it is speculative whether the maternal grandmother has any health condition that will affect her ability to look after the child.
f) The maternal grandmother has shown that she will reach out for help if she needs it. She has worked co-operatively with the society and the Sudbury CAS. The court trusts her to contact the Sudbury CAS if she needs respite for treatment or if she is no longer able to care for the child. The court trusts her judgment. If it comes to that, the Sudbury CAS can evaluate the next steps to take.
g) The court does not view the mother as a viable parenting option for the child for a long time. If the maternal grandmother had not come forward, the court would have placed the child in the society’s care.
204The least disruptive alternative, consistent with the child’s best interests, is to place him in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother, under section 102 of the Act.
8.11 Incidents of custody
205The court finds it is in the child’s best interests to grant the incidents of custody sought by the society and the maternal grandmother. This includes the right for the maternal grandmother to obtain or renew government documentation for the child, including passports, and to travel internationally with the child outside of Canada, without the consent of any other person. It is in the child’s best interests that the maternal grandmother’s ability to obtain government documents for him not be obstructed and that he be able to experience travel outside of Canada.
206The mother is very angry at the maternal grandmother. She has acted spitefully in the past by withholding important documentation about the child from her. The court has no confidence that she would act reasonably in providing necessary consents.
207The court will order that if the maternal grandmother is traveling with the child outside of Canada for more than 7 days, she shall provide the mother with 14 days notice of the travel, advise her where she is traveling, and provide her with a contact number to speak with the child.
208The court will also address in this decision the mother’s access to information about the child. Unfortunately, the evidence indicates that the mother will likely undermine the maternal grandmother’s parenting of the child if given the opportunity. She has not dealt well with service providers. The court will not risk the child losing valuable service providers because of the mother’s conduct.
209The court will not give the mother any rights to obtain information directly from the child’s teachers, schools, medical providers, or other service providers. The mother’s ability to participate with these people will be in the maternal grandmother’s discretion.
210The court will require the maternal grandmother to provide the mother with a monthly update setting out what services the child is using and his progress. She should share any parenting recommendations made by the service providers. In this update, she should include what medical appointments the child had and the outcome. She should also provide her with copies of the child’s report cards and any IEP.
Part Nine – Access
9.1 Legal considerations
211Subsection 104 (1) of the Act sets out the test for ordering access as follows:
Access order
104 (1) The court may, in the child’s best interests,
(a) when making an order under this Part; or
(b) upon an application under subsection (2),
make, vary or terminate an order respecting a person’s access to the child or the child’s access to a person, and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate.
212Subsection 74 (3) of the Act (set out in paragraph 123 above) sets out best interests factors for the court to consider in determining access. The court has considered these factors in making this decision.
213Courts should give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., 2024 ONCJ 607.
214The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.P.I., 2020 ONCJ 304; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., supra.
9.2 Positions of the parties
215The society seeks an order that the mother’s access with the child take place a minimum of once a month, in person, provided that the mother can arrange to travel to Sudbury for the access, or to such other location as may be agreed upon by the mother and the maternal grandmother. It also seeks an order that the mother have telephone access with the child a minimum of once a week. It proposes further and other access as agreed to by the mother and the maternal grandmother, in consideration of the child’s needs and wishes.
216The society submitted that ideally the mother should have access more than once a month. However, given its experiences with the mother and her financial limitations, it does not expect that she will be able to get to Sudbury more often than that.
217The society will no longer be facilitating the mother’s visits. It will not be facilitating the parenting exchanges. It will no longer be providing the mother with train fare or pay for her hotel room.
218The maternal grandmother supports the society’s position on access. She was open to the idea of the child spending additional time with the mother if the mother could travel to Sudbury. She was also open to the child spending extended time with the mother on holidays if the mother was acting appropriately.
219The mother asked the court to increase her access if the child was not returned to her care. At a minimum, she wants to keep the access she presently has.
9.3 Access analysis
220The evidence showed that the mother had the following access strengths:
a) She has a close bond and attachment with the child.
b) The child is always happy and smiling with her.
c) She is patient, soft-spoken and gentle with the child.
d) She is on time for visits.
e) She brings food and activities for the child to play.
221The Sudbury CAS workers set out the following concerns about the mother’s access with the child:
a) She spends most of her visits in the hotel room with the curtains drawn.
b) She has been resistant to their ideas to take the child out for activities. The mother told one worker she just wanted the child to relax during her visits. The mother described some instances where she would take the child out, but they were minimal. Taking the child into the community would have given the Sudbury CAS workers an opportunity to assess her parenting abilities outside of a small confined space.
c) She was resistant to one worker’s ideas for better food choices. The worker deposed that the child eats a lot of sugar with the mother.
d) The child spends much of the visits on screens. The mother often lies on the bed watching him.
e) The mother is resistant to following the routines the maternal grandmother has set up for the child.
222The evidence also established the following concerns about the mother’s access with the child:
a) The mother cancelled several visits. Often, only one visit was taking place each month.
b) The mother turned down opportunities for access to take place in Toronto and for extended periods. This would have given the Toronto society workers a better opportunity to assess her ability to parent the child.
c) The mother missed several scheduled virtual visits without explanation.
d) On many virtual calls the mother does not engage with the child. She will greet him and then just watch him while lying on her bed. The mother said it is up to her how she uses her virtual parenting time. She just wants the child to know she is there every day.
e) The mother had challenges on her extended visit with the child in December 2025. She ran out of food. To her credit, she reached out to the maternal grandmother for help.
f) The mother was resistant to putting pull-ups on the child, as asked. Twice she returned the child to the maternal grandmother in underwear with bowel movements in them.
g) The conflict between the mother and the maternal grandmother is still very high. The maternal grandmother was unwilling to conduct the parenting exchanges because of this conflict. She will need to do this now. There was evidence that both the mother and the maternal grandmother made disparaging remarks about the other in the child’s presence.
223The access issue was the most difficult issue for the court to determine. The court must balance the benefits of preserving the child’s relationship with the mother with the risks associated with the child being exposed to adult conflict and the strong possibility of the mother placing stress on and compromising the child’s placement with the maternal grandmother. The mother can be relentless in her emails and criticism of the maternal grandmother. She has not and likely will not accept that this placement is best for the child. The maternal grandmother only has so much emotional bandwidth to deal with the mother after meeting the child’s needs. She needs to be protected so that she can focus her energy on the child.
224Layered on to these dynamics are the logistical challenges. The mother and the maternal grandmother live far apart. The mother says she has been traumatized by multiple car accidents and will not take a car to Sudbury. The maternal grandmother said she has an old car and is reluctant to drive to Toronto. Neither party has much money to pay for transportation.
225It is in the child’s best interests to ensure that the child’s placement with the maternal grandmother stays strong and supported. The court’s main focus is no longer on returning the child to the mother’s care.
226The court finds that the orders sought by the society and the maternal grandmother are in the child’s best interests, with some changes. They reflect the reality that it will be difficult for the mother to coordinate more than one visit each month in Sudbury, and they give the maternal grandmother the ability to increase access if the mother is able to exercise it.
227The court will order overnight access during the mother’s parenting time in Sudbury. The mother’s overnight access has gone relatively well. The child enjoys it. It should continue. It will also specify holiday access for the mother and the child to spend together in Toronto when the child is not in school. The maternal grandmother was supportive of this access and said she could drive to Toronto, on occasion, to facilitate it. The court is confident that the mother can safely parent the child for the lengths of parenting time it will order.
228The court will reduce the number of virtual calls the mother is having with the child, but not to the one time a week sought by the society and the maternal grandmother. The mother has been calling the child daily, except for Wednesdays. The child is used to this frequency of calls. However, these calls have been a source of conflict and are an added stressor on the maternal grandmother. They will take now take place three times each week, on times and dates to be chosen by the maternal grandmother.
229The court will also place limits on the communications between the mother and the maternal grandmother to reduce the stress on the maternal grandmother. When she is not exercising her access, the mother shall not send more than one text or email to the maternal grandmother each day, unless it is to make an access arrangement. This limit does not apply when she is exercising her parenting time. The court expects all communications to be civil.
230The court finds that the access order sought regarding the father and the child is in the child’s best interests. The court will order this.
Part Ten – Conclusion
231A final order shall go on the following terms:
a) The maternal grandmother shall have primary residence and custody of the child, under section 102 of the Act.
b) The maternal grandmother may obtain or renew government documentation for the child, such as passports, health card, social insurance number, and birth certificate, without the consent of any other person.
c) The maternal grandmother may travel with the child outside of Canada without the consent of any other person. If she is traveling for more than 7 days, she shall provide the mother with 14 days notice of the travel, advise her where she is traveling and provide her with a contact number to speak with the child.
d) The mother shall not contact any of the child’s school staff members, medical providers, or other service providers, without the written consent of the maternal grandmother.
e) On a monthly basis, the maternal grandmother shall provide the mother with a report setting
i. What services the child is using.
ii. The child’s progress in his programs and at school.
iii. Any parenting recommendations the child’s service providers are asking his caregivers to follow.
iv. Any medical appointments the child has had and the outcome.
f) The maternal grandmother shall immediately contact the mother if the child has a medical emergency. and tell her the outcome.
g) The maternal grandmother shall provide the mother with copies of the child’s report cards and Individual Education Plans upon receipt.
h) The mother shall have access with the child as follows:
i. A minimum of once each month, in person, for at least one overnight visit, if she can travel to Sudbury or to such other location as may be agreed upon by the mother and the maternal grandmother. The mother and the maternal grandmother shall agree on the times and dates of the access visit. If there is any disagreement, the maternal grandmother shall choose the time and the date.
ii. One week during the summer, at times to be agreed upon by the mother and the maternal grandmother. If the mother and the maternal grandmother cannot agree, the maternal grandmother shall select the access week. This visit, at the mother’s choice, shall take place in Toronto and the maternal grandmother shall drive the child to Toronto and return the child to Sudbury for these visits.
iii. One week over the two-week winter school break to be agreed upon by the mother and the maternal grandmother. If the mother and the maternal grandmother cannot agree, the maternal grandmother shall select the access week. This visit, at the mother’s choice, shall take place in Toronto and the maternal grandmother shall drive the child to Toronto and return the child to Sudbury for these visits.
iv. Virtual access, a minimum of three times each week, at times and on days selected by the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother shall have the discretion to end any call if in her view the mother acts inappropriately on the call.
v. Such further and other access as the parties may agree to.
vi. The mother is to immediately contact the maternal grandmother during her access if there is an emergency affecting the child, or if she takes the child to see a doctor.
vii. The mother shall not consume any alcohol or non-prescription drugs during or within 24 hours of exercising any access with the child.
i) The father shall have access to the child as agreed to by him and the maternal grandmother.
j) When she is not exercising her access, the mother shall not send more than one text or email to the maternal grandmother each day, unless it is to make an access arrangement. This limit does not apply when she is exercising her parenting time.
k) All communications between the mother and the maternal grandmother are to be civil.
l) The mother and the maternal grandmother shall not disparage the other in the child’s presence.
m) The maternal grandmother is to contact the Sudbury CAS if she is unable to care for the child due to medical reasons.
n) The mother, the father and the maternal grandmother shall serve the Sudbury CAS with any future motion to change this order under the Children’s Law Reform Act.
o) The society shall send a copy of these reasons for decision to the Sudbury CAS.
p) This order completely changes and replaces the parenting terms set out in the final orders of Justice Sager dated May 11, 2022 and February 6, 2024, in the CLRA case between the mother and the father.
232The society shall promptly take out this order.
233The court thanks the parties and counsel for their civil presentation of this case.
Released: March 4, 2026
Justice Stanley B. Sherr
- Access to justice for self-represented persons requires all aspects of the court process to be, as much as possible, open, transparent, clearly defined, simple, convenient and accommodating.
- Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.
- Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.
- Judges and court administrators have no obligation to assist a self-represented person who is disrespectful, frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, abusive, or making no reasonable effort to prepare their own case.
- Judges have a responsibility to inquire whether self-represented persons are aware of their procedural options, and to direct them to available information if they are not. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, judges may explain the relevant law in the case and its implications, before the self-represented person makes critical choices.
- Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.
Footnotes
- The Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23. These principles include the following:
- It is common for self-represented litigants to conflate their opening statements with their direct evidence.
- This was with respect to her charges for child abandonment of a child under ten.
- The custodian chose not to lay criminal charges against the mother.
- The SAF contains many more facts. The court is only setting out the most relevant facts for this decision.
- CAMH stands for the Canadian Mental Health Association.
- She has not given copies of these reports to the society. She did not file any of them at trial.
- The society had proposed that visits start taking place in her home in Toronto.
- ABA stands for Applied Behaviour Analysis. This is a therapy program often used with children who have autism.
- The child is big for his age. He weighs 150 pounds. It is a challenge to have him get up from a seated position when he does not want to get up.
- There was no independent evidence that supported this assertion.
- The court will provide additional details about these protection concerns when assessing what disposition orders are in the child’s best interests.
- JASPER is an acronym for Joint Attention Symbolic Play Emotional Regulation.
- See paragraphs 120 to 138 of the maternal grandmother’s trial affidavit.
- This is contrary to the mother’s statement that she only used alcohol and ketamine when she wasn’t in a caregiving role for the child.