Court File and Parties

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. F.S., 2026 ONCJ 275

DATE: May 12, 2026

Court File Number FO-26-00000304-0000

Ontario Court of Justice

47 Sheppard Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario M2N 5N1

Applicant: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Counsel: Katie Skinner / FSW C. Mills

Respondents: F.S. / V.P.

Counsel: Peter Ivanyi for F.S.

Endorsement

Justice S. Mintz

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

[1] On May 6, 2026, the Court received submissions with respect to the Children's Aid Society of Toronto’s (“CAST” or “Society”) request to withdraw its child protection Application. This was the second appearance seeking the withdrawal.

[2] For reasons outlined in this decision, the Court refuses this request.

Paramount Purpose, Mission and Mandate

[3] From the outset, it is important to remind oneself of the legislative purpose and legal mandate of the Society.

[4] As detailed in subsection 1(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”), the paramount purpose is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.

[5] The proscribed functions and standards of a child protection agency is detailed in s. 35 of the CYFSA, as follows:

35 (1) The functions of a children’s aid society are to,

(a) investigate allegations or evidence that children may be in need of protection;

(b) protect children where necessary;

(c) provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children;

(d) provide care for children assigned or committed to its care under this Act;

(e) supervise children assigned to its supervision under this Act;

(f) place children for adoption under Part VIII (Adoption and Adoption Licensing); and

(g) perform any other duties given to it by this Act or the regulations or any other Act.

(2) A society shall,

(a) provide the prescribed standard of services in its performance of its functions; and

(b) follow the prescribed procedures and practices.

[6] CAST’s mission, set out on its website, is as follows:

Leading with excellence and working in partnership to:

Prevent situations that lead to child abuse and neglect by embracing, strengthening and supporting families and communities;

Protect children and youth from abuse and neglect;

Provide safe and nurturing care for children and youth;

Advocate to meet the needs of children, youth, families and communities

[7] The CAST website notes that it has “a legal mandate to keep children and youth, from birth to 17 years of age, safe from abuse and neglect.”

Litigation Background

[8] The child who is the subject of this proceeding is a 5-year-old male.

[9] The Society brought an Application issued February 25, 2026 seeking a supervision order on terms with the Respondents (“parents”). It also brought a motion returnable March 2, 2026, at the first appearance of this matter, seeking that the child be placed in the temporary care and custody of the parents, on seven terms, ranging from the parents participating in a parenting program, to registering the child for school, to advising the Society within 24 hours of any change to their contact information, address or household constellation.

[10] On March 2, 2026, the presiding judge made an order placing the child with kith caregivers, subject to the Society’s supervision. The Court laid out in detailed fashion the information it needed, including issues involving a child protection matter in Quebec, plans to meet the child’s needs, and the status of the parents’ criminal charges and release conditions. The Society’s motion to place the child with the parents on supervision terms was adjourned to March 19, 2026.

[11] The Mother retained counsel and put forward an Answer and Plan of Care, along with Affidavit material for the return of the motion.

[12] On March 19, 2026, the presiding judge made a temporary supervision order placing the child with the parents on the terms and conditions requested by the Society. Three additional supervision terms were made, as follows:

1. The parents shall execute and deliver a consent for the society to speak to Child Protection authorities in Manitoba and California about any child protection cases involving their children.

2. The father shall obtain a police records check as soon as possible and deliver a copy of it to the society.

3. The parents shall not remove the child from the Province of Ontario. All peace officers, wherever the child, is located, are directed to enforce this order at the request of the Society.

[13] The third term is the focus of this decision.

[14] In his March 19, 2026 Endorsement, the presiding judge also noted the following key items (amongst other things):

(a) “…that the parents barely met the test that supervision terms are adequate to protect the child.”;

(b) “The court expects the society to closely monitor the family.”;

(c) “The parents left Canada to Romania in 2022. They came to the United States in March 2024. In July 2025, they crossed the Canadian border into Manitoba.”;

(d) “CBSA is holding the parents’ passports.”; and,

(e) “The parents are Convention refugees.”

[15] This matter was adjourned to me as the case management judge for a Case Conference on April 30, 2026.

April 30, 2026 Case Conference

[16] This Court appearance was the first one after the child had been placed back with the parents on supervision terms.

[17] In advance of this appearance, the Society had filed a Notice of Withdrawal and Affidavit of Cecilia Mills, sworn April 28, 2026 (“Withdrawal Affidavit”), to support the withdrawal request. Some facts from the Withdrawal Affidavit are as follows:

(a) The family “appears to be outside of the jurisdiction” and was not planning to return for at least five to six months;

(b) A home visit had been conducted on March 24, 2026, with a further one scheduled for over two weeks later, on April 8, 2026;

(c) On April 2, 2026, the former kith caregivers advised the Society that they believed the parents and their children left Canada and are in Romania; and,

(d) There was a post on the Father’s Facebook account profile from April 1, 2026 at 11:09 p.m. stating “Welcome to the U.S.A.”.

[18] That same day, counsel for the Society contacted counsel for the Mother to advise of the information learned and specifically noted that if the parents have left Ontario, they have done so in breach of the non-removal order of March 19, 2026. Counsel for the Mother responded that he believed the family crossed into the United States illegally and were in the United States.

[19] At the Case Conference, the parents appeared by video conference. They advised that they had left Canada approximately three weeks prior, were currently in Mexico City with the child, were in the process of obtaining documents to go to Romania in a few days, and they had crossed into the United States without anyone seeing them (illegally).

[20] At paragraph 4 of my Endorsement, I noted the following:

The Society confirms that it did not contact the police after it learned the child was taken from the jurisdiction on or about April 2, 2026. The Society expresses that the order did not direct the Society to contact the police. It further advises that it is not the practice to contact the police when the child leaves the jurisdiction, or take steps to ask anyone else to notify the police.

[21] I encouraged the parents to return with the child to Ontario right away.

[22] I adjourned the Society’s request to withdraw its protection Application to May 6, 2026.

May 6, 2026 Case Conference

[23] The parents did not attend this appearance, either in person or virtually.

[24] Submissions were made with respect to the withdrawal.

[25] The Society’s basis for the withdrawal of the child protection Application is that since the child is no longer in Ontario, it does not have any jurisdiction. It also provided updated information that the family was now in Germany, and anticipated arriving in Romania the following day.

[26] The Society advised the Court that it gave more thought on whether to seek the assistance of police, and that the decision not to was based on whether they felt there was a reasonable prospect of the family returning to Canada. Counsel confirmed that had the parents provided information indicating the intention to appear or to return to Canada, the Society would have “considered engaging the police for assistance”.

[27] The Society confirmed it did not engage the police on April 2, 2026 because it was assessing whether or not the family had left the jurisdiction. When it concluded the family was not in Canada, the Society decided not to engage the police. Counsel for the Society explained it would have “very likely” called the police if it had received notice that the parents were planning on leaving the jurisdiction and breaching the Court Order.

[28] Counsel for the Society further submitted that if the order had specifically directed the Society to contact the police for enforcement, then it would have respected such an order and acted on the police enforcement clause. When questioned who has responsibility for police enforcement if not the child protection agency, she submitted that when a family has left the jurisdiction, then she did not know if anyone had responsibility at that time, and the assessment of the Society was that it would not be fruitful to do so.

[29] The Society worker gave additional sworn evidence with respect to her engagement with the International Social Services (“ISS”) and with the Romanian authorities.

Analysis

[30] It is not typical to include a police enforcement clause in a supervision order. In my view, it would come from a factual basis that caused concern to the presiding judge. This is supported by the additional expectation outlined that the Society closely monitor the family. Given the rarity of such an order, it should be viewed and acted upon with the utmost seriousness by child protection agencies. That did not happen in this case. Instead, CAST took what I can only describe as a cavalier attitude to this order, particularly when it was needed and could have potentially made a real difference.

[31] When pressed by the Court as to why the Society did not act on the police enforcement clause, counsel repeated that the Society did not think it would be fruitful since the child had been taken from Ontario and Canada. This Court cares very little about her assumptions of whether it would have been fruitful. This Court cares very much about the Society following the Court order for police enforcement. This is because it has presumed a theoretical outcome without actually taking any steps to determine the definite outcome - maybe the Society is right and it would not be fruitful, but this Court, and more importantly, this five-year-old child, will never know the outcome if action had been taken by the Society to involve the police on or about April 2, 2026.

[32] Here is why swift action in this case was important and may have been the difference maker for the safe return of this child. As detailed in the evidence from the worker, in her work with ISS, she learned that the Romanian child protection authority had a legislative change that would not allow it to provide any information to those outside of Romania. Essentially, the Society would not be able to have any direct contact with the Romanian child protection authority to either obtain or provide information about this family.

[33] However, at the point in time the Society understood the family had left Canada, the information it had from the Father’s Facebook was that they were in the United States. If the Society had acted swiftly to contact the police for enforcement purposes, particularly when the family was in the United States, then perhaps the child would have been found and returned. With the challenges the Society has already encountered with the Romanian child protection authority, I am far less hopeful that this child will be returned.

[34] I must juxtapose the response from the Society with the response of the Mother’s lawyer. While the Society seemed indifferent and at times dismissive of the Court’s concerns about the family absconding with the child from the jurisdiction, Mr. Ivanyi, to his credit, displayed an appropriate level of concern. Particularly at the April 30, 2026 appearance, where he called the actions of the parents objectionable, unwise and illegal. He noted that the family had immigration applications ongoing and that their actions may put those in serious jeopardy. It appears that Mr. Ivanyi understood the gravity of the situation more than the agency with the mandate to protect children from harm.

[35] I am not prepared to grant a withdrawal at this time given that the Society has not made any attempt to contact police for enforcement of the Order. I am requiring that they do so, and make the orders accordingly below. The Society must provide the Court with an update as to their efforts, and the response of the police service. At the time where there is a definite outcome of the police enforcement, then either the child will be back in Ontario or the Society may again seek a withdrawal of its Application.

[36] I am writing also in the hopes that this knowledge will be of use to other judges who are trying to ensure the safety of children. If there is any doubt that your child protection agency may not act on any part of your order, then I encourage you to do what I am doing today - directing them to act on your order. Of course, this should not be necessary given the mandate of child protection agencies to protect children, but it appears that in this case at least, the mandate and mission has been forgotten.

[37] I also encourage these parents to return immediately to Ontario with the child, and contact the Society.

Order to go as follows:

1. The Children's Aid Society of Toronto is directed to comply with the Order of Justice S. Sherr, dated March 19, 2026, and to immediately contact Toronto Police Service to engage in services to locate, apprehend and deliver the child to the Society.

2. This matter is adjourned as follows:

Date

July 21, 2026

Time

2:45 p.m.

For

Case Conference

Duration

30 minutes

Mode of hearing

By Video Conference

Language interpreter

One Romanian Interpreter Required

Typed Endorsement by Justice S. Mintz

Endorsement to be emailed to all parties in a PDF attachment to the emails on file.