W ARNI NG
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
B E T W E E N :
Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports
Applicant,
— AND —
S. G.-M. and M.H.D.H
Respondents
Before Justice M. Vickerd
Heard on June 4, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 8, 2026
Paula DeBoer................................................................... counsel for the applicant society
Duty Counsel S. Manson.......................................... counsel for the respondent mother
Duty Counsel P. Rowley.................................................. agent for the respondent father
Z.A.............................................................................................................. Rohingya Interpreter
Vickerd J.:
Overview
1Linck Child, Youth and Family Supports (“Linck”) has advanced a child protection application and a place of safety motion.
2The place of safety motion must be adjourned for the reasons set out below. I am providing this Endorsement for the adjournment with the hope that all the justice system participants involved with this family can quickly assess this family’s circumstances and work to remedy the impediments to the application of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”).
The Issue
3The issue which is critical in this child protection matter is how the parents’ Undertakings arising from their criminal charges laid on May 15, 2026, impact this court’s ability to make an order which is consistent with the purposes of the CYFSA.
4As recently noted by Justice Sager in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.Z., 2026 ONCJ 256, at paras. 1-3:
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.
Parents 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.
The 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.
5I echo Justice Sager’s comments, which unfortunately have incredible applicability to this case.
Background
6There are three subject children of this proceeding: S. M-H born […], 2013 (age 12 years),(“the youth”); T. M-H born […], 2019 (age 6 years); and F. M-H born […], 2024 (age 19 months).
7The Respondents S.G.- M. (mother) and M.H.D.H.(father) are the parents of the children.
8The family came to Canada on February 12, 2026. The family has arrived from Malaysia and are Rohingya-speaking people. They are reported to have no friends or family in Canada. They are presently receiving supports from an immigrant settlement association and the Adult Learning Centre.
9The Society’s evidence found in the Affidavits of Linck workers J. Almas sworn May 20, 2026 and T. Scheepers sworn May 19, 2026, includes the following:
On May 8, 2026, a Linck worker received a report from the youth’s teacher reporting abuse and neglect of the youth by her parents;
The teacher advised that the youth made disclosures to her in “broken English” and with hand gestures indicating that her parents hit her. The teacher advised the worker that she was assisted in understanding what the youth was disclosing by other students who helped to deduce meaning in her gestures and words;
The teacher observed the youth to be tired, indicated by her communication that she was sleepy and putting her head down on the desk;
The teacher reported that the youth said she was hungry;
As a result of the teacher’s report, Linck began a child protection investigation;
On May 11, 2026, the teacher called Linck again to reiterate her concerns. The teacher said during this report that the language barrier makes it “difficult to understand for certain” what the youth is saying. The teacher further noted that although she thought the youth is hungry, the youth had food and was eating that day.
The worker J. Almas attended at the youth’s school on May 14, 2026, She spoke with the youth and deposes that the youth disclosed the following: her parents beat her when the family was living in Malaysia. Since coming to Canada, only her mother beats her. Her mother has hit the youth using her hands and a stick. The youth also made disclosures of her mother berating her with offensive language;
As a result of this interview with the youth and consultation with her supervisor, Ms. Almas contacted the Chatham-Kent Police Service (“CKPS”). A joint investigation into the child’s disclosures was initiated by Linck and CKPS;
On May 15, 2026, J. Almas attended the youth’s school, removed her from school and took her to the CKPS station for an interview. The youth was interviewed by a police officer, assisted with an interpreter by video. During this interview, the youth made disclosures consistent with the ones made the previous day;
On May 15, 2026, J. Almas attended with Chatham-Kent Police officers at the family home. The parents were arrested and charged with assault and assault with a weapon.
On May 15, 2026, all three children were taken into care by Linck and placed into foster homes. During this intervention, the police officers and society workers relied upon an interpreter by telephone to advise the parents of what was transpiring;
The youth was then taken by a different society worker to the Chatham Kent Health Alliance hospital and examined for injury. This examination was made difficult by the youth’s reluctance to remove her clothing.
The children were placed in separate foster homes;
On May 15, 2026, a settlement case worker for the family advised Ms. Almas of possible considerations to be given to the youth’s care including the fact that she is Muslim, wears a hijab, and may need to pray five times per day.
On May 19, 2026, a settlement case worker told Ms. Almas he has concerns that the parents do not seem to comprehend what is happening with their family. He reported that even with interpretation in their own language, the parents do not understand. He confirmed that the Rohingya language is not a written language and there is “not a lot of education around their language.”
On May 19, 2026, Ms. Almas met with the parents at their home, along with the parents’ support persons. On this day, the youngest two children were returned to the care of the parents. The worker explained to the parents that there is to be no physical discipline used with the children and that the children are not to be exposed to adult conflict. The parents agreed to abide by these directions. There was discussion about the Society’s role and the parents’ concerns about the children being taken again in the future.
10Following the parents’ arrest on May 15, 2026, they were released from the CKPS on Undertakings (Form 10). These Undertakings were given to a peace officer on May 15, 2026. The parents’ Undertakings both include the term:
You must not communicate, directly or indirectly, with [the youth].
11There are no exceptions noted to the communication prohibition.
12As identified in their Undertakings, the fathers first scheduled attendance in the criminal court is August 4, 2026 and the mother’s is August 17, 2026.
13On May 20, 2026, at the first return of Linck’s motion, a “without prejudice” order was made that:
a. The youth S. M-H is placed into the temporary care of Linck;
b. The children T. M-H and F. M-H are placed into the care of the parents, subject to Linck supervision on terms and conditions which included:
i. The mother and father shall not expose the children to adult conflict;
ii. The mother and father shall not use hands on discipline with the children at any time.
14Further, an order was made to appoint child’s counsel for the youth.
Application of the CYFSA
15The children were taken into care by Linck under the authority of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. A basis tenant in our Canadian legal system provides that state intervention into parental custody can only occur in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice (New Brunswick Minister of Health v. G.(J.), 1999 653 (S.C.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46): “The state may only relieve a parent of custody when it is necessary to protect the best interests of the child, provided that there is a fair procedure for making this determination. ”
16Under the CYFSA, the court applies judicial oversight to ensure that a child welfare agency acts within its authorized role, that statutory timelines are met, and that procedural protections exist for all parties, especially the parents who are often incredibly vulnerable (Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519; Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, 432 D.L.R., M.L. v. B.T., 2022 ONCA 240). M.L. v. Dilico Anishinabek Child and Family Care, 2022 ONCA 240
17The CYFSA requires a careful balancing of the paramount objective to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children, with the value of maintaining the family unit. The legislation recognizes the importance of maintaining the family unit as a means of fostering the best interests of children. The paramount purpose of the CYFSA, identified in section 1(1), is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children. The CYFSA sets out additional purposes that apply in section 1(2), including: supporting the autonomy and integrity of the family unit; using the least disruptive course of action; and individualizing services to a child in a manner that:
i. respects a child's or young person's need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment;
ii. takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons;
iii. takes into account a child's or young person's race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
iv. takes into account a child's or young person's cultural and linguistic needs;
v. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children and young persons in accordance with their best interests; and
vi. includes the participation of a child or young person, the child's or young person's parents and relatives and the members of the child's or young person's extended family and community, where appropriate.
18When a child is removed from the care of her parents in Ontario, during the period of adjournment of the child protection hearing, the court must consider the interim placement of the child by operation of section 94 of the CYFSA. Under this section, the onus is on the society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondents, it is more probable than not that she will suffer harm. In addition, the onus is on the society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order (Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T. 2000 21157 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) and Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v KT, [2023] OJ No 1766).
19At the temporary care hearing, applying the primary purpose of the CYFSA, the court must also consider best interests of the child. The best interests’ factors are found in section 74(3) of the CYFSA and include, inter alia,
(3) (c) (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,
(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,
(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,
(vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community,
(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,
(viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,
(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,
(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and
(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
20In this matter, clearly the concern is the allegation of inappropriate physical discipline employed by the parents against the youth. Corporal punishment using objects, such as wooden sticks, is physically and emotionally harmful to a child.
21In assessing the best interests of a child, the court needs to consider the harm a child might suffer in losing a relationship with a parent, caregiver or sibling (Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S., 2012 ONCA 783, CAS v. Hamilton v. C.(K.), 2016 ONSC 2751, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.I., 2022 ONCJ 612). At this time, the youth, having made disclosures to her teacher, has as a result of those disclosures, been alienated from all her family members, placed in a strange foster home, lost connection to her language, her religion and her culture. This is especially disturbing considering she is a practicing Muslim, adheres to a Halal diet and speaks limited English. She is residing in an English-speaking foster home in Chatham with no evidence that her religious needs are being met. She has not had contact with her parents or younger siblings since May 15, 2026.
22Also for consideration are the corollary impacts of the society’s actions in removing the children from the home on the younger children. They were forcibly removed from the care of their parents and placed into separate foster homes for four days. As noted by the parents through counsel at the first return of the motion, these children had never been out of the care of the mother. Further, during a discussion on co-sleeping, it was confirmed that the toddler and six-year-old slept in the same bed as their parents for the entirety of their lives. The parents noted this practice was needed to ensure that the children are safe. As noted in B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24, the decision to place children in the care of the state “brings profound, life-altering consequences for children and families.” The consequences for children in this case are only exacerbated by the presence of language barriers, cultural differences and religious diversities.
Least Intrusive Order
23In this matter, the “least intrusive order” to apply in the circumstances would have the youth replaced in her parents’ care, with supervision by the society on conditions which could include the parents’ participation in education surrounding appropriate correction of children and a prohibition on the use of physical discipline.
24At this time, I cannot make this least intrusive order due to the terms of the parents’ Undertakings imposed by the local police force. The operation of the criminal justice system, and the restrictive terms imposed by CKPS on the parents in their respective Undertakings, have encumbered this court’s discretion to make a family court order in the best interests of the subject children. This is the very situation which Justice Sager was addressing in her case, supra. Justice Sager makes very clear in her decision that the impact of criminal court orders can be enormous on children and youth who are desperate to have contact with a parent (paras. 39 and 40). She further opines that when family courts are stymied by criminal release terms, we are failing “to promote the children’s best interests and the goals of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.” I agree wholeheartedly with her assessment and join her in calling for change in this intersection between the family and criminal courts.
25This family, and particularly the youth, cannot wait for the parents’ criminal charges to wend their way through the criminal justice system, in the normal course. Already, it has been noted that from the date that the parents were arrested (May 15, 2026) until the first date of their criminal court matters as scheduled, a period of approximately three months will have lapsed. The youngest two children spent four days in the care of the society, and the youth remains in foster care. The impact on the youth of four months or longer in care of the society, given her particular vulnerabilities as a refugee to our country, is unacceptable.
Variation of Criminal Undertaking
26With early comity between the family court and criminal court processes, identification of the real issues, adoption of an effective plan to mitigate risk, proper accommodations for the needs of this family and community supports, I hope to put this family on a path to successful, safe reunification, consistent with the purposes of the CYFSA and in the best interests of the children. In order to mitigate the impact of the criminal orders on the operation of the CYFSA for this particular family, I shall be addressing the criminal charges and the family proceedings in one court on the next court date in an effort to set this family on a better path forward.
27This family has come to Canada for refuge and in hopes of a better life. What has transpired to separate them is tragic. With support from the criminal and court family participants, perhaps we can find a better way forward for this family, while adhering to the primary purpose of the CYFSA which is the promotion of the best interests, protection and well-being of these children.
Conclusion
28Given the foregoing, I am adjourning this child protection proceeding to be addressed contemporaneous with the criminal charges against the respondent parents.
29I invite the parents’ criminal court lawyers to file the paperwork necessary for a variation of the terms of their respective Undertakings to allow for an exception on the prohibition of contact and communication clauses to include: “except pursuant to a family court order.” In the context of the criminal court proceeding, on that court date, I will receive submissions from the Crown and defence counsel about the variation of the Undertakings, if the variation has not occurred before that date.
30I also invite the family court lawyers assigned to this matter to consider the application of the provisions of the CYFSA and what order can be made that best accords with section 94 and the best interests of the youth.
Order
31The following order is made:
a. The child protection application and temporary care motion are adjourned to June 12, 2026, at 2:15pm to address any variation of the respondent parents’ Undertakings and a lesser intrusive order concerning the youth’s care to be made under the CYFSA.
b. Pursuant to Family Law Rule 2(5), I am confirmed the case management judge for the child protection proceeding and the matter shall be addressed before me pending further court order.
c. A Rohingya interpreter shall be assigned to provide interpretation services on June 12, 2026.
Additional Comments
I wish to commend our local LAO duty counsel S. Manson and P. Rowley for the haste taken to assist the parents to obtain legal aid funding and counsel for both the family court matter and for the criminal court proceeding.
Released: June 8, 2026
Signed: Justice M. Vickerd