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:
Ogwadeni:deo
— AND —
B.F. – Respondent Mother
— AND —
D.D. – Respondent Father
— AND —
S.D. – Respondent
— AND —
Six Nations of the Grand River – Respondent
— AND —
Big Grassy River Band – Respondent
Before Justice Joanne Beasley
Heard on June 10, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 15, 2026
Birkin Culp....................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Patricia Corneil.................................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer,
legal representative for the respondent mother
D.D..................................................................................................... Acting on his own behalf
S.D..................................................................................................... Acting on her own behalf
Mario Elchami............................................... counsel for Six Nations of the Grand River
Big Grassy River Band ...................................................................... Acting on own behalf
Beasley, J.:
1Ogwadeni:deo has brought a Protection Application and a Motion under CFYSA section 94 for temporary care of C.D. born […], 2025. Ogwadeni:deo originally sought an order for placement of the child with Ogwadeni:deo, specifically with the paternal grandmother S.D. with access at their discretion, including supervision, for each of the parents. B.F. is C.D.’s mother. She is 17 years of age and is represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. D.D. is C.D.’s father. S.D. and D.D. are self-represented.
2Ogwadeni:deo is a child welfare agency ensuring the protection of Ogweho:weh children on the Six Nations Territory, in the City of Brantford and Brant County, while incorporating Haudenosaunee culture when working with families as set out on their website. D.D. is a member of Six Nations. B.F. is a member of Big Grassy River Band. Both bands attended the hearing and made submissions.
3D.D. and B.F. had resided with S.D. during the mother’s pregnancy and up to April 2026. D.D. remained residing with paternal grandmother. The parents shared care of C.D. with B.F. usually having C.D. in her care Monday to Friday 7:00 to about 4:30 p.m. according to S.D.’s statements at the June 4th, 2026 hearing. D.D. works long hours Monday to Friday. D.D. or S.D. would pick up C.D. from B.F.
4Ogwadeni:deo became involved with the family on May 29, 2026 after an incident where D.D. was criminally charged.
5OCL counsel for B.F. challenges the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that Ogwadeni:deo apprehended C.D. on May 29, 2026 when he was left in the care of his paternal grandmother and did not bring the matter to court until the sixth day, June 4, 2026, contrary to the CFYSA s 88 5-day rule.
6Ogwadeni:deo asserts that on May 30, 2026 when C.D. was left in the care of his paternal grandmother and the home was approved as a foster home, the child was placed in a place of safety. They assert that the 5-day rule was complied with.
Does the Court have jurisdiction?
7I find that the Court has jurisdiction.
8The first issue to be determined is whether the CFYSA section 88 5-day rule was complied with.
Time in place of safety limited
88 As soon as practicable, but in any event within five days after a child is brought to a place of safety under section 81, subclause 83 (1) (a) (ii) or subsection 136 (5),
(a) the matter shall be brought before a court for a hearing under subsection 90 (1) (child protection hearing);
(b) the child shall be returned to the person who last had charge of the child or, where there is an order for the child’s custody that is enforceable in Ontario, to the person entitled to custody under the order;
(c) if the child is the subject of an extra-provincial child protection order, the child shall be returned to the child welfare authority or other person named in the order;
(d) a temporary care agreement shall be made under subsection 75 (1); or
(e) an agreement shall be made under section 77 (agreements with 16 and 17 year olds).
9Ogwadeni:deo did not obtain a warrant to bring C.D. to a place of safety. CFYSA section 81(7) provides for:
Bring child to place of safety without warrant
(7) A child protection worker who believes on reasonable and probable grounds that,
(a) a child is in need of protection;
(b) the child is younger than 16; and
(c) there would be a substantial risk to the child’s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 90 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2),
may without a warrant bring the child to a place of safety.
10I do not find that there would have been a substantial risk to C.D.’s health or safety during the time necessary to bring the matter on for a hearing under subsection 90 (1) or obtain a warrant under subsection (2). On the record before me, there is no explanation for not seeking a warrant.
11The Protection Application asks the court to make a protection finding under section 74(2)(a)(i),(b)(i) or (h).
Section 74(2)
A child is in need of protection where,
(a) the child has suffered physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child,
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child,
(h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;
12On the record before me, only section 74(2)(b)(i) may be appropriate. The criminal charges against D.D. allege that he assaulted B.F. while C.D. was in the vehicle. The record does not support that C.D. was harmed. No medical care was provided and the worker observed C.D. to be healthy.
13There are 2 affidavits from Ogwadeni:deo child protection workers detailing the events of May 29th and 30th, 2026. The Six Nations Police reported domestic violence between B.F. and D.D. to Ogwadeni:deo at about 6:30 p.m. on May 29, 2026.
14Six Nations Police shared with Ogwadeni:deo that an argument ensued between D.D. and B.F. about ending the relationship. D.D. choked B.F. D.D. asked B.F. to get out of the vehicle and attempted to run her over. D.D. uttered a threat to kill B.F. and their son. D.D. left the scene with C.D. Police intercepted D.D. before an amber alert was initiated. D.D. went to a relative’s home and the police attended at the home and arrested him. C.D. was in the home as well as the paternal grandmother.
15Six Nations Police received consent from D.D. to have C.D. stay with paternal grandmother S.D. S.D. took C.D. to her home after D.D.’s arrest.
16The child protection worker contacted S.D. by phone on her way home and arranged to meet S.D. at her home on May 29, 2026 at 8:20 pm. The home was tidy. The worker observed a diaper change. She noted that no marks were observed on C.D., and the baby appeared to be healthy and happy. S.D. advised that she was buying a crib through Facebook marketplace.
17The Ogwadeni:deo worker advised the paternal grandmother that if the mother B.F. contacted her to please give her Ogwadeni:deo's After Hours number to contact the Society right away. On May 29th 9:00 p.m. the child protection worker attempted to contact B.F. by phone and was unsuccessful. Ogwadeni:deo ran a record check of all household members, and there were no concerns noted. The worker emailed B.F.’s father at 9:40 p.m. asking for a return call to the after-hours number. The worker had checked the Child Protection Information Network database and located his email but not a phone number.
18OCL Counsel for the mother asserts that a deemed place of safety placement occurred when C.D. was left in the care of his paternal grandmother. I do not agree. I find that Ogwadeni:deo was investigating at that time. It is not clear what decision would have been made if they had located B.F., learned details of the alleged assault, the history of her caregiving role with C.D., etc.. Leaving the child in a home that he was accustomed to while their investigation progressed was the least disruptive option at that time.
19D.D. had indicated consent to C.D. being in the care of his mother at the time of his arrest. He continues to assert his consent. The issue of whether his consent on May 29, 2026 was voluntary and freely given does not need to be determined as the consent has continued and this issue was not raised before me.
20Ogwadeni:deo had no further involvement until May 30th, 2026 in the evening when S.D. contacted them to advise D.D.’s bail hearing would be Monday June 1, 2026. The record before me does not explain why efforts were not made to contact or locate B.F. during the day.
21The child protection worker called the Ontario Provincial Police on May 30, 2026 at 7:43 p.m. to speak with an officer for an update on D.D. and B.F.. She was provided with the occurrence number, advised that there were no charges against B.F. and that she could not speak to D.D. he had been moved to Maplehurst.
22After consultation with her supervisor, the worker was directed to make an unannounced visit to B.F.’s residence, believed to be the home of her father. Her supervisor was to attempt to contact D.D. at Maplehurst.
23On May 30, 2026, the worker attended B.F.’s father’s home at 9:30 pm, and spoke to M.F. He advised that B.F. was not residing there and had left the home earlier that day. He did not know her whereabouts. M.F. shared that B.F.’s phone was smashed and was not usable, so she could not be contacted. M.F. shared that B.F. is seeking counselling through Ganohkwasra, as she has been dealing with postpartum depression. M.F. shared that B.F. has been worried because she was unable to see her baby, and that it has taken a mental health toll on her because she does not know the circumstances of her child. M.F. expressed support for B.F. and offered that B.F. and C.D. could reside with him. The worker advised M.F. to make a missing persons report as B.F. was a minor.
24The worker’s affidavit indicates that by the late-afternoon of May 30, 2026 her concerns were: “I could not make any contact with B.F. as she was not at the residence, her whereabouts were unknown to M.F., her support, and the child was not being cared for by a parent.” The visit to M.F.’s home occurred at 9:30 p.m. at night so the late-afternoon reference is not accurate.
25There was no effort by Ogwadeni:deo to contact Ganohkwasra, the shelter on Six Nations Reserve. This would have been an obvious resource to contact B.F., especially after M.F. advised that B.F. was being counselled through the shelter. I find that there were no efforts made to contact B.F.. She was overlooked by Ogwadeni:deo. She is C.D.’s mother and the information was that she had been a victim of intimate partner violence while C.D. was in the vehicle. As a parent and caregiver of C.D., B.F. deserved to participate in Ogwadeni:deo’s assessment of harm and risk of harm to her child.
26On May 30, 2026, the worker contacted the paternal grandmother at 10:11 pm. She advised that she would be attending her home that night, as she was unable to contact either parent for consent and the agency would have to bring C.D. into a place of safety. She explained that documents and safety plans need to be addressed at the meeting.
27The worker attended at S.D.’s home at 10:35 p.m. Ogwadeni:deo asserts that this is the time when C.D. was brought into the care of the Agency, the deemed place of safety of the paternal grandmother’s home.
28The worker met with S.D. her partner. The Caregiver Criminal Offence Declaration was completed by both adults. S.D. and Mr. J. completed the Child Welfare Agency Record Check. The safety plan was that if the Respondent parents contacted them, they would notify Ogwadeni:deo, with the child remaining in the care of S.D. The Orientation Checklist was signed by S.D.. Rights and Responsibilities were reviewed with S.D. and her partner. The complaints procedure was reviewed.
29Ontario Regulation 156/18 section 45 governs Place of Safety procedure. Some of the requirements for assessment of placement occurred on May 30, 2026. The regulation provides for interview(s), home assessment, child protection and police records checks, etc..
Place of Safety
Procedures prior to placement
- (1) This section applies if a society or a child and family service authority is conducting an assessment of a person’s home as a place of safety for a child under clause 74 (4) (b) of the Act. O. Reg. 156/18, s. 45 (1).
(2) A child shall not be placed in a person’s home as a place of safety unless the society or the child and family service authority, as the case may be, has assessed the home in accordance with the following procedures within 30 days before the placement:
- A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall obtain information,
i. as to the identity of every person who is 18 or older and resides in the home in which the child may be placed, and
ii. as to the nature of the relationship between the child who may be placed in the home and every person referred to in subparagraph i.
A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall meet with the proposed primary caregiver and conduct an interview of the caregiver.
A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall meet in private with the child who will be placed in the home and conduct an interview appropriate to the child’s age and maturity.
A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall conduct an assessment of the home environment, including an assessment of the physical aspects of the home.
In the case of an assessment conducted by a society, a child protection worker shall conduct a review of the society’s records for information relating to any person who is 18 or older and resides in the home in which the child will be placed.
A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall advise the proposed primary caregiver of the requirements with respect to police record checks and offence declarations under Ontario Regulation 155/18 (General Matters under the Authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council) made under the Act.
7.1 A child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of the authority shall obtain the consent of the proposed primary caregiver to disclosure of information related to the primary caregiver by any society, including any information from the Child Protection Fast Track Information System and any child welfare authority outside Ontario.
As soon as practicable but no later than seven days after the society or authority obtains the consent requested of a person under subparagraph 7 ii, the society shall conduct a search of the proposed primary caregiver’s name in the Child Protection Fast Track Information System.
As soon as practicable but no later than seven days after the society or child and family service authority obtains the consent requested under paragraph 7.1 of a person who has resided in the past in an area outside of the society’s jurisdiction, the society shall make a request to any society or any child welfare authority outside Ontario for any information or records they may have relating to the person. O. Reg. 156/18, s. 45 (2); O. Reg. 309/24, s. 4 (1, 2).
(2.1) As soon as practicable but no later than seven days after receiving a police record check or offence declaration from a person referred to in paragraph 7 of subsection (2), the society shall review the police record check or offence declaration and document any decisions and actions it proposes to take with respect to it. O. Reg. 309/24, s. 4 (3).
(3) As soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after conducting an assessment under this section, a child protection worker, a person designated by the society or an employee of a child and family service authority, as the case may be, shall document the assessment of the person’s home. O. Reg. 156/18, s. 45 (3).
30After 1:00 a.m. on May 31, 2026, the child protection worker emailed a letter to S.D. and her partner confirming that they had been approved as a foster home for Ogwadeni:deo.
31In Anishinaabe Abinoojii Family Services v. S.B.-M., 2024 ONCJ 89, Justice Mackinnon addressed the purpose of section 88:
9The reason for this limitation requiring child welfare agencies to bring the matter to court was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Central Area) v. W.(K.L.) 2000 SCC 48 . The Supreme Court said:
(a) While the infringement of a parent’s right to security of the person caused by the interim removal of his or her child through apprehension in situations of harm or risk of serious harm to the child does not require prior judicial authorization for the reasons outlined above, the seriousness of the interests at stake demands that the resulting disruption of the parent-child relationship be minimized as much as possible by a fair and prompt post-apprehension hearing.
10An early case dealing with this time limit is Kenora-Patricia Child and Family Services v. J.G. 2001 CanLII 60974 (ON CJ), [2001] O.J. No. 2290. Justice J. Little, in reviewing the issue of the five day limit, states the following:
In this new context, I do not think agencies should be encouraged to ignore the plain meaning to be given to the words “as soon as practicable, but in any event within five days “ in subsection 46(1). I believe the five days are to be a maximum if needed. I note that subrule 33(1) refers to the five days as a maximum.(26)
11The reason for this requirement is also explained in the judgment:
Agencies may find it inconvenient to bring cases involving apprehension before the court “within five days” but parents have had their children removed from their care by way of an apprehension, often without a warrant being obtained. This intrusion in to the life of families is meant for situations in which there is harm to a child or risk of serious harm...(27)
32Justice Finlayson in DCAS v. G.S. 2022 ONSC 805 addressed the impact of a breach of the 5-day rule. There was a joint custody order for the 8-year-old child. The father consented to not exercising his parenting time for one day after the child made disclosure of harm. The protection application was commenced 8 days later. The consent was challenged, as well as the breach of the 5-day rule. In DCAS v. G.S. case, as in the case addressed in argument of Justice K.A. Baker, Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. C.H., 2017 ONCJ 276, the Society inserted itself into the operation of a Court Order. It was incumbent on the Society to bring the matter before the Court as soon as possible. It did not do so.
33Justice K.A. Baker found that a dismissal of the Application was appropriate in Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. C.H., 2017 ONCJ 276. Baker J. found that a Society worker instructing that a joint custody order was not to be followed did amount to an apprehension triggering the five-day rule. Justice Finlayson found that the remedy for breaching the 5-day rule was not a dismissal in the DCAS v G.S. case.
34I find that the Society’s actions in leaving C.D. in his paternal grandmother’s care at the May 29th, 2026 home visit, at the start of their investigation, was not placing the child in a place of safety. As noted in the DCAS v. G.S. 2022 ONSC 805, at paragraph 130 of Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. M.V. and M.L., 2019 ONCJ 501, Kwolek J. referred to a 2006 unreported decision of Thibodeau J., decided under the predecessor CFSA. In those decisions, Kwolek J. and Thibodeau J. described what could amount to an “apprehension”. They defined it as an action that is “incompatible with the wishes of the custodial person”. The specific facts of the case before Kwolek J. were that the children resided with the grandmother, and the custodial parent no longer agreed.
35It was not until June 1st, 2026 when Ogwadeni:deo met with B.F. did they learn that she did not consent to C.D.’s temporary placement. That is the time when Ogwadeni:deo learned that their decision to place C.D. with the paternal grandmother was incompatible with the wishes of a parent.
36Ogwadeni:deo failed to make reasonable efforts to locate the mother. Their options included contacting the police and asking for the mother’s whereabouts, emailing her, contacting the shelter, or returning the mother’s call.
37If Ogwadeni:deo had made efforts to locate B.F., they may have made the decision to return the child to her care or alternatively to seek a warrant to remove C.D. from her care. They did not make reasonable efforts. . I find that a home assessment and the review of S.D. and her partner’s willingness and ability to be foster parents and be considered as a place of safety was not completed on May 29, 2026 as required under section 74 and the regulation. The process of placing C.D. in a place of safety was not finalized until May 30, 2026.
38On May 30, 2026 Ogwadeni:deo decided to place C.D. in its care and completed the assessment and procedure to place C.D. in S.D.’s care. I find that the technical place of safety event occurred on May 30, 2026 when the worker met with S.D. and her partner, assessed the home and completed required documentation. If I am wrong and the May 29th home visit constituted leaving the child in a place of safety, I would continue to make a section 94 Order, in the face of the 5-day breach.
39I note Justice Finlayson’s words:
85Finally, even if I am incorrect about the Society’s actions amounting to an incomplete removal, I note that it is not necessarily settled whether the five-day rule is a hard and fast rule. Baker J. wrote at paragraph 41 of Family and Children’s Services v. C.H., “[i]t cannot possibly further the best interests, protection, and wellbeing of children generally, if child protection agencies operating as state agents are allowed to wilfully disregard statutory requirements”. She felt the remedy warranted was a dismissal.
86But it may be that a dismissal, when the five-day rule is not followed, is a discretionary remedial option as opposed to a mandatory one. As this was not argued, I leave that question for another day.
40Whether a dismissal based on a breach of the 5-day rule is a discretionary remedial option was not argued before me either. I find that if May 29, 2026 is the place of safety date, the legislation has been breached and one of the remedies is to decline jurisdiction. Possible remedies include: return of the child, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, reduced weight to the Society’s evidence and/or a shift in placement or access.
RISK OF HARM – EXPOSURE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
41In this case, I have found jurisdiction exists. However, even if the 5-day rule was breached, I would not have imposed the remedy sought. The evidence makes clear that such remedies would expose the child to further risk, which is inconsistent with the purposes of the child protection legislation. The child protection concerns do not evaporate the moment the clock ticks past the 5-day marker. The May 29th, 2026 event was not C.D.’s first exposure to domestic violence.
42B.F. outlines a history of domestic violence in her relationship with D.D., including physical assaults, controlling behaviour, and threats. She asserts that she was the primary caregiver for C.D., responsible for all daily care, while the father provided limited assistance.
43The parents separated in April 2026. They had been living at the home of the paternal grandmother. D.D. remained residing there. B.F. asserts that after she left D.D., he used C.D. as a way to control and threaten her. D.D. did not let her leave with C.D. and held him away from her when she tried to take him with her in April. He used C.D. to control her, including withholding the child for a week. B.F. asserts that S.D. has been in the home at times when D.D. had assaulted her.
44In April and May 2026, the relationship continued on an on/off basis.
45On May 29, 2026, B.F. reports that she was assaulted by the child’s father, D.D., during and after a car ride while their infant son, C.D., was present.
46During the incident, D.D. became angry and physically and sexually assaulted B.F. in the vehicle. He then drove at very high speeds while B.F. and the child were inside, despite her repeated requests for him to slow down. He made threats to kill her and behaved in a dangerous and unpredictable manner.
47At one point, D.D. stopped the vehicle, physically assaulted B.F. again, damaged her phone, and prevented her from contacting anyone. B.F. attempted to escape on foot but was chased, threatened, and forced back into the vehicle. The situation continued with further aggression, including grabbing her by the hair and placing her in a chokehold. D.D. drove away with C.D. in the vehicle.
48B.F. eventually managed to leave the situation and sought help at a nearby business, where police were contacted. She was in distress and concerned for C.D.’s safety, as she did not know where the child had been taken.
49Police attended, assessed B.F., and later transported her to her father’s home. D.D. was subsequently arrested.
50In conclusion, I find the Court is not deprived of jurisdiction and that a temporary order is needed to ensure that C.D. is not exposed to domestic violence.
Issue: What order is in C.D.’s best interests?
51I find that a temporary protection order is needed to protect this child at this time. C.D. will be placed with his mother, subject to supervision, with access to his father on terms and conditions.
52There is no order for parenting in place for C.D.
June 4, 2026 hearing
53Ogwadeni:deo’s position on June 4, 2026 was that S.D., D.D. and Ogwadeni:deo were consenting to a temporary without prejudice order placing C.D. with S.D., with access at their discretion to the parents. They sought supervised access for B.F.
54B.F. attended court on June 4, 2026. Only two duty counsel were available and S.D. and D.D. had met with the duty counsel. B.F. was unable to obtain legal advice on that date. She was not consenting to the order sought by Ogwadeni:deo. I appointed OCL for B.F. and adjourned the matter to June 10, 2026. I allowed all parties to respond to the motion for temporary care and custody up until 10 a.m. on June 10, 2026 and indicated oral evidence and affidavit evidence could be relied upon.
55B.F. advised that she had been at the shelter, Ganohkwasra, the shelter on Six Nations Reserve since May 30, 2026. S.D. advised that the care of C.D. after the parents’ separation in April 2026 included B.F. having C.D. in her care Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m. to about 4:30 p.m.. Ogwadeni:deo sought supervised parenting time for S.D.
56D.D. attended court by zoom. He had been released with conditions, including no contact with B.F. He is residing with his aunt who is his surety.
57On June 4, 2026, I made a temporary without prejudice Order placing C.D. in the care of the paternal grandmother with access to father as arranged with his mother; Access to mother from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays; The child to remain in Brant County or Haldimond County. I adjourned the matter to June 10, 2026.
Service and Procedural Fairness
58It is noteworthy that Ogwadeni:deo served S.D. and D.D. on June 3, 2026 with the Application and Motion materials. B.F. met with Ogwadeni:deo staff on June 1st and 2nd. She attended court on June 4. On June 10, 2026 when she attended court, Ogwadeni:deo had not yet served her with any materials.
59B.F. asserts that Ogwadeni:deo failed to properly serve its Application and supporting materials. I agree. Despite meeting with agency workers twice before the June 4, 2026 court date, she was not provided with any documents. She did not receive the materials until June 8, 2026, when she obtained them directly from the court with the assistance of duty counsel. OCL Counsel was assigned on June 9, 2026, and had difficulty obtaining information from other parties. On June 9, 2026, OCL Counsel Ms. Corneil emailed all parties and asked Ogwadeni:deo for the court documents, contact information for the child protection workers and contact information for B.F. She received no response. Ogwadeni:deo had not served B.F. when the June 10, 2026 court attendance occurred.
60Ogwadeni:deo’s failure to make efforts to engage with the mother and to apprise her of the protection concerns demonstrates a remarkable level of indifference to their obligations to the biological mother and the court process in this case Their conduct is alarming. Their neglect is procedurally unfair to B.F. and to the best interests of C.D.
61B.F. made efforts to locate C.D.. On May 29 and 30, 2026, she called Six Nations Police trying to get information about where C.D. was. She was told by the police that she needed to stop calling them or she could be charged.
62On May 30, 2026 at about 6:30 p.m. B.F. entered the shelter. Ogwadeni:deo never called the shelter to ask if B.F. was there. Ogwadeni:deo and Ganohkwasra have an existing collaboration agreement requiring coordination in domestic violence cases.
63On May 31, 2026 B.F. called Ogwadeni:deo asking where C.D. was and who was the worker. The person who answered told her they would get back to her. No return call was made.
64On Monday, June 1, 2026, an Ogwadeni:deo worker Brandi Egan showed up at the shelter in the afternoon and a meeting was held. B.F. asked for C.D. to be returned to her care. She expressed concerns for C.D.’s safety. She was informed that C.D. was apprehended, there was an investigation with Ogwadeni:deo. and there was court on June 4th. She was not served any court documents.
65On Tuesday June 2, 2026, B.F. met with an Ogwadeni:deo child protection worker and supervisor along with the shelter counsellor and supervisor. OGD told her that D.D. told them there were concerns with the cleanliness of her dad's home, he said that she had only bathed C.D. twice in his life. It was reported that her father indicated she was not able to handle C.D. for long periods of time. B.F. denies these assertions and I note that neither statement is part of the workers’ evidence before this court.
66Ogwadeni:deo indicated that there were concerns about the intimate partner violence. Ogwadeni:deo said that the allegations about the cleanliness of the home and intimate partner violence were mitigated due to B.F. now being in shelter and the no contact order for D.D..
67Ogwadeni:deo did not provide updated evidence that they had met with B.F. for the June 4th or 10th,2026 court attendance. Two other workers provided affidavit evidence sworn June 2, 2026. On June 4, 2026, their position was supervised access for B.F. On June 10, 2026, the order sought was placement with B.F. subject to their supervision.
68Ogwadeni:deo provides no explanation to the Court for not making efforts to locate B.F.. They did not provide evidence of their meetings with her on June 1st and 2nd. They provide no explanation as to why she was not served with the court materials. The overlooking of a mother’s right to participate when her child is the subject of a child protection proceeding is fundamentally unfair and inappropriate.
69B.F. was excluded from the process by Ogwadeni:deo. An apprehension of a child is a serious intrusion into family life. It often occurs without a warrant, as was the case here. B.F. was denied a meaningful opportunity to participate. The failure to serve her is inexcusable. Ogwadeni:deo’s lack of attention to basic fairness is a serious problem.
70B.F.’s unilateral actions in accessing duty counsel and reaching out to learn who her OCL counsel was allowed her to defend the Motion, even though it was not served on her. I commend Duty Counsel Victoria Kayal and OCL counsel Patricia Corniel for their quick and effective assistance to B.F.. OCL counsel had no contact information for B.F. on the morning of June 9, 2026. B.F.’s affidavit was served early on June 10, 2026.
June 10, 2026 hearing
71Ogwadeni:deo’s position had changed to placement of C.D. with B.F., under supervision, with access to D.D. on terms and conditions. Counsel indicated that it was expected unsupervised access would soon be approved for D.D.
72OCL counsel for B.F. sought the dismissal of the Motion, or alternatively, placement with B.F..
73D.D. and S.D. supported placement with S.D.
74At a temporary care and custody hearing, there is a two-part test that the Society must meet. The Society must demonstrate, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the person having charge of the child prior to the Society’s intervention, it is more probable than not that the child will suffer harm. The onus is on the Society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms of conditions of an interim supervision order. See Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC).
75The least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child as required by subsection 1(2) of the CYFSA; see also Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
76I must assess the plans of D.D. and B.F. They are the parents of C.D.
D.D.’s Plan
77D.D. provided an affidavit. He is self-represented. He is also a young parent. He asserts that he has been the victim of intimate partner violence by B.F. He asserts that B.F. has indicated that she could not handle the care of C.D. at times and that she has left him in his care. He is able to provide care for C.D. and has family support to do so. He works full-time for 10-12 hour shifts Monday to Friday as a factory worker. He has arranged for counselling with a former coach and mentor. He was raised attending Longhouse and following Haudenosaunee teachings, which continue to guide him.
78D.D.’s evidence included pictures of injuries and text messages from B.F. The texts are indicative of a high conflict immature relationship. No dates or specifics are provided.
79D.D. has been charged with assault, assault with a weapon, utter threats, assault-choke, suffocate, mischief under $5,000 and sexual assault. The release order is attached to B.F.’s affidavit. D.D. does not address the May 29, 2026 incident or the charges.
80D.D. supported C.D. being in the care of his mother, S.D.
81S.D. provided an affidavit. She expressed that S.D. and other family members have been a support for both parents in their care of C.D. She speaks of the importance of C.D. being connected to his culture and language.
82She indicates that B.F. has been unreliable in her care of C.D. since April 2026. She asserts that B.F. has disappeared three times, once for a weekend in March, once at the end of March, and for a week in April after receiving $1,700. S.D. asserts that B.F. was quick to anger and would put D.D. down when angry. S.D. was a support to the parents and was willing and able to care for C.D., and was relied upon by B.F. S.D. is prepared to care for C.D. and to support D.D. in caring for C.D.
83Her evidence included a support letter from a long-time friend and Gladue writer Cheyenne Williams.
B.F.’s Plan
84B.F. provided an affidavit for June 10, 2026 with the assistance of duty counsel and her OCL counsel.
85B.F.’s plan of care focuses on providing a safe, stable, and supported environment for C.D. with herself as his primary caregiver. B.F. states that she has been C.D.’s primary caregiver since birth, responsible for feeding, bathing, and meeting his daily needs. She is currently living in a shelter to ensure safety following the violence from the father. She has applied for longer‑term housing and is working toward stable accommodation. B.F. relies on a network of supports, including shelter staff, a counsellor, victim services, her family doctor, and community services. These supports assist her in meeting both her own needs and C.D.’s needs.
86B.F. ensures C.D. receives regular medical care from his family doctor and has sought medical attention when he was unwell. No professionals have raised concerns about her care. She also states that the claim of the paternal grandmother that C.D. does not have a family doctor is incorrect.
87B.F. has obtained necessary supplies for C.D., including a car seat, diapers, and other essentials, with assistance from the shelter when needed.
88B.F. emphasizes that C.D. should be protected from exposure to the father’s violence, instability, and alleged substance use. She proposes that any contact between the father and C.D. should be supervised. Her evidence includes her concerns that D.D. has returned to drug use. She would not agree to date him until he stopped using and he did so. She is concerned that his recent behaviour is indicative of a resumption.
89B.F. denies allegations regarding her mental health and parenting ability. She notes that multiple healthcare professionals, including hospital staff and her child’s family doctor, have had no concerns about her care of C.D. B.F. explains that she has supports in place, including shelter staff and a counsellor, and that the agency did not inquire about what supports she required. She states that she obtained necessary supplies for C.D. through the shelter after being denied access to items by the paternal grandmother on the advice of Ogwadeni:deo staff. There was no opportunity for this assertion to be replied to, but if true, would not be in C.D.’s best interests.
90B.F.’s evidence includes a letter of support from the Court Advocate for Indigenous Victim Services, Six Nations Justice Department.
91A letter from Ganohkwasra confirms that B.F. is a resident of the shelter. Program areas available to B.F. during her shelter are:
1 Life Skills - time management, anger solutions, healthy coping, self-esteem building, healthy communication, and healthy nutrition.
2 Family violence education - including the cycle of violence, power and control, family violence and the effects, types of abuse, safety planning, grief and loss
3 Reality Therapy/Choice Therapy- dealing with basic needs, understanding quality world, real world, total behaviour, choices and connecting or disconnecting behaviours
Along with group programming, shelter residents complete a plan of care every ten days to ensure their shortterm goals are being met for their healing. In addition, B.F. is encouraged to continue to meet with counsellors for one-to-one sessions with the focus being: addictions, coping skills, and traditional teachings. Shelter staff have provided the resident with a baby stroller, diaper formula, car seat, and a playpen. Shelter Staff have no concerns about the resident's parenting skills and behaviour; we have seen an attentive and loving mother.
92B.F. provided a letter of support from her probation officer. There have been a number of probation orders from October 2023 to March 2026. During supervision, .B.F. reported, as directed, but had transportation challenges at times. She attended for counselling on a regular basis at Ganohkwasra Family Assault Support Services and continued to, do so upon closing, All of her conditions were completed.
93B.F. provided a letter of support from Ganohkwasra Child and Youth Community Counsellor and Supervisor which confirmed that B.F. has attended 65 counselling sessions since March 8, 2023. She has participated in education and skill-building related to family violence prevention, safety planning, coping strategies, emotional regulation and anger management. The letter noted that B.F. has brought her son to sessions and has been observed to be respond attentively and appropriately to her son's needs. She demonstrates patience. care, and an awareness of his well-being during our sessions.
94I find that B.F.’s plan provides for stable care for C.D. She is residing at the shelter and is accessing the supports available. While both parents are young, I find that it is in C.D.’s best interests to be in his mother’s care, subject to supervision. On the record before me, she is attentive and responsive to his needs. S.D. confirmed that C.D. was in B.F.’s care, at least Monday to Friday 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m..
95With respect to access for D.D., at this time, I will order that he have access at the discretion of Ogwadeni:deo, at a minimum of twice per week. He shall be present at all times during his parenting time. Unsupervised access should not be considered until a PARS program has been started or equivalent individual counselling.
96I find that placement with B.F. is consistent with the Federal Act. Bill C-92: Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families (“The Federal Act”), came into effect on January 1, 2020.
Placement of Indigenous Child:
Priority
16 (1) The placement of an Indigenous child in the context of providing child and family services in relation to the child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, is to occur in the following order of priority:
(a) with one of the child’s parents;
(b) with another adult member of the child’s family;
(c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child;
(d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs; or
(e) with any other adult.
97D.D.’s release conditions include: “Do not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: B.F. and C.D. EXCEPT in respect to C.D. – with the express written consent of the Ogwadeni'deo Child and Family Services
98The usual condition of no communication except pursuant to a family court order after this date is not included.
99It may be that if the parenting schedule is organized and agreed to between the parents through a third-party communicator, and counselling has occurred for both parents with respect to domestic violence, a supervision order may not be necessary. The release terms would need to be amended to include a provision for such contact.
100I find that .S.D. may be removed as a party. D.D. and B.F. are the parents of C.D. There is no need to consider placement of C.D. with his grandmother.
101If needed, a motion may be brought for police records.
ORDER
1 On a Temporary basis, the child C.D. born […], 2025 shall be placed in the custody of the Respondent B.F. subject to the supervision of Ogwadeni:deo.
2 On a temporary without prejudice basis, the Respondent .D.D. shall have access in the discretion of Ogwadeni:deo as to time, location, level of supervision, and duration at a minimum of twice per week. He shall be present at all times during his access. Unsupervised access should not be considered until a PARS program has been started or equivalent individual counselling.
3 B.F.
B.F. shall work in a cooperative manner with Ogwadeni:deo and shall take directions from the Support Team Member and meet with the Support Team Member as scheduled.
B.F. shall meet with the Support Team Member, on a scheduled and unscheduled basis and shall permit the Support Team Member to attend to her home for scheduled and unscheduled visits.
B.F. shall attend further services, as deemed necessary by Ogwadenideo, and to be provided in writing which includes:
(a) a Healthy Babies parenting program or similar program which shall be communicated in writing.
B.F. needs to keep in contact with Support Team Member on a minimum of monthly home visits.
B.F. shall advise Ogwadenideo of any change of address or telephone number at least five (5) days before the change taking place.
B.F. shall abstain from using alcohol/drugs for twelve hours prior to any time with the child.
4 D.D.
D.D. shall work in a cooperative manner with Ogwadenideo and shall take directions from the Support Team Member and meet with the Support Team Member as scheduled.
D.D. shall meet with the Support Team Member, on a scheduled and unscheduled basis and shall permit the Support Team Member to attend to their homes for scheduled and unscheduled visits.
D.D. shall attend further services, as deemed necessary by Ogwadenideo, and to be provided in writing which includes:
(a) a Healthy Babies parenting program or similar program which shall be communicated in writing.
(b) a Caring Dads parenting program.
(c) A PAR program or equivalent individual counselling
D.D. needs to keep in contact with Support Team Member on a minimum of monthly home visits.
D.D. shall advise Ogwadenideo of any change of address or telephone number at least five (5) days before the change taking place.
D.D. shall abstain from using alcohol/drugs for twelve hours prior to any time with the child.
5 The Respondent S.D. shall be removed as a party.
6 The Respondents shall have until August 17, 2026 to serve and file Answers and Plans of Care.
7 This matter is adjourned to September 1, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. To be spoken to by zoom and in person, Courtroom #4.
Released: June 15, 2026
Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley