Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.B., 2026 ONCJ 217

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

(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.

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.B., 2026 ONCJ 217

COURT FILE NO. 24-45755-01

DATE: April 10, 2026

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Justine Sherman, for the APPLICANT

and –

Aron David for the

and -

Renata Kirszbaum for the

and –

Self-Represented

Keyshawn Anderson, for the OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, on behalf of the Children.

HEARD: April 10, 2026

1This is the court’s endorsement following a case conference held April 10, 2026 in this Status Review application on adjournment, which also addresses aspects of a disclosure order previously made by the court.

Background Facts

2On December 24, 2024, a Child Protection Application was issued following the removal of three children, aged 1, 3 and 5 years old, on December 21, 2024 (individually, the “Child” and together the “Children”).

3On December 21, 2024, the parents had left the Children alone in the home unsupervised, the stove was left on with a pot on it, and the home later began to fill with smoke with the Children inside. A neighbour called Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) as smoke poured out from under the door. EMS found the two older Children locked inside the front door and the baby in the crib upstairs. There were no parents present. EMS took the Children to the hospital and a couple hours later the parents arrived at the hospital.

4The two older Children disclosed that they had noticed the alarm going off, that their mother was not home, and that they tried to put out the fire on their own. The eldest Child disclosed that their Mother left them alone previously.

5Both parents have historic child welfare involvement related to serious allegations of intimate partner violence.

6On December 23, 2024, the Children were placed with their Maternal Aunt on a temporary without prejudice basis.

7On January 27, 2025, the Mother was charged with three counts of Failing to Provide the Necessities of Life in respect of the fire incident.

8On February 12, 2025, the Father turned himself into police and was also charged with numerous offences related to alleged family violence against the Mother.

9On April 23, 2025, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) filed a Motion to seek the production of records from the Toronto Police Services (“TPS”) in respect of the Father, which was granted on May 6, 2025.

10On May 6, 2025, by a 14B motion in writing, and on the basis of a Statement of Agreed Facts, dated last on April 29, 2025, (“SAF on the Protection Application”), the Court granted a final order for the statutory findings, the protection finding on the basis of 74(2)(k) and a final disposition order placing the Children in the care of their Maternal Aunt under a six month supervision order with terms and conditions.

11The SAF on the Protection Application stated:

a. In respect of the criminal charges relating to the incident, the Mother was released on conditions that included that she is to have no contact with the Children, except as permitted by a family court order.

b. The Father admitted to alcohol being consumed at the time he and the Mother left the Children unsupervised on December 21, 2024, and had later attended a party or bar.

12On August 28, 2025, the CAST brought an early status review application seeking to place the Children with the Mother under a six-month supervision order with terms and conditions. On that same day, the CAST also brought a motion to place the Children, on a temporary basis, with the Mother, which was granted.

13At that time, the Mother was looking to enroll the youngest child into a childcare program, which has to date not occurred.

14The matter was next heard on October 15, 2025, and adjourned to January 5, 2026.

15In preparation for the January 5, 2026 case conference, the CAST filed a Form 17F Confirmation of Conference, dated December 29, 2025, that stated: “The children have been attending school daily and on time since September 2025.”

16On January 5, 2026, a case conference was held, and the parties submitted a negotiated Statement of Agreed Facts. The Mother was represented by duty counsel as her previous lawyer had passed away. The Maternal Aunt did not attend.

17On January 5, 2026, the court was advised that the Mother did not have any current criminal conditions, or release conditions. This was inconsistent with the SAF on the Protection Application previously filed that stated the Mother had interim criminal conditions.

18The CAST was asked to confirm this with the Crown or the Mother’s criminal defence lawyer.

19Additionally, the court was advised that the Mother intended to plead guilty. The CAST was asked to obtain a copy of the criminal transcript or agreed statement of facts that support the guilty plea, if such a plea was made.

20Finally, the CAST was asked to file the Children’s most recent report cards. The matter was adjourned to March 30, 2026.

21The court suggested that the Maternal Aunt attend court so that she could receive duty counsel advice at the next appearance prior to signing a Statement of Agreed Facts, while these issues remained outstanding.

22The court did not accept the Statement of Agreed Facts as submitted to the court.

The 14B Motion

23Without leave, on March 26, 2026, the CAST filed a 14B motion on consent, and a Statement of Agreement Facts marked “Updated March 2026” (“Updated SAF”). The CAST made written submissions in the 14B motion and asked the court to make all final orders.

24In the Updated SAF, the following facts were included for the court to rely on when making the final order:

a. The CAST confirmed with Detective M.V. that the Father’s domestic charges related to the Mother are scheduled to proceed to trial in June 2026.

b. The school-aged Children had been attending school daily and on time since September 2025.

c. The youngest Child and the Mother attend the EarlyON Centre that is connected to the Older Children’s school some mornings.

d. The Updated SAF contained a reference to the CAST’s worker, Leslie Amendola, affidavit filed in August 2025, over six months earlier with respect to the Mother’s community supports.

e. The Mother and the Children continue to attend church every Sunday.

f. The SAF stated that the CAST contacted the Crown Attorney related to the Mother’s charged, who the CAST had not heard back from, and the Mother’s criminal lawyer who advised that he did not have a copy of the transcript, or a copy of the agreed statement of facts.

g. On February 10, 2026, Justice L. Strezo made a conditional sentence order that included 4 months of house arrest with exceptions for programming, court appearances, and ensuring the Children’s needs are met.

25The 14B motion also attached the Children’s report cards dated February 10, 2026. The report cards indicated that the children had missed nearly 30% of their classes and were late another 8% of the time.

26For a second time the CAST asserted that the older Children were attending school daily and on time since September 2025. Yet, the school aged Children’s report cards, which were filed at the direction of this Court revealed something very different. Based on the report cards, the older Children had a significant number of absences, lates, and teacher comments emphasizing the importance of attendance at school.

27The court did not grant the relief sought on the 14B motion and was increasingly concerned about the safety planning for the Children.

28Based on the 14B Motion and the Updated SAF filed, the court ordered:

a. Additional supervision terms including a term that the Children must attend school daily and on time, and that the youngest Child be enrolled in a child care program a minimum of three days per week.

b. The CAST to file a copy of the Mother’s conditions as ordered by Justice Strezo on February 10, 2026, and ordered the CAST to file the transcript and any Agreed Statement of Facts related to the Mother’s criminal conviction for the child safety incident.

29This Court provided a detailed explanation about the concerns the court had with the Updated SAF, which included the terms of the Mother’s criminal conditions, although not fulsomely disclosed, the current community supports, given the reference to an affidavit, that had been sworn in July 28, 2025, the Children’s access with the Maternal Aunt and former caregiver, the Mother’s current programming, information about the Children’s primary medical provider as none had been provided and the explanation about the children’s school attendance and the previous false information that was filed.

30Subsequently, the CAST had filed the Mother’s conditional sentence order, dated February 10, 2026, which states:

a. The Mother is sentenced to home confinement at all times for the next two months, with the exception of:

i. Saturdays from 12-3 p.m. to acquire the necessities of life;

ii. Taking the children to school Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. and 3:30p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

iii. Any medical emergencies involving the Mother or her immediate family.

iv. Going directly to and from lawyers’ appointments.

v. On Tuesdays when attending counselling the YMCA between 5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

31The Mother’s criminal conditions do not permit her to take the Children to the doctor (unless it is an emergency), the park, or to activities. The criminal conditions also do not permit the Mother to attend Church every Sunday, and they do not permit her to attend the EarlyON centre with the youngest Child, as represented in the Updated SAF.

CASE CONFERENCE – March 31, 2026

32On March 31, 2026, the matter returned to court for a case conference. The CAST acknowledged that the Updated SAF was drafted in early days and was not accurately updated.

33The CAST made further submissions to address the court’s concerns, specifically that the youngest Child had reportedly not seen her primary medical provider since she was in the care and custody of the Maternal Aunt in March 2025, a year before. The Mother reportedly attended walk-in clinics. The Older Children had seen their primary medical provider on one occasion on February 24, 2026, for immunizations. The CAST planned to reconnect with the Mother’s supports.

34The CAST did not provide an update on whether it had heard from the Crown about the transcript from the criminal proceeding, or make any further submissions about the court’s order to produce the transcript.

35Father’s counsel was unaware of the Children’s school absences as a result of the no contact order and was also depending on the CAST with respect to the representation made about the Children’s school attendance. Mother’s counsel was only recently appointed to the file.

36The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the Children’s interests. The matter was briefly adjourned to April 10, 2026.

CASE CONFERENCE – APRIL 10, 2026

37The CAST filed a Form 17F Confirmation of Conference dated April 8, 2026, but no evidence. Two letters were also handed up to the court on April 10, 2026. One from the Maternal Aunt who could not attend court, and a second (unsigned) from community liaison for a family resource centre, confirming the Children’s enrollment in various programs.

38All parties made submissions, through counsel, as well as the OCL and a non-party support person for the Mother. The youngest child was behind on her vaccinations according to the CAST 17F, but she was seen by her primary medical provider on April 8, 2026, and has a new vaccination schedule. The Children’s school attendance had reportedly improved.

39In the very short time since the OCL’s appointment, the OCL had already met with the Children and provided the court with a comprehensive overview. The OCL indicated that a more detailed safety plan is needed to ensure the Children have other adults and caregivers providing regular care. The OCL indicated that he had received disclosure from the CAST, which indicated that the Father’s criminal records were obtained. The OCL also indicated that further information is needed about the fire incident, to ensure those risks are adequately mitigated.

40The court agrees with the OCL. There is more information available in the criminal proceeding relating to the fire incident, which is the very incident that brought this matter to this Court. This information is necessary, and the court does not have fulsome information to ensure the final order sought is in the best interests of the Children.

41There was also a discussion about the Father’s access. The CAST indicated that the Father has not been available for access. The Father referred to an email purportedly from the CAST worker, Leslie Amendola, that reportedly indicated the CAST would not be offering the Father access, as the CAST was stabilizing the Children’s placement with the Mother. The CAST disputes this and states it would offer supervised visits.

42With reference to this Court’s order that the CAST file the transcript and any agreed statement of facts related to the Mother’s criminal conviction for the fire incident, the CAST indicated that it had not obtained them and suggested no intention of complying with this Court’s order. The CAST’s legal counsel indicated that the CAST was having discussions about the court’s jurisdiction to make the order that the transcript be produced.

The Courts Jurisdiction to Order the Transcript from the Mother’s Criminal Guilty Plea and Sentencing

43The paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children: subsection 1(1). An additional purpose is the appropriate sharing of information, including personal information, in order to plan for and provide services is essential for creating successful outcomes for children and families: subsection 1(2)(7) of the CYFSA.

44The failure to appropriately share information has resulted in tragic outcomes for children in Ontario, as exemplified by the Information Sharing recommendations at paragraphs 23-27 of the Verdict of Coroner’s Jury from the Inquest into the Death of Katelynn Sampson, received on November 29, 2017: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.N., 2025 ONCJ 106 at paragraph 119.

45The CYFSA is remedial legislation enacted for the protection of society's most vulnerable children. It must be liberally construed to the benefit of children: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415 at paragraph 45; Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316 at paragraph 38.

46The children’s aid society has the authority to obtain records “that may be relevant” by seeking court orders pursuant to section 130 of the CYFSA and Rule 19 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

[47] Section 130 CYFSA is available only to a society. It is not available to other litigants, including parent litigants in child protection proceedings. The purpose of a s.130 production order is to assist a society in carrying out its mandate, which is primarily the protection of children as well as promoting their best interests and well-being: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.R., 2018 ONCJ 835 at paragraph 7.

48However, children’s aid societies are required to disclose to other parties in the child protection proceedings, and often the OCL, all non-party records in their possession, subject to claims of privilege and privacy, and the right to redact third party contact information: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.K., 2016 15148 at paragraph 17.

49The low threshold for production in section 130 of the Act recognizes that the society will often require third party records for investigative purposes so that they can adequately assess the risk to a child and be in a position to present relevant evidence to the court: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. P. D. [2006] ONCJ 170.

50Twenty years ago, in 2006, Justice Keats in Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. P.(D.), 2006 ONCJ 170 discussed the importance of information sharing between the police and children’s aid societies with significant references to the Judicial Inquiry into the death of Kim Anne Popen Inquiry. Justice Keats states at paragraph 55:

55Another important theme from the Popen inquiry is that the effectiveness of child protection goes well beyond the function of children’s aid societies and involves multi-institutional integration and co-operation and the flow of information.

51The production of records, documents and other materials contained in the criminal justice system are commonly sought by children’s aid societies: Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. P. (D.), 2006 ONCJ 170 at paragraph 17.

52However, in this case, the CAST sought production of only the Father’s criminal records and not the Mother’s, despite the Mother’s criminal convictions related to the events that led to the Children’s removal from her care.

53Case law indicates that where the best interests of the child are at issue, the court has a positive obligation to be vigilant and to take a more active role in the conduct of litigation to ensure that the most helpful and relevant information is before the court: Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. K., 2006 22129 (ON SC) at paragraph 12; Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto v. H.B.S., 2012 ONCJ 663 at paragraph 108; Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society v. A.R., 2017 ONCJ 778 at paragraph 16; Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. P.D., 2019 ONCJ 373 at paragraph 85, citing Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. K. (S.); Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R. (L.), 2005 ONCJ 19, and Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.S., 2013 ONCJ 200.

54The court does not, and should not, rubber stamp orders consents and give them the authority of a court order if the basis for making the order is faulty: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.M.-G., 2016 ONCJ 835 at paragraph 22.

55Many tragic outcomes for children in Ontario have occurred following orders made on consent. As a result, the court must be vigilant about ensuring relevant information is before the court, not only at trial, but equally when orders are sought on the basis of consent.

56This raises the question: why wouldn’t the CAST want this relevant information to assess risk and safety plan for the Children?

57The CYFSA grants to the court unique, broad and considerable powers to respond to society’s growing concern that children are vulnerable and need protection:

Power of court

92 The court may, on its own initiative, summon a person to attend before it, testify and produce any document or thing, and may enforce obedience to the summons as if it had been made in a proceeding under the Family Law Act.

Past conduct toward children

93 (1) Despite anything in the Evidence Act, in any proceeding under this Part,

(a) the court may consider the past conduct of a person toward any child if that person is caring for or has access to or may care for or have access to a child who is the subject of the proceeding; and

(b) any oral or written statement or report that the court considers relevant to the proceeding, including a transcript, exhibit or finding or the reasons for a decision in an earlier civil or criminal proceeding, is admissible into evidence.

58In M.A.R.P. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto and A.V., 1996 7922 (OCJ) Justice P Jones held at paragraph 15:

After a careful review of the case law, it would certainly appear that the court should be careful in exercising any power under section 49 [now section 92] to summon witnesses or to require the production of any document or thing on its own initiative. However, it is clear that such a power does exist and can and should be used in appropriate cases.

59In Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. K., 2006 22129 Justice G.A. Campbell decided a mid-trial motion directed by the court itself on the issue of whether the court had authority to order the production of police occurrence reports [“P.O.R.s”], which CAS counsel and the Mother’s counsel argued were generated from hearsay statements and were inadmissible as evidence in the trial, or that if the court does have authority to do so that it is an unwarranted incursion into the ambit of the responsibility of counsel to decide what evidence to present to the court during trial.

60Justice G.A. Campbell wrote at paragraphs 36 and 37:

36… counsel for both the C.A.S. and the parents have chosen to remain willfully blind to the contents of the P.O.R.s, relevant or otherwise. They have asked the court to join them in their ignorance. This request to disregard what might be relevant and admissible information cannot, in my view, benefit the child….

37… the Legislature has seen fit to grant the court with this optional, rarely used entrance. This explicit authority granted to family courts appears to be unique. It allows and expects family court judges to take on a more pro-active and participatory role in trials, a role traditionally avoided as too interventionist, in order to exercise their special and onerous responsibility and their unique function. The exercise of this power to require a person to testify or to have information be placed before it may be the only way a court may fulfill its primary duty….

61In Stefureak v. Chambers, 2005 16092 (ON SC) (Sup. Ct. Fam. Div.), Quinn J. exercised his power to call a witness to court to testify during a bitter custody battle having found it necessary for the completeness of the evidentiary record and the best interest of the child within a custody proceeding under the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended (“CLRA”).

62As cited in Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. K., 2006 22129 at paragraph 16, the issue of the court’s authority was considered in Stefureak when Justice Quinn cited John Sopinka, Donald B. Houston, and Melanie Sopinka, The Trial of an Action, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1998) where they reflect upon one of the basic tenets of the adversarial system, namely the role of counsel and the court as it relates to the production of witness evidence:

“The adversary system of justice has, as its basic premise, that it is the parties who bring forward the evidence and not the judge. Accordingly, if the parties choose not to call a witness who would, if called, be in a position to shed light on the issues, the judge has no power to call the witness to give evidence. He or she may suggest that the witness be called, and no doubt that suggestion would have great influence, but if the parties decline the suggestion the witness cannot be called"…

63At paragraphs 6 and 8 Justice Quinn stated:

6… The initiative in section 49 [now section 92 of the CYFAS] presumably is taken where it would be in the best interests of a child to do so and those best interests include the need for the court to have all of the relevant evidence required to decide the fate of the child…

8… Obviously, a judge should be hesitant to engage in the business of calling witnesses but, when it comes to custody, a court should not always be left at the mercy of the parties (where they are self-represented, as so often happens in Family Court) or even their counsel (who are bound by the instructions of their clients), in order to do justice in the case. There are occasions when a trial judge must be more than an attentive spectator…

64In Halton Children’s Aid Society v. M.M., 2017 ONCJ 569 Justice Kurz admitted the transcripts of the findings of the Mother’s criminal sentencing, the comments the Superior Court judge made about the facts admitted to a criminal agreed statement of facts and other transcript evidence from the Mother’s criminal trial. At the same time, Justice Kurz recognized that s. 93 does not mean that the evidence will necessarily be persuasive or determinative.

65The Ontario Court of Justice has the power to control its own process and may establish procedural tools to ensure the process is fair, effective and efficient: Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. P.(D.), 2006 ONCJ 170 at paragraph 136.

66In Durham Children’s Aid Society v. D.F., 2023 ONSC 6176, at paragraph 10, Justice Finlayson considered sanctions against a children’s aid society when the Court had to direct the society to file all productions of police records given the court’s concerns about the society’s prior withholding of information.

67The CAST and the parties were advised that the court was seeking the criminal transcript on January 5, 2026. The Children's Aid Society of Toronto filed a 14B motion seeking the final orders and was aware of this outstanding request. The CAST had the opportunity to make submissions with respect to the court’s request for the criminal transcript. The Children's Aid Society of Toronto indicated that it had asked the Mother’s criminal defence lawyer and the crown but was not successful in obtaining the transcript.

Application

68This Court requires the transcript of the Mother’s criminal proceeding on February 10, 2026, before Justice Strezo in order to exercise this Court’s special and onerous responsibility and unique function. This is an appropriate case to require it.

69The facts surrounding the fire incident are of central importance in this proceeding. In a prior criminal proceeding, the Mother pleaded guilty to charges in respect of the exact fact situation and safety concerns that are before this Court.

70The CAST, on its own, did not file the Mother’s sentencing conditions. It was only after this Court’s order that the CAST provided to this Court those conditions, which disclosed conditions imposed that prohibit the activities currently carried out by the Mother, according to the Updated SAF.

71The CAST, on its own, did not file the Children’s school report cards, rather advised this Court, on at least two occasions in writing, that the Children had attended school “daily and on time since September 2025”. It was only after this Court’s order that the CAST provided to this Court those report cards, which disclosed a significant number of absences and lates.

72On January 26, 2026, this Court refused to accept the parties’ Statement of Agreed Facts and this Court advised the CAST to take steps to verify its submissions that the Mother did not have any criminal conditions or release conditions. This Court set an expectation that the CAST would file the transcripts or agreed statement of facts from the criminal proceedings.

73On March 30, 2026, this Court ordered the CAST to produce the transcript of the criminal sentencing of the Mother, in response to the 14B motion filed by the CAST.

74On April 10, 2026, the CAST indicated it had not complied with this Court’s order and was instead questioning the court’s authority to make the order.

75Since January, the CAST had been on notice that the criminal proceedings were relevant to this Court. At that time, the CAST’s failure to file the transcripts or agreed statement of facts from the criminal proceedings may have been an error in judgment on the part of the CAST.

76By March, what might have been the CAST’s error in judgment became choosing to be willfully blind to the admitted facts in the criminal proceedings on the very same safety issues. Implicitly, the CAST has asked the court to join them in their ignorance. This request to disregard relevant information cannot, in my view, be in the best interests of the Children.

77Additionally, the conduct of putting false and inaccurate information before the court, undermines the court’s ability to rely on the representation made by the CAST.

78Finally, the response by the CAST in this file is inconsistent with other matters, where the court has made similar orders and the CAST has complied.

ORDERS

79Within 10 days, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto shall comply with the order that it file the transcript from the criminal proceeding related to the Children on February 10, 2026, before Justice L. Strezo.

80The CAST shall provide a copy to the parties and the OCL upon receipt.

81The matter is adjourned to case conference on June 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. by ZOOM.

82Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, parents’ counsel and the OCL.

Justice J. Harris