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 NO. 24-45632
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Jodi Kaiman, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and –
C.H.
Self-Represented
RESPONDENT MOTHER
HEARD: February 25, 2026
JUSTICE J. HARRIS
1This protection application was scheduled for a Motion today, specifically the return of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto temporary care and custody motion, dated January 23, 2026, originally returnable on January 26, 2026.
2On January 26, 2026, at the place of safety hearing temporary without prejudice orders were made.
3The Children's Aid Society of Toronto relies on the Affidavit of the Family Services Worker, Lisa Leimonis, sworn January 23, 2026.
4On February 6, 2026, the Mother was served with the Protection Application, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto’s Plan of Care and the Children's Aid Society of Toronto’s motion materials.
5The Mother filed an Answer and Plan of Care on February 24, 2026.
6The Mother relies on her Affidavit sworn/affirmed on February 23, 2026. The Mother also provided the following letters to the court on February 26, 2026, which the CAST consent to the court receiving:
[a] Dr. Alessia Gallipoli, neonatologist from St. Michael’s Hospital, undated.
[b] Jasmine Saleh, Social Worker from St. Michael’s Hospital, undated
[c] Katy Leroux, from the Jean Tweed Centre, dated February 17, 2026.
[d] Dr. Erin Lurie, from Sumac Creek Health Centre, dated February 17, 2026.
7The CAST submitted that the Mother’s affidavit was served late and sought either an adjournment, or alternatively to hold the matter down while the CAST worker finalized a Reply affidavit. The court permitted the CAST time to complete, serve and file their Reply affidavit.
IS THE CHILD FIRST NATION, INUK, OR MÉTIS?
8Prior to the commencement of the temporary care and custody hearing, the court asked whether the Child was First Nation or Métis?
9The Application, filed January 23, 2026, states “No” to this question; however, the Child’s half-maternal sibling was found to be a First Nation, Inuk or Métis child on January 14, 2026, through a maternal great uncle and there was reference to the First Nation community, although this was not identified as the sibling’s First Nation community.
10The Mother indicated at the hearing that the Child is First Nation and that she identifies as First Nation and she explained various potential connections through her biological and adoptive families. The Mother submitted that she had previously wanted services from an Indigenous Child Protection agency. The Mother submitted that she wants to reconnect with her Indigenous ancestry.
11Counsel for the CAST submitted that the Child’s Indigenous status was “overlooked” in the rushed circumstances of the Child’s premature birth and the preparation of the court materials. Counsel for CAST also indicated that a community could not be named for the sibling but confirmed that the sibling was found to be Indigenous. Finally, counsel for the CAST also confirmed that the Mother had requested an Indigenous agency for services prior to the sibling’s matter being involved in court; however, Native Child and Family Services reportedly declined to provide services.
12The court was very concerned to hear these submissions.
13While there may have been a rush to issue the application initially, which the court does not accept as a valid excuse for missing something as fundamental as a Child’s First Nation, Inuk or Métis identity, but several weeks have now passed and the CAST did not amend the Application.
14The CAST did not seem aware that the Child was Indigenous until the court raised it.
15At the hearing, counsel for the CAST indicated that efforts would be made to find a foster home that has completed the Heart and Spirit training, as the current selected foster home may not have that training.
16The matter was being held down for the CAST to file a Reply affidavit and the court asked whether the Mother would like to speak with Aboriginal Legal Services, if someone could join the hearing by ZOOM. The Mother indicated she would. The matter was held down to invite Aboriginal Legal Services (“ALS”) to join virtually. Two workers from ALS were able to join virtually, but unfortunately ALS counsel was not available.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IDENTIFYING THAT A CHILD IS INDIGENOUS
17The law has long recognized the “extensive legislative safeguards” and “special protections” for First Nation, Inuit and Métis Children, under the CYFSA (formerly the CFSA), which apply at every stage of child protection intervention, from the provision of voluntary services to the process of adoption planning: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v G.H., T.V. and Eastern Woodlands Métis of Nova Scotia, 2016 ONSC 6287 at 26, cited in Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. E.M.E.E., 2017 ONSC 5292 and at 35.
18In Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. C.R., 2017 ONCJ 440 at paragraphs 28 to 30, Justice Cohen noted the “profound significance” of identify a Child as First Nations, Inuit, and Métis status under the CFSA, as follows:
28The CFSA contains numerous provisions relating to Indian and Native children. These provisions form a distinct component of the structure of the CFSA, and create specific obligations binding the society and the Court. The following are some salient examples. The CFSA:
Recognizes that Indian and Native people should be entitled to provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services, and that all services to Indian and Native children and families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage and traditions and the concept of the extended family;
Makes the Band a party in any proceeding, and requires the society to give written notice of its intention to place a child for adoption to the band or Native community representative, and the band or community is then entitled to prepare and submit its own plan for the care of the child to the Society;
Requires that a court making a best interest determination for an Indian or Native child take into consideration “the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and Native culture, heritage and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity”;
Requires that unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child with, a member of the child’s extended family, a member of the child’s band or native community or another Indian or Native family;
Requires the society to place Indian or Native children made society or crown wards with a member of the child’s extended family, a member of the child’s band or Native community or another Indian or Native family, if possible;
Requires the society where an Indian or Native child is made a Crown ward, to make all reasonable efforts to assist the child to develop a positive, secure and enduring relationship within a family through a plan for customary care;
Requires the society to regularly consult with their Bands or Native communities about the provision of the services or the exercise of the powers and about matters affecting the children…
29It is manifest in these and other provisions that the CFSA presumes that an Indigenous child’s best interests lie within Indigenous families and communities, and that Indigenous families and communities should be considered the primary source of care for Indigenous children.
30Understood purposively (and historically), compliance with the legislative requirements is necessary to protect Indigenous children and families. These sections may be understood as a bulwark against a repetition of the notorious child removal and adoption practices affecting Indigenous families known as the “sixties scoop.”
31The sixties scoop was described by Belobaba, J. in Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 251 at Paragraphs. 5-7:
There is no dispute about the fact that thousands of Aboriginal children living on reserves in Ontario were apprehended and removed from their families by provincial child welfare authorities over the course of the class period – from 1965 to 1984 – and were placed in non-Aboriginal foster homes or adopted by non-Aboriginal parents.
There is also no dispute about the fact that great harm was done. The “scooped” children lost contact with their families. They lost their Aboriginal language, culture and identity. Neither the children nor their foster or adoptive parents were given information about the children’s Aboriginal heritage or about the various educational and other benefits that they were entitled to receive. The removed children vanished “with scarcely a trace.” As a former Chief of the Chippewas Nawash put it: “[i]t was a tragedy. They just disappeared.”
The impact on the removed Aboriginal children has been described as “horrendous, destructive, devastating and tragic.” The uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff’s experts is that the loss of their Aboriginal identity left the children fundamentally disoriented, with a reduced ability to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The loss of aboriginal identity resulted in psychiatric disorders, substance abuse, unemployment, violence and numerous suicides…
32Determining whether a child is “Indian” or “Native” is therefore a matter of profound significance in Ontario’s child protection statute. If an Indigenous child is not so found, what would otherwise be the child’s right to the multiple protections under the Act is reduced to a privilege to be exercised at the discretion of a society.
19In Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. S.G., [2018] ONCJ 958, Justice Kathleen Baker wrote the following applying the provisions of the CYFSA:
a) The early determination of whether a child is First Nation and the appropriate native community is a particular priority for a number of reasons. First, it triggers an obligation by the Society to meet the child's cultural needs. Second, if there is an identifiable native community, that community is a party to the proceeding and service is required (paragraph 35).
b) It is now widely recognized that the "Sixties Scoop" perpetuated an injustice on Aboriginal communities, families and children. That was a significant driver to the amendments of the governing legislation that require early identification, participation of native communities in proceedings and priority for placements of First Nation, Inuk and Métis children that are congruent with the child's heritage (paragraph 44).
c) As a society, we have to be vigilant that these protections have not been legislated for naught. It is the court's hope that all involved will consider what transpired in this case and immediately put into place measures to ensure that necessary training and protocols are reviewed and updated to ensure that these requirements are met in every case (paragraph 45).
20In CCAS v. M.P. et al., 2021 ONSC 6788 at paragraph 35, Justice Cohen discussed the rationale, and the significance of the First Nation, Inuk and Métis finding as follows:
35... There is little dispute that child protection proceedings have historically had and, in present-day, continue to have a disproportionately negative impact upon Indigenous families. The lasting legacy of racist laws, policies, and initiatives, including but not limited to the residential school and the ‘Sixties-Scoop’ experiences, have evolved into a child welfare system where Indigenous families are grossly over-represented in child protection proceedings and Indigenous children are disproportionately placed in foster care: see the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015) at pages 138-139.
… Sadly, the complex consequences of this intergenerational trauma: prevalence of poverty, mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence and involvement in the criminal justice system - to name but a few - are regular features of a typical daily child protection docket in Ontario family courts.
21Most recently, once the determination is made that a Child is First Nation, Inuk or Métis, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (the “Federal Act") applies.
22The Federal Act was specifically proclaimed to address the provision of services to Indigenous children and their families involved in the child welfare system. As federal legislation it has paramountcy over the CYFSA if the CYFSA is inconsistent with the Federal Act. The Federal Act also applies if it addresses issues not covered in the CYFSA or is more robust.
23Justice Wolfe held in Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services v. J.M., 2023, ONCJ 93, at paragraph 5, also cited in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. T.C and K.J., 2025 ONSC 3633 at paragraphs 37-40:
6For reasons that follow, I find that An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (Federal Act) applies and alters the method of analysis at s. 94 hearings under the CYFSA given its paramountcy over provincial legislation. This method of analysis starts with the national standards as set out in sections 10 through 17 of the Federal Act, requiring first consideration of the parents, and so on, as set out in s. 16 as opposed to the person who had charge prior to the intervention as set out in the CYFSA. Further, to the extent that there is any conflict, best interests must be understood in accordance with the definition set out in s.10 of the remedial Federal Act, read mindful of its purpose and intent.
24The Federal Act has provisions with respect to the best interests of Indigenous children guiding decisions and actions related to child apprehension as well as placement of Indigenous children, which are more robust than the provision of the CYFSA and therefore apply to this motion. Those sections of the Federal Act that augment the best interests test and are more robust than the provisions of the CYFSA apply to this motion.
TEMPORARY CARE AND CUSTODY MOTION
25Section 10 of the Federal Act states:
10(1) The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or the taking of actions in the context of the provision of child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child and, in the case of decisions or actions related to child apprehension, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration. (Emphasis is added).
10(2) When the factors referred to in subsection (3) are being considered, primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.
(3) To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child must be considered, including
(a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage.
(b) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability.
(c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with his or her parent, the care provider and any member of his or her family who plays an important role in his or her life.
(d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs.
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.
(f) any plans for the child’s care, including care in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs.
(g) any family violence and its impact on the child, including whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to family violence as well as the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; and
(h) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.
26Section 16 of the Federal Act provides a priority of placement for Indigenous children as follows:
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.
(2) When the order of priority set out in subsection (1) is applied, the possibility of placing the child with or near children who have the same parent as the child, or who are otherwise members of the child’s family, must be considered in the determination of whether a placement would be consistent with the best interests of the child.
(2.1) The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples such as with regards to customary adoption.
(3) In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, there must be a reassessment, conducted on an ongoing basis, of whether it would be appropriate to place the child with
(a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), if the child does not reside with such a person; or
(b) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(b), if the child does not reside with such a person and unless the child resides with a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a).
27Sections 10 and 16 of the Federal Act must be considered on a temporary care and custody motion of an Indigenous Child: SMCYFS v. S.H., 2022 ONSC 1868 at paragraphs 44; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. T.C and K.J., 2025 ONSC 3633 at paragraphs 33 to 36.
28Subsection 94(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) sets out the test the court is to consider when making an order placing the Children into the temporary care of a children’s aid society or another person.
29The available temporary orders the court can make during the adjournment of a protection application are set out in subsections 94 (2) and (6) of the CYFSA which state, as follows:
94 (2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part.
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
Terms and conditions in order
94 (6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2) (b) or (c) may impose,
(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision.
(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child’s parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and
(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.
30Subsection 94(10) permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence: Jewish Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227 at paragraph 18; CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. S.S.H., 2019 ONSC 5365.
31First, the onus is on the CAST to establish that there is credible and trustworthy evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the Children remain with the Mother, it is more probable than not that the Children will suffer harm.
32Second, the CAST must establish that the Children cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of a temporary supervision order.
General Principles Applicable to Temporary Care and Custody Motions
33The court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child as required by subsection 1(2) of the CYFSA: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
34The degree of intrusiveness of the CAST’s intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.O., 2012 ONCJ 269.
35The Ontario Divisional Court held that a children’s aid society seeking an order for temporary society care at this early stage of a case has only to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention: L.D. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., 2005 CanLII 63827 (ON SCDC).
36The burden on the CAST at this stage does not go as high as showing that on the balance of probabilities there is an actual risk to the child in the parent’s care: CCAS of Toronto v. M.L.R. 2011 ONCJ 652; The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.G., 2021 ONSC 2260.
EVIDENCE FROM THE CAST
37The paternity of the Child remains unknown.
38The Mother has an older son who is not in her care currently and resides with his maternal uncle. The maternal uncle is not currently in the position to also care for the Child.
39The Child was brought to a place of safety on January 20, 2026, due to the CAST having concerns about the Mother’s alleged ongoing and long-standing substance use and instability.
40The CAST has been providing services to the Mother since September 27, 2021, when a social worker from Centenary Hospital reported that the Mother was brought to the hospital by ambulance following “an overdose of pills and alcohol.”
41The CAST evidence is that the Mother “has a diagnosis of depression, bipolar disorder, and manic behaviours.”
42In 2022, the Mother was connected with the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
43On January 23, 2023, the CAST received a report from a shelter worker at “the family shelter” where the Mother was residing with the older sibling. The shelter worker reported that the Mother presented as highly intoxicated and the suspicion was that the Mother was using crack/meth based on the smell of the smoke and the Mother’s presentation. The Child was unsupervised and playing with other children in the hallway on a different floor.
44Between December 2023 and May 2024, the Mother was reportedly stable without any reported concerns. The CAST continues to provide services on a voluntary basis. The Mother continues to have support from CMHA until they closed their file on May 15, 2024.
45On May 24, 2024, the sibling’s father reported his worries about the Mother using drugs and alcohol, which the Mother subsequently confirmed.
46In July 2024, the Mother advised the CAST that she had been accepted to Homestead and would start treatment on July 4, 2024. However, by July 15, 2024, the Mother had discharged herself from treatment because she was uncomfortable and did not feel supported. The Mother intended on following up with Jean Tweed for their day program or one-to-one counselling.
47On September 18, 2024, the sibling’s father again reported the Mother was using, specifically cocaine. The Mother agreed that the sibling be placed with her brother, the maternal uncle, and he has been residing there since.
48The Family Services Worker’s affidavit, sworn January 23, 2026, incorrectly states at paragraph 15 that the sibling has been residing with the sibling’s father.
49In March 2025, the Mother reported to the CAST that she intended to complete “detox to mitigate her cocaine use.” By March 17, 2025, the Maternal Uncle reported that the Mother had completed 5 days of detox.
50By April 2025, the Mother reported that she attended the Women’s Own detox program but did not complete the program and she was still using but planned to reattend on April 18, 2025. She was willing to connect with ongoing treatment support. The Mother also reported that she was on the waitlist to receive services from Renascent Addiction Treatment Centre and agreed to sign consents.
51The Mother also reported that she was taking Abilify and other medication to regulate her Bipolar Disorder and ADHD and was being seen by Dr. David Greenberg.
52During May-October 2025, the Mother’s access with the sibling was cancelled by the Mother or she did not attend at times, and the access did not progress from fully supervised. However, when the Mother did attend the access visits were, for the most part, very positive. The sibling is attached to his Mother.
53By August 15, 2025, the Mother reported she was homeless and residing in Durham region and provided a new phone number.
54On August 22, 2025, the Mother disclosed her pregnancy and stated that she would be entering treatment.
55By October 2025 the Mother had entered treatment at Pinewood Women’s Residential Centre and was participating in an Umbrella Program and provided the name of her worker.
56By November 2025 the Mother had moved into a long-term women’s shelter in Bowmanville and was requesting access with the sibling.
57On November 21, 2025, a supervised access visit occurred with the Mother and sibling. The sibling was affectionate and emotionally attached to his Mother.
58After this visit, a shelter worker reported that the Mother had disclosed using drugs and regretting it and expressing that she wanted further treatment.
59By mid-December 2025, the Mother was on several waiting lists for several detox programs. On December 19, 2025, the Mother reported that she would be entering treatment at Renascent on December 29, 2025, with an anticipated stay of 30-45 days.
60On December 21, 2025, the Mother withdrew consent for the former CAST worker to speak with collaterals.
61On January 8, 2026, the maternal uncle reported that the Mother did not attend her admission date with Renascent on December 29, 2025.
62On January 15, 2026, a social worker from St. Michael’s hospital contacted the CAST and reported that the Mother’s labour had started, and the Child would arrive prematurely at 31 weeks. The Mother had been open about her drug use and struggles during pregnancy. The Mother had received limited prenatal care.
63On January 16, 2026, the family services worker met with the Mother. The Mother reiterated her intention of getting into a treatment program and making a change in her life. The Mother stated that she had last used on January 14, 2026, and had used over the holidays and in early January 2026.
64On January 18, 2026, the Child was born.
65On January 19, 2026, the CAST was notified that the Child had been born the previous day, and the CAST sought a warrant for the Child’s removal, which was granted.
66On January 20, 2026, the Mother explained that a referral had been made for a day treatment program that runs out of St. Michael’s hospital and she was referred for supports to Breaking the Cycle through Mothercraft. Dr. Erin Laurie will make a referral for psychiatric services. The Mother confirmed that she went to Pinewood for treatment and was discharged on October 31, 2025, and relapsed in early December 2025. The Mother had a visit with the sibling from December 25-27, 2025, and the Mother used after that visit. The Mother admitted using again in early January 2026 and on January 14, 2026.
67The warrant was executed on January 21, 2026. The CAST was exploring a kinship placement with the Maternal Uncle.
68The CAST did not observe the Mother caring for the Child in the hospital but received reports from the St. Michael’s social worker that the Mother was attending daily.
69On January 30, 2026, the Mother shared she has a new partner, A.C.M., who is Spanish-speaking.
70On February 5, 2025, the Mother outlined in an email to the worker her support as follows:
i. Monday- Breaking the Cycle 12:30- 3:00 pm
ii. Tuesday – St Michael’s day treatment program
iii. Wednesday at 11 a.m. – Dr. Erin Lurie
iv. Thursday – St. Michael’s day treatment program
v. Friday – no programs as the Mother has access with the sibling.
71On February 6, 2026, the CAST became aware of a program offered at Palmerston House from the St. Michael’s social worker.
72On February 6, 2026, the Mother had an access visit with the sibling. This visit was positive. The Family Services Worker’s affidavit, sworn February 25, 2026, states that this was the first access visit since November 21, 2025. The Mother also visited with the sibling in late December for his birthday.
73On February 11, 2026, the CAST reports that the staff at St. Michael’s hospital did not have concerns about the Mother being under the influences of substances while visiting the Child on a daily basis.
74On February 12, 2026, a virtual meeting was held with the family services worker, and her supervisor, the social worker from St. Michael’s hospital, Katy Leroux from Palmerston House and two other employees of Palmerston house. The Mother did not participate in this meeting for reasons that were not explained.
75On February 20, 2026, the Mother had an access visit with the sibling. Positive interactions were observed. The Mother was observed to be tired and explained she needed to fill her prescription medication, Vyvanse, and would do so after the visit.
EVIDENCE FROM THE MOTHER
76The Mother acknowledges that she has long-standing struggles with addiction.
77She proposes a placement at Jean Tweed’s Palmerston House live-in residential program, which has “strict safety measures in place such as 24/7 staff supervision, curfew” and she would be subject to random urine drug screens at the discretion of staff.
78The Mother stated that she attended day treatment through St. Micheal’s hospital, and it helped her understand her triggers and trauma behind substance use.
79The Mother also stated that she would meet with Dr. Erin Laurie at St. Michael’s hospital.
80The Mother provided a support letter, undated, from Dr. Alessia Gallipoli, which stated among other things:
I am a Neonatologist at St Michael's Hospital and have been involved in the care of baby [the Child], in an on-call capacity since birth and as the Most Responsible Physician in the NICU from February 9-13, 2026.
During my time participating in his care, the care team has described his mother, [the Mother], as being consistently very engaged in his care. She visits daily and participates in his routine care, including feeding, diaper changes and baths. The team describes that she is very appropriate in her interactions with baby and staff and they have voiced no concerns.
Her consistent presence and engagement in baby's care is an important aspect of our Family Centred Care philosophy, which has short- and long-term benefits for both babies and families.
81The Mother also provided a letter, dated January 17, 2026, from Katy Leroux, a case manager at The Jean Tweed Centre, which explained the available placement.
82The Mother provided a letter, dated February 17, 2026, from Dr. Erin Lurie, which confirms she has been treating the Mother since December 2025, the Mother’s diagnoses, recommended treatment as well as Dr. Lurie’s willingness to work with the Mother once a week with the Child.
83The Mother provided a letter, undated, from Jasmine Saleh, the social worker at St. Michael’s Hospital, that states, among other things:
Throughout the time I have worked with her, [the Mother] has demonstrated consistent dedication to her child's well-being. Notably, during her child's admission in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at St. Michael's Hospital, she maintained frequent and meaningful visitation, actively participating in [the Child’s] medical care. She made deliberate efforts to be present, participate in care, and remain informed about her child's medical needs and progress. Her commitment during this critical early period reflects a strong sense of parental responsibility and attachment.
In addition, [the Mother] has shown meaningful engagement in addiction and recovery-based supports. She is actively participating in the following recovery-based supports while balancing her time visiting her son in the NICU: Mothercraft/Breaking the Cycle, St. Michael's Hospital-day treatment program and meets with her addictions provider on an ongoing basis. Her involvement in these supports reflects a clear understanding of the importance of her recovery from substance use, and the importance in providing a stable and nurturing environment for her child.
EVIDENCE FROM THE CASE MANAGER AT JEAN TWEED
84Ms. Leroux provided testimony at the motion and explained that the Mother could reside at Palmerston House for up to six months while the Child transition back to her care
85Ms. Leroux also stated that their workers can supervise two access visits per week for the Mother and the Child.
86Despite having a virtual meeting with Palmerston House previously, the CAST appeared to be unaware of these important services.
CHILD’S WELLBEING
87The Child remains at St. Michael’s hospital and is scheduled to be released tomorrow.
88The Child has no special needs beyond the average needs of an infant. The Child is not on a feeding tube and does not have any symptoms of withdrawal. The Child was having regular wet diapers and bowel movements. The Child is gaining weight.
89The Child was visited daily by the Mother while in the hospital.
90The CAST evidence was that the children’s services worker attended on February 11, 2026. No other visits are included. The Mother was present that day.
ANALYSIS
Does credible and trustworthy evidence establish that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the Child remains with the Mother, it is more probable than not that the Child will suffer harm?
91Yes. The credible and trustworthy evidence establishes that there is a real possibility that if the Child remained with the Mother, it is more probably than not that the Child will suffer harm.
92The reasons for this are primarily the Child’s very young age, constant need for care and the Mother’s long-standing struggles with addiction and drug use as recently as January 14, 2026.
93Overcoming long standing addiction issues is difficult and the Mother has taken all the right steps.
94As a result, the Mother has made significant progress and was strongly encouraged by the court to reside at Palmerston House, maintain sobriety, receive treatment, attend all access visits and continue to work transparently with the CAST.
Second, has the CAST established that the Child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of a temporary supervision order?
95Yes, the CAST has established that the Child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of a temporary supervision order.
96A supervision order would not be sufficient to ensure such a young child’s safety and protection from harm because of the unpredictable nature of the Mother’s substance misuse, potential for relapse, and the clear impact of substance misuse on parenting.
97An infant requires near constant care by an attentive and sober caregiver.
98Supervision terms cannot adequately ensure the Child will have a constant sober caregiver as the Mother is in her very early stages of recovery.
99The Mother is doing very well currently. She will need to maintain this level of sobriety and engagement.
100The Mother has many strengths. The Mother is help-seeking, and transparent about her use. Her instrumental caregiving is very strong, and she is highly motivated to care for her children.
101The Mother’s progress over the few weeks is admirable and now she must sustain it. As well, the CAST must work with the Mother providing her tangible culturally appropriate support.
Priority of Placement and the Federal Act
102The court has considered the Federal Act, the best interests of an Indigenous Child and at this time is still making the order for temporary care.
103The court is very concerned about the Children's Aid Society of Toronto approach to this Indigenous Child and his Indigenous Mother. The family’s Indigenous heritage was completely overlooked, ignored and culturally appropriate services were never offered.
104The lack of appropriate services impacted on the Mother’s ability to plan for her Child. A healing lodge (for example Thunder Woman Healing Lodge) might have been otherwise available to her to attend with her Child.
105The CAST has statutory obligation to provide culturally appropriate services particularly to Indigenous children and their families and failed to do so in this matter.
106The CAST’s approach to the Mother appears to lack an open-minded willingness to support her recovery. The CAST was concerned that the Mother had not developed community support and was relying only on professional ones. However, few, if any services were offered by the CAST to the Mother, and the CAST did not assist the Mother to connect with Indigenous services. The Mother developed her own plan of care with the assistance of St. Michael’s hospital.
ACCESS
107The court is ordering substantial access given the progress the Mother has made and the support she has in place.
108The Mother has been involved daily with the Child’s care and should continue to have significant access with the Child.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
109The Mother will provide the full legal names and dates of birth for her family members, and the CAST shall write to Indigenous Services Canada to obtain further information about the Child’s Indigenous connections.
110The Children's Aid Society of Toronto states in its Plan of Care, date January 23, 2025, the following expectation that the Mother would need to carry out before it would feel that Society care is no longer needed:
a) [The Mother] shall maintain regular and ongoing contact with the Society workers, including in person meetings, to work on addressing the protection concerns.
b) [The Mother] shall sign consents for the Society to speak with any third-party service providers that she is involved with, as reasonably requested by the Society. For example, the family doctor, psychiatrist, and other relevant service providers.
c) [The Mother] shall engage with voluntary mental health and addiction supports, including but not limited to CAMH, Jean Tweed, or other services approved by the Society.
d) [The Mother] shall follow the medication recommendations made by her family doctor and psychiatrist to manage her mental health diagnoses.
e) [The Mother] shall assume responsibility of taking her medications on time, and as directed by her doctors.
f) [The Mother] shall demonstrate ongoing engagement and completion of mental health and addiction programs.
g) [The Mother’s] visits with [the Child] shall take place at the Society office until she has demonstrated a 3-month period of engagement and follow through with mental health and addiction supports.
111The Mother is working on these expectations and has achieved many of them and is encouraged to continue to do so.
112The CAST indicated that if the Mother continues the progress that she has been making over the last few weeks, the CAST may bring a motion to have the Child placed with the Mother at Palmerston House.
113Pursuant to Rule 33(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 the child protection timetable is lengthened in the Child's best interests.
114The matter has been adjourned within 30 days in accordance with section 94(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1.
ORDERS
115The following orders are made today:
On a temporary basis:
[i] Order to go in accordance with the Children's Aid Society of Toronto’s Notice of Motion, dated January 23, 2026, with the addition at paragraph 2 as follows: access shall be at a minimum of four visits per week as long as the Mother is residing at Palmerston House. Additionally, the Mother shall be invited to attend the Child’s discharge from the hospital, medical appointments and be informed about the Child’s medical and other wellbeing.
d) The Children's Aid Society of Toronto shall ensure that culturally approach services and support are offered to the Child and the Mother.
e) The Children's Aid Society of Toronto shall contact Native Child and Family Services to receive information about supporting Indigenous people with reconnecting with their Indigenous community, and to determine whether a file transfer would be appropriate on consent.
f) The matter is adjourned to a Case Conference on March 13, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. IN-PERSON before Justice Sherr. If counsel from Aboriginal Legal Services has been engaged, they may attend by ZOOM – link set out below.
g) Parties shall file Form 17F Confirmations of Conference pursuant Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to Children's Aid Society of Toronto, and the Respondent Mother.
Justice J. Harris
Formatted and amended slightly for release: March 12, 2026.