WARNING
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,
(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 and Parties
Ontario Court of Justice 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, ON L6W 4T6
Applicant: Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Counsel: Kevin Williams with worker Ms Simon
Respondent: L.P. (RM); K.P. (RF – deceased)
OCL: Ms. Ubochi
Endorsement
Justice M. Cheung
1The court heard a motion for summary judgment on May 6, 2026 and dismissed it for reasons given orally today but the court will summarize the reasons below.
Overview
2This matter is a Protection Application issued January 2, 2025 concerning I.P. born […], 2013 (age 12). The respondent in this matter is I.P.’s mother. Her father is deceased. Statutory findings were made by Justice Woodley on July 21, 2025.
3The Respondent mother has filed an APOC dated February 28, 2025 and an amended APOC on April 17, 2025.
4The PCAS has brought a motion for summary judgment under the provisions of Rule 16 seeking the final orders claimed in the Protection Application namely the protection finding pursuant to s.74(2)(a) and (b) of the CYFSA and a six month supervision order that I.P. remain in the care of her aunt F.R.
5The mother’s APOC asks that the Society’s Protection Application be dismissed and that the child be returned to the care or charge of the mother. The mother opposes a protection finding. Her position regarding the summary judgment motion is that it should be dismissed and that any unresolved claims in the application be heard in a trial.
Issue
6The issues in this motion are:
Whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial in regard to whether I.P. is a child in need of protection? If there is no genuine issue relating to the protection finding, what protection finding(s) should be made by the court?
If a protection finding has been made by the court, whether there is a genuine issue requiring trial relating to what disposition is in I.P.’s best interests? If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial relating to the disposition in the Protection Application, what disposition is in I.P.’s best interests?
Finding
7In my oral reasons today, I stated that I am unable to find there to be no genuine issue requiring a trial on the protection findings sought by the Society – that being subsections a and b – which are anchored in the notion of actual physical harm and risk of physical harm.
8Taking into consideration the high standards of evidence required by the Court of Appeal in Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, the Society’s evidence in the motion fell short of what was needed for a summary judgment motion for protection findings under s.74(2)(a) and (b).
9However, the court is not bound by the findings claimed in the pleadings and is at liberty to make protection findings that accord with the facts and evidence in the case. See Durham Children’s Aid Society v. R.S. and J.M., [2005] O.J. No. 570 (SCJ), and Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. K.R., [2001] O.J. No. 5754 (SCJ-Family Court).
10The Society stated to the court that if the court were to make a finding that I.P. was in need of protection pursuant to another finding within this summary judgment motion, it would not pursue the a & b findings further (ie in trial) and would then invite the court to proceed to the dispositional phase, to determine the summary judgment motion in regard to that issue.
11The court has considered whether a finding under the risk of emotional harm is appropriate in the circumstances. However I found that the evidence to support that type of finding was not sufficiently led in this motion to establish no genuine issue requiring a trial.
12The undisputed facts of the situation as it has been since December 29, 2024 is that I.P. cannot return to the care of the mother, and the family cannot begin the therapeutic work towards reunification because the criminal court restrictions prevent contact absolutely.
13The court considered a finding under s.74(2)(n) (ie “unable to care on consent finding”) but the mother is not consenting to any finding at all so this finding cannot be made.
14Finally, the court considered a finding under s.74(2)(k) which states that
(k) the child’s parent has died or is unavailable to exercise the rights of custody over the child and has not made adequate provision for the child’s care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody;
15The evidence in this motion also does not fit this finding because, while the mother is unavailable to exercise her right of custody over I.P. due to the criminal court no-contact provision, it cannot be said that she has not made adequate provisions for the child’s care and custody because the kin plan currently in place was put forward and supported by the mother, which the Society readily conceded today to be true.
16Accordingly, there is no finding that can appropriately be made within the context of a summary judgment motion and the Society’s motion must fail.
17With no finding having been made, the court is not permitted to consider the requests re disposition.
18The ruling I have made today concerning the “a”, “b” of “h” findings have no bearing on whether or not the findings would be made by the court in a trial hearing.
Additional comments
19Following completion of this motion, I expressed my concern that 16 months of time has gone by with very little clinical work done to address the damaged relationship between I.P. and her mother. The criminal court undertaking allows for no leeway whatsoever for any contact between them. This is extremely problematic from a child protection point of view.
20The child protection court should have more flexibility to work with the family to address the issues raised regarding child safety. It ought not be that the criminal court proceedings have the effect of neutralizing/preventing all of the remedial work and the ability for the Society to make assessment via observing, supervising and supporting visitation between a child and their parent. The criminal court and the family court should not be working in silos in a way that the criminal court proceeding does not realize the negative impact it has on the family proceeding. I.P. has been out of the care of her mother for 16 months now. The CYFSA legislation is remedial. This means the goal is reunification, if possible. Reunification requires the ability for the Society to work with parents to address the problems with their parenting choices and skills. Often that work and assessment happens during parent-child visits. Therapeutic relationship work may well require a level of supported contact that, in this case, is absolutely precluded by the current terms of criminal release. The criminal court has essentially handcuffed the work of the child protection court and has prevented the remedial goals of the CYFSA. Due to principles of paramountcy, federal legislation and orders issued under federal legislation override those issued under provincial legislation where there is a conflict.
21I have asked those on the child protection matter to try to speak to those on the criminal court side (defence counsel and / or Crown) about this difficult predicament. It is important that those in the criminal case know how detrimental that proceeding has been on the child protection work being attempted here. The parties are authorized to provide this endorsement to the defence, to the Crown and to the criminal court if needed, on the condition that it not be further distributed.
22Discussed – the PA has been before the court since January 2025 and will need to advance to a final hearing. Settlement conferencing has already been completed. The parties need to have a trial management conference. The fall Ready List should be targeted.
23I have scheduled a brief court date next month before me for an update on whether the criminal court restriction has been altered in any way that would enable the goals of the CYFSA to be worked on.
24I have also scheduled a trial management conference date back before the CMJ who is Justice Woodley.
Orders:
SJM is dismissed.
The next court date is June 1, 2026 at 2:15 pm for a TBST update – all in person except Ms. Ubochi who may attend by ZOOM, if needed. Courtroom 208. 17F required. This is before me as Woodley J. does not have CAS dates available in this timeframe.
A trial management conference is also scheduled on July 8, 2026 at 2:15 pm before the case management judge Woodley J. in person. Courtroom 208. 45 minutes set aside. Parties and OCL to serve and file 17E trial management conference briefs in accordance with the Rules
Clerk to email endorsement to all parties / counsel indicated on page 1
Clerk asked to provide Ms. Ubochi with the 208 ZOOM link for the first court date
Justice M. Cheung