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 —
A.S., A.D. AND I.I. Respondents
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Endorsement released on May 4, 2026
Karen Freed counsel for the applicant society
Tawfic Amandi counsel for A.S.
Renatta Austin.................................................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the youth, A.M.
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 a male youth 14 years of age.
5The youth has been in the care of the society since January 5, 2026, after disclosing in a police interview that he had been physically disciplined by his father.
6At the time of society intervention, the youth was living with his father and stepmother after arriving in Canada from Ghana in the spring of 2025. The father is originally from Ghana and his first language is Hausa. The mother resides in Ghana.
7On January 7, 2026, the father was charged with one count of assault with respect to the youth and the terms of his release included, “You must not communicate directly or indirectly with [the youth] – No exceptions.”
8The youth was appointed counsel through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).
9On February 19, 2026, the court was advised by the society that the father is in the preliminary stages of obtaining therapy. The court was also advised that the society and the OCL would assist the father in obtaining a bail variation by providing letters of support. The father advised the court that he would seek a bail variation.
10On February 19, 2026, the OCL advised the court that the youth loves and misses his father and wants to go home. He said he wants to focus on repairing his relationship with his father.
11On February 19, 2026, the court endorsed:
All parties involved in this matter and the court are requesting the crown consider a bail variation to allow this court to make orders that can be complied with that are in the best interests of the child and work to serve the purpose of the CYFSA which is to keep families together wherever possible.”
12On March 25, 2026, the society and the OCL confirmed that letters were provided in support of a variation of the father’s terms of release, but the conditions have not yet been varied. The father told the court that his criminal lawyer told him that a Crown had not yet been assigned to the case and that he should take the letters of support to the police station to have his conditions varied. When he tried to do that, he was told by the police that they could not vary the terms of his release.
13The father’s family counsel told the court that he would try to assist the father by communicating with his criminal lawyer to have the terms of the father’s release varied to allow for contact with his son.
14On March 25, 2026, the youth’s lawyer advised the court that while the youth has said he does not want to go home at this time, he is expressing a strong desire to see his father.
15On March 25, 2026, the court endorsed the record as follows:
The court respectfully asks the Crown to attend in court on this matter on the next court date by ZOOM to assist the court in understanding the obstacles to varying the terms of the father’s bail/release so that he and his son can have contact with one another.
16On April 23, 2026, the court learned that the father’s release terms had still not been varied. The letters of support prepared by the society and the OCL were given to the father’s criminal lawyer on April 11, 2026. An email from the father’s criminal lawyer states that the letters were provided to the Crown immediately. No response was received as of the court date.
17The youth has still not had any contact with his father.
18On April 23, 2026, the court was advised by the youth’s lawyer that he wants to see his father.
19This court does not understand why the father has not brought a motion to vary the terms of release if the Crown will not do so on consent. The father is an immigrant who does not speak English very well. He relies on his criminal lawyer to direct his criminal matter.
20An inability to obtain a variation of release terms 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.
21The 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.
The Solution
22The 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.
23Participants 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.
24In 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”.
25The 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