WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
(8) Prohibition re identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142.—(3) Offences re publication.— A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO Applicant,
— AND —
K.A. AND M.R. Respondents
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Endorsement released on May 4, 2026
Shavata Chopra.......................................................................... counsel for the applicant society Shalaka Gujar........................................................................................................ counsel for K.A. Lauren Israel.......................................................................................................... counsel for M.R.
SAGER, J.:
Introduction
1The court writes this endorsement to bring a very serious issue to the attention of those working in the criminal and family justice systems. Release orders imposed on parents charged with crimes against their children are creating unintended, severe, and lasting harm to both parents and children involved in family court proceedings. This problem must be addressed without delay.
2Parents charged with crimes against their children are being released with orders that they shall have no contact with their child or limiting the parent’s contact with the child to occur in the presence of the Children’s Aid Society.
3The impact of release terms that limit a parent’s contact with a child to be supervised by the society or a person approved by a Children’s Aid Society, is to effectively deprive the family court judge of any meaningful exercise of her authority or judicial discretion. The family court is rendered ineffective by these release orders, and the consequence of this, which cannot be understated, is serious emotional and psychological harm to the children before the court.
Background of this proceeding
4This child protection case involves three young girls, the oldest are twins who are 5 years old and the younger child is 4 years old. All three children are autistic and non verbal.
5The children have been in the care of the society since June 24, 2025, when the mother was charged with assaulting one of the twins. A condition of the mother’s release is that she not have any contact with the children except in the presence of and supervised by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society).
6The children’s father is involved in their lives and the litigation. He is currently being assessed by the society as a potential placement for the children. His access to the children has increased since the commencement of the child protection proceeding and he is currently enjoying overnight access.
7The court was advised by the society on August 13, 2025, that the mother is making a concerted effort to address the protection concerns. She is seeing a psychiatrist, submitting to drug tests, and is cooperating with the society.
8On September 24, 2025, the court was advised by the society that the mother was working very hard to address the protection concerns and is making progress. The court was further advised that mother had retained a criminal lawyer and was hoping to vary the terms of her release to allow for unsupervised access.
9On September 24, 2025, the court was advised by counsel for the mother that she is beginning a specialized program for autistic children that will take place between September 20, 2025, and December 2025. She is also starting a harm reduction program at the end of September 2025 for two weeks to address sobriety issues.
10On December 8, 2025, the court was advised that the mother still has not varied the terms of her release but still hopes to do so. Her plan for her sister to care for the children cannot move forward as the mother lives in the basement of her sister’s home and the children being there would be a violation of the terms of her release.
11On April 7, 2026, the court was advised that the terms of the mother’s release prohibiting contact with her children that is not supervised by the society had not been varied to allow for any exception pursuant to a family court order. The society said but for the terms of release, it might support the mother having semi-supervised access to the girls.
12The court was told that the society is working with the Crown to try and vary the terms of release and that it received correspondence from the Crown, Gabriel Ho, asking about the views and preferences of the children (who are all non verbal) and how the criminal matter would impact the child protection proceeding.
13The court was advised that the society provided a written response to the Crown’s questions on March 9, 2026, but had not received a response.
14On April 7, 2026, the court endorsed the record as follow:
“The court respectfully requests Mr. Ho’s attendance at the next court date to assist the court in understanding the delay in varying the mother’s bail to allow this court to make orders that the parties can comply with.”
15The matter was adjourned to April 14, 2026 and a copy of the court’s endorsement was sent to the Crown’s office to the attention of Gabriel Ho.
16On April 14, 2026, the parties appeared before this court, but Mr. Ho did not. The society provided the court with a copy of an email correspondence from Shane Hobson, Crown Attorney, West Toronto which provides that,
“The Crown is not available to attend in court. Nonetheless, the Crown can confirm that following of the most recent Judicial Pre-Trial, a consent to defence’s request to vary the accused’s release conditions was submitted to the Court yesterday and approved of today. The variation expands the no-contact exception to include: “When in the constant presence and supervision of the CAS or a CAS vetted and approved of person.” Should the accused wish the vary of the release order further without the consent of the Crown, remedies remain available to her.”
17On April 14, 2026, upon receiving the email from the Crown, this court endorsed,
“This is not the term that the court expected, specifically that the mother’s access can be pursuant to a family court order. This variation continues to frustrate the functions of this court. The mother is urged to seek a further variation that allows for her access to the children to be in accordance with a family court order. “
18This court does not know if variation of the release order the mother requested was for an exception pursuant to a family court order that was rejected by the Crown or if in fact, her request was the wording provided by the Crown as set out in paragraph 16 above.
19An inability to obtain a variation of release terms to allow for contact with a child pursuant to a family court order is unfortunately something this court sees all too often. There are clearly obstacles in place that make it difficult for the litigants we see in child protection cases to obtain a variation. This makes it extremely important to get the release terms right the first time.
20The serious implications these release orders are having in child welfare proceedings was set out by this court in an endorsement of May 4, 2026, in The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.Z., Z.D. and H.G., 2026 ONCJ 256. In paragraphs 28 to 44, this court wrote:
The Problem
28 The court is writing this endorsement out of sheer exasperation1 and to bring this very serious issue to the attention of those involved in both the child welfare and the criminal justice system. If this problem is not addressed immediately, it will be responsible for inflicting significant pain and suffering on the children whose safety we are entrusted to protect and whose well being we are obliged to promote. Thankfully, this problem can be addressed quickly and easily.
The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, is a remedial statute whose purpose is to “promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children”. It is remedial in nature such that we never stop believing that parents and caregivers who at some point may have done something or failed to have done something that put their child at risk of harm, can demonstrate insight into the risk they created as well as change their behaviour. In child protection proceedings we refer to this as “addressing the child protection concerns” such that the child is no longer at risk of harm in the parent’s or caregivers' care.
Child protection courts are faced with the difficult decision of deciding what contact a child can have with a parent who is or was criminally charged with harming them and has come before the family court in a child protection proceeding. These decisions must be made in a manner that promotes the primary purpose of the child protection legislation.
These decisions are always made based on relevant and reliable evidence provided by all the parties.
There has for a very long time been an understanding between the two justice systems that in most instances the family judge is best situated to make these decisions while the parent awaits a criminal trial because the family courts in this province are overseen by judges with an enormous wealth of experience in family and child protection law (many of whom who also have significant experience in criminal law).
This understanding and respect afforded to the family bench resulted in the inclusion in most bail or release terms that prohibits a parent charged with a criminal offence involving a child from having contact with the child, with the following exception:
“except in accordance with a family court order made after this date.”
This made perfect sense. Who best to decide what is in the child’s best interests in these circumstances if not a family court judge?
Something has drastically changed such that those involved in the criminal justice system no longer appear to be giving family court judges the well deserved deference they received for a very long time when it comes to contact between an accused parent and a child who may have been the victim of the crime. Recently, too many release terms do not include this exception, and it is wreaking havoc on our child protection cases (and some domestic cases) by effectively staying the family court proceeding or at least making the orders made in the child protection proceeding ineffective.
The weakening of this deference is amplified by the response being received by those in the criminal justice system to the written endorsements of the court supporting a variation of release terms to include the exception of a family court order which have largely been ignored by the Crown.
All too often now when the request for variation is made, the Crown is varying the terms to allow for access supervised only by the society or someone vetted and approved by the society, eliminating the function and authority of the family court judge to find, based on the evidence, that some other form of access is in the child’s best interests.
When a parent charged with a criminal offence involving a child comes before this court on a child protection matter with release terms that prohibit any contact with the child or limits the child to access supervised by the society, the effect is to derail the child protection proceeding, sometimes in a significantly harmful way.
In this case, the impact is enormous as the society is seeking to remove the children from the mother’s care permanently despite improvements being made by her to address the protection concerns and the children’s repeated requests to be returned to their mother’s care.
Children and youth who are desperate to have contact, more contact or unsupervised contact with a parent, and which contact is supported by the evidence, are being denied due entirely to the parents’ terms of release. Parents who should be granted increased access or even the return of a child to their care are being denied entirely due to the terms of their release.
A family court that finds it is in a child’s best interests to have expanded access or unsupervised access to a parent is stymied by the criminal release terms that prohibits such access.
This court has respectfully invited the Crown to attend in court to speak to this issue on more than one case to ensure this court’s understanding of the variation process and the Crown’s understanding of the implications plaguing this court as a result of the failure to include in the release terms the exception that a parent before the criminal court may have contact with a child subject to a family court order.
The Crown has yet to attend in this court despite the requests. This court finds this unacceptable.
It must be understood that these release and bail restrictions are having a real and seriously negative impact on the children who are the focus of both domestic and child welfare proceedings. How can a family court be rendered powerless by these release terms when its very function is to make decisions in the best interest of a child? We can make the orders, but the parents cannot comply without violating the terms of their release and the child suffers.
This situation is untenable. We cannot continue to allow our family courts to be rendered meaningless in this way.
21In this case, it is particularly concerning that the Crown varied the mother’s release terms to give the society more power over the mother’s access to the children which has the effect of literally cutting the court out of the family court process.
22The Crown does not appear to understand that the court ought to be vetting potential third parties to supervise the mother’s access, NOT JUST THE SOCIETY. It is up to the court to either vet the third party or grant the society the authority to do that, not the other way around. Had the Crown attended in court on the child protection matter as requested, this could have been explained to him.
The Solution
23The CYFSA provides the child protection agencies, the parents, and the court with the framework for keeping families together wherever possible and reuniting families when risk of harm that kept them apart has been addressed. This is what we are always working toward, this is the goal. What is happening now with release terms that nullify this court’s power to do that, should shock everyone working in the child welfare system.
24Participants in the criminal justice system must place confidence in family court judges to carry out the responsibility entrusted to them, namely, to make decisions in the best interests of children. This responsibility extends to all children, including those who may have experienced violence or neglect at the hands of their parents.
25In most cases, release orders or bail terms involving a parent accused of a criminal offence against their child, who is prohibited from contact with their child, should include as an exception, “except in accordance with a family court order made after today’s date”.
26The court writes this endorsement to bring this to the attention of those who can fix the problem. They ought to fix it very quickly.
Released: May 4, 2026
Signed: Justice Melanie Sager