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:
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Applicant
— AND —
K.C. J.D. R.V. W.D. Six Nations of the Grand River Respondents
Before Justice S. E. J. Paull
Trial Heard on June 22-26, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on July 23, 2026
Danielle Lapare..................................................................................... counsel for the applicant K.C...................................................................................................................... on her own behalf J.D....................................................................................................................... on his own behalf R.V...................................................................................................................... on her own behalf W.D..................................................................................................................... on his own behalf Jennifer Johnson (Band Representative)………………………Six Nations of the Grand River
PAULL J.:
1The court heard the trial of the status review application where the Society seeks a further period of supervision with the paternal grandparents. However, the applicant would be agreeable to terminate the supervision order if the grandparents obtained a section 102(1) custody order with access to the parents supervised and at the grandparents’ discretion.
2The children in this matter are J.J.W.D., born […], 2020, and J.J.D., born […], 2021.
3J.D., the father of the children, agrees with a section 102(1) order in favour of his parents.
4K.C., the mother of the children, seeks a return of the children to her care or alternatively expanded and unsupervised access.
5R.V. and W.D., are the parents of J.D., and the paternal grandparents and kin caregivers of J.J.W.D. and J.J.D.. They seek a section 102(1) custody order with access to the parents, supervised in their discretion.
6The children have been identified as First Nations children under section 90(2) of the CYFSA. J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. are members of the Bay of Quinte Mohawks of the Six Nations Territory through the paternal grandmother. Six Nations of the Grand River participated in this proceeding and support the grandparents obtaining custody.
7K.C. has another child, J.M., born […], 2016, who is not the subject of this status review application. J.M.’s father is A.M.. J.M. was the subject of the original protection application. However, on December 3, 2024, the court made a finding that J.M. continued to be a child in need of protection and made a final order placing J.M. in the sole custody of A.M., pursuant to section 102(1), with access to K.C. a minimum of one time per month, as arranged with A.M., and supervised in his discretion, by an agreed-upon supervisor or by a third party agency such as Merrymount Family and Crisis Centre, with a condition that her partner, M.S. have no contact with J.M..
8K.C. recently gave birth to another child, Jas., on March 30, 2026, who is not the subject of this application.
9The order under review is the final order of November 20, 2024 which found that the children continued to be at risk of harm and placed them in the care of the grandparents pursuant to a supervision order with access to the parents.
10This order was made on the basis of a Statement of Agreed Facts, as was the earlier final order of May 22, 2024 which also found the children in need of protection and placed them in the joint care of the father and the grandparents.
The Law
11Each status review application is a discrete application from each prior protection or status review application. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.P.I., 2023 ONCJ 289.
12In C.A.S. v. M.W. and M.S, 2020 ONSC 1847, Madsen J. succinctly summarizes the law on status review applications and the treatment of agreed statement of facts as follows:
On a status review, the task of the court is to assess what, if anything, has changed since the making of the prior final order. A status review hearing is not a re-hearing of the original protection application: see para. 51.
A consent order that ends an action is of the same effect as a judgment of a court following a trial or hearing, for the purpose of the doctrine of res judicata: see para. 52.
Prior court orders, reasons for decision, and statements of agreed facts are admissible in subsequent court proceedings. A court can take judicial notice of other court orders: see para. 53.
Section 114 of the CYFSA provides that where an application is made for review of a child’s status under section 113, the court may, in the child’s best interests:
a. vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 101(1), including a term or condition or a provision for access that is part of the order;
b. order that the original order terminate on a specified future date;
c. make a further order or orders under section 101; or
d. make an order under section 102: see para. 73.
- The test on a status review application is as follows:
a. the original order is presumed to be correct. This is not a rehearing of the previous order that was made;
b. the court must first determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection and whether, as a consequence, the child requires a court order for his or her protection;
c. the court must consider the degree to which the risk concerns that form the basis for the original order still exist. The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of circumstances that triggered the original order for protection or from circumstances that have arisen since then; and
d. secondly, the court must consider the best interests of the child. This analysis must be conducted from the child’s perspective: see para. 74.
13In other words, the examination to be undertaken involves two-stages, as set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Oxford v. W.T.C. 2013 ONCA 491:
a. First, determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection and, as a consequence, requires a court order for his or her protection;
b. If it has been determined that the child is still in need of protection, the court must determine which of the available range of orders is in the best interests of the child.
14The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that, regardless of the conclusion in the first stage of the status review examination, and even in absence of proof of present parental deficiencies of the natural parent, the court must look to other relevant factors to determine whether a court order is necessary to protect the child from other harms. (Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 165 (S.C.C.).
15Once it has been decided that the child is still in need of protection, the court must consider the least restrictive alternative consistent with the child’s best interests. CAS Peel v. W., 1995 CanLII 593 (ON CA), 1995 14 RFL (4th) 196 (OCJ).
16Subsection 101 (1) to (5) and (8) of the CYFSA state:
101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:
Supervision order
- That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.
Interim society care
- That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.
Extended society care
- That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.
Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision
- That the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.
Court to inquire
(2) In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or section 102, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.
Less disruptive alternatives preferred
(3) The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non-residential care and the assistance referred to in subsection (2), would be inadequate to protect the child.
Community placement to be considered
(4) Where the court decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall, before making an order under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (1), consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family under paragraph 1 of subsection (1) with the consent of the relative or other person.
First Nations, Inuk or Métis child
(5) Where the child referred to in subsection (4) is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, 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 if it is possible or, if it is not possible,
(a) in the case of a First Nations child, another First Nations family;
(b) in the case of an Inuk child, another Inuit family; or
(c) in the case of a Métis child, another Métis family.
Order for child to remain or return to person who had charge before intervention
(8) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection but is not satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall order that the child remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part.
17Custody orders may be granted under s. 102(1) of the CYFSA which states:
102 (1) Subject to subsection (6), if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 101 (1) would be in a child’s best interests, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.
18However, before granting a custody order under section 102(1), the CYFSA requires a threshold finding that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future.
19If the children are found to be in continued need of protection, the best interest elements outlined in section 74(3) of the CYFSA, and in section 10 of the Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families are applicable.
20There have been two final orders made in this matter pursuant to Statements of Agreed Facts. The history as outlined in those Statements may be summarized as follows.
21The first final order dated May 22, 2024 made findings in need of protection and placed the children with J.D. and the grandparents subject to terms of supervision with access to K.C., and inter-sibling access with J.M..
22This order was required as a result of several issues, including a history of conflict between K.C. and J.D. since J.J.W.D. was born. In March 2021 J.D. threatened to jump out of a window with J.J.W.D. Significant dental neglect of J.M. was also verified.
23In 2021, following an investigation, the Society verified that K.C. and J.D. exposed J.J.W.D. to domestic violence which included police involvement, placing them at risk of emotional and developmental harm.
24In 2022, following an investigation the Society verified that K.C. and J.D. exposed J.J.W.D. to partner violence, placing him at risk of physical harm.
25Between September 2021 and December 2022, the Society provided the family with ongoing services with the primary goal of reducing conflict between the parents.
26K.C. and J.D. separated in February 2022 and the children remained in K.C.’s care, with access to J.D.. Following their separation the conflict between the parties significantly reduced.
27During this time K.C. addressed the concerns, including the dental neglect of J.M., who required extensive dental work. She also worked with Public Health regarding parenting.
28The Society closed the ongoing file on December 20, 2022.
29Meanwhile, K.C. and A.M., the father of J.M., agreed to a shared parenting schedule for J.M..
30In or about December 2022, K.C. began a relationship with M.S.. The couple resided together and at times M.S. was left in a caregiving role for the three children.
31The Society has a lengthy history of involvement with M.S. as a child, youth and as a parent and caregiver, with concerns regarding significant anger and mental health challenges and diagnoses, and substance use.
32M.S. had a child who was not in his care pursuant to multiple supervision orders where he had supervised access. M.S. ultimately stopped attending access with his child in October 2022. K.C. was made aware repeatedly of the serious concerns the Society had with M.S..
33Between January 2023 in April 2023, J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. suffered a series of unexplained physical injuries while in their mother’s care, at times when M.S. also had contact with or care of the children.
34J.J.W.D. was brought to the hospital multiple times for injuries while in the care of his mother. There were several attendances for swollen testicles with no medical explanation for the injuries provided and none determined after exploratory surgery was conducted.
35J.J.W.D. was also brought to the Woodstock Hospital for a possible hand injury. While his hand was determined to be fine, significant bruises were found all over his body in various stages of healing including bruises to both ears.
36As a result of the growing concerns, all three children were taken to London Health Sciences Centre on March 1, 2023 and examined by Dr. David Warren, a Pediatric Emergency Medical Doctor. Swelling and bruising to J.J.D.’s genitals were found and K.C.’s explanation could not medically explain the bruising. With respect to J.J.W.D., Dr. Warren determined that the ear bruising was likely caused by pinching with some force by an adult and he was not of the view that these bruises could be caused by a sibling. Dr. Warren found that the other bruising on J.J.D. and J.J.W.D.’s bodies could possibly be explained by normal childhood activities. There were no injuries observed on J.M..
37It was determined that M.S. had been caring for the children alone at times in the 48 hours leading up to the examination by Dr. Warren, which was within the timeframe of the bruising.
38K.C. was directed to ensure that M.S. not be present in the home when the children were there and she agreed. However, she failed to follow the safety plan and continued to deny that he posed any risk to the children.
39The parents had a confrontation in the children’s presence at the hospital which resulted in security being called, and J.D. reported that M.S. attempted to run into him in the parking lot of LHSC when he was leaving with the children.
40On March 29, 2023 J.J.W.D.’s daycare reported concerns that his testicles were once again swollen. He was again taken to LHSC and there was unexplained swelling and bruising in the groin area. During J.J.W.D.’s admission it was discovered that he had a brain bleed and blood behind each retina. J.J.W.D. was kept in the hospital for several days then discharged into father’s care.
41It was determined that M.S. and K.C. were together with the children when the injury occurred. They offered an explanation for the injury which was provided to London Health Sciences Centre. It was determined by Dr. Van Horn that the brain bleed could not be caused by a fall from standing height.
42K.C. continued to refuse to follow the safety plan that M.S. not be allowed in her home when the children were present. Although she stated that she no longer left M.S. unsupervised with the children the worker and the police found him in her home with the children on several occasions.
43Meanwhile, the family doctor reported that K.C. had not followed up with scheduled medical appointments and immunizations for the children.
44K.C. made reports that the children were injured while in J.D.’s care and that J.M. may have been sexually abused by J.D. in the past. While the investigations were ongoing K.C.’s mother, S.A., came to her home to supervise her care of the children as part of a safety plan. Meanwhile, the paternal grandparents agreed to the safety plan where they would supervise all of J.D.’s contact with the children. These allegations involving J.D. were not verified.
45On March 9, 2023 the Society concluded that J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. suffered physical harm while in the care of K.C. and M.S..
46The children sustained unexplained injuries on more than one occasion including bruising to the ears, swollen and bruised genitals, as well as J.J.W.D. sustaining a brain bleed and bleeding behind each retina while in the care of their mother.
47As a result of these concerns, on April 26, 2023 the children were apprehended from K.C.’s care without a warrant. J.M. was placed with his father as a place of safety and J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. were placed with J.D. and the paternal grandparents as a place of safety.
48After the children were removed from K.C.’s care, they suffered no more unexplained injuries.
49Following the removal, there continued to be significant concerns for K.C.’s capacity to safely parent the children and there were concerns with her mental health.
50During the same period, J.D. did not follow through with the individual counselling or programming as required by the order of July 18, 2023, but he did complete the Triple P Parenting Program.
51According to the Statement of Agreed Facts, K.C. continued to demonstrate explosive and erratic behaviour throughout that time and was uncooperative and aggressive with Society workers. K.C. did not follow through with a psychiatric assessment as ordered by the court on July 18, 2023 and she did not follow through with family violence counselling at that time. K.C.’s access with the children was placed on hold several times and she attended access sporadically and often missed consecutive days.
52K.C. was hospitalized in February 2024 due to suicidal ideation. The hospital records indicated that she started feeling suicidal when her boyfriend stopped coming home. She advised that she had been consuming alcohol and taking cocaine and expressed a plan to overdose on cocaine and ecstasy and slit her wrists in the bathtub. The hospital’s final report on this admission indicated that K.C. left the hospital against medical advice.
53At that same time, and despite the concerns, K.C. insisted on remaining in a relationship with M.S.. She continued to maintain the view that M.S. was not a risk to the children.
54Following intervention, K.C.’s access visits began in May 2023 until she stopped attending access in September 2023. Her access was reinstated in February 26, 2024. However, she continued to miss a significant number of visits.
55On May 22, 2024 a final order found J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. in need of protection pursuant to 74(2)(a)(i) and (ii), (b)(i) and (ii) and (h), with a six-month supervision order with the children placed with the paternal grandparents and J.D. with access to K.C..
56A status review application was brought and on November 20, 2024, the court found that the children, J.J.W.D. and J.J.D., continued to be in need of protection, and made a final order placing them in the care and custody of the paternal grandparents, subject to supervision of the Society for six months, with access to the parents in the discretion of the Society. The court also made an order for sibling access between J.J.W.D., J.J.D. and J.M. as arranged by the grandparents and A.M., with notice to the Society.
57The Statement of Agreed Facts in support of the order of November 20, 2024 included the following.
58There were no concerns or further unexplained injuries of the children and they were thriving in the care of the grandparents and meeting their developmental milestones.
59On June 7, 2024, J.D. was found by police unconscious in his car on the side of the road with J.J.W.D. in the backseat. It was determined that J.D. was intoxicated and appeared to have vomited on himself. There was an open bottle of liquor in the front seat.
60Following his arrest, J.D. was agitated, belligerent, and aggressive with police. He refused to provide a breath sample. When he was ultimately handcuffed to a chair he spat in an officer’s face. He was charged with assault police and impaired operation. A safety plan was put in place and his access was supervised by his parents.
61During this period of supervision K.C. remained uncooperative and demonstrated aggressive and erratic behaviour. She frequently failed to attend meetings with the worker.
62She continued to reside with M.S.. On July 14, 2024 the police attended their home as a result of a domestic dispute. Both parties were charged and no contact terms were put in place. Despite this, K.C. reported to the worker that she lived in a trailer beside M.S.’s parents’ home where M.S. also lived. She also reported other assaultive behaviour by M.S..
63During this period K.C.’s access remained sporadic. Between May 22, 2024 and November 8, 2024 she attended 4 of 31 visits resulting in her access being put on hold twice. Despite the worker arranging transportation for K.C., her attendance remained sporadic.
64The court made the final order on November 20, 2024 finding that the children continued to be in need of protection. The final order placed the children with the grandparents alone, with access to the parents which has remained supervised.
Evidence Since the Final Order of November 20, 2024
65K.C. did not dispute that following the criminal charges against her and M.S. that she was “couch surfing” and then lived in a trailer on his parents’ property. She acknowledged that in December 2024 both she and M.S. sought to have the no contact terms “dropped”.
66Since December 31, 2024 K.C. has lived in the cabin on her parents’ rural property near Arnstein, Ontario. Her mother, S.A., began assisting her in attending access. Despite the significant distance, K.C.’s attendance at supervised access improved.
67K.C. recently gave birth to her fourth child, Jas. on March 30, 2026. It was a home birth in her cabin with her mother assisting. K.C. resides in the jurisdiction of CAS of the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound (“CASNPS”), and workers from that agency were working with K.C. on behalf of Oxford CAS.
68K.C. did not immediately notify the workers that she had given birth. However, CASNPS had been working with her to address safety concerns in her cabin, and Jas. remains in her care. K.C. provided a closure letter from CASNPS, confirming this.
69Kristin Hart has been the family service worker for Oxford CAS working with the family since January 2023. She provided evidence of K.C.’s improved cooperation and attendance since January 2025. However, she noted that there continued to be issues with her cooperation and follow-through. K.C. alleged that it was Ms. Hart who did not respond to her calls and had in fact blocked her number. Ms. Hart denied this.
70On January 3, 2025 K.C. showed covering worker Anna Baik a text from M.S. stating that he was going to burn down the house where the children were staying. The children were with the grandparents at that time.
71On the same date she disclosed to Ms. Baik that there had been many “domestics” between her and M.S. which left her with bruises and requiring medical support. K.C. advised that she had separated from M.S. several weeks prior and that a Peace Bond was in place, but that she had provided written revocable consent to have the no contact terms lifted.
72Ms. Baik suggested that she revoke her consent and have the no contact terms reinstated. K.C. agreed to do this. Despite this, K.C. acknowledged that she continued to have contact with M.S. concerning retrieving her pets and belongings.
73K.C. advised the worker that M.S. moved to Alberta around May 7, 2025. She acknowledged in her testimony that he called and emailed her but that she blocked his number and that she has not seen him in person since.
74K.C.’s mental health has been an ongoing protection concern since this matter began. In 2023 Ms. Hart had repeatedly requested, and K.C. was ordered, to obtain a psychiatric assessment. K.C. did not comply with this until she provided a Psychiatric Report from Dr. Hoa C. Pham dated October 20, 2025 which was entered as evidence in the trial.
75The Report notes that K.C. was provisionally diagnosed with complex posttraumatic stress disorder, cannabis use and history of cocaine use. Dr. Pham also listed several differential diagnoses including rule out adjustment disorder - with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and rule out cannabis -induced mood/anxiety disorder secondary to a general medical condition.
76Dr. Pham made several recommendations, including that K.C. complete cognitive processing therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, substance use rehabilitation, and interpersonal psychotherapy.
77Ms. Hart testified that on November 19, 2025 K.C. reported to her that she had engaged in the Bounce Back program through CMHA, which is a cognitive behavioural program. K.C. agreed to attend a meeting with the worker on January 20, 2026 to discuss her access and to sign a consent for the worker to contact the facilitator of the program. However, K.C. failed to attend the meeting.
78K.C. did attend a meeting with the worker on February 12, 2026. Ms. Hart asked for confirmation that she had engaged in the Bounce Back program but did not receive it.
79K.C. testified that she has followed through with the recommendations in Dr. Pham’s report but provided no independent confirmation.
80It was not disputed that since the order of November 20, 2024, there has been an improvement in K.C.’s engagement and attendance at access. In addition to completing the psychiatric assessment, K.C. also provided confirmation that she was engaged with the Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program starting May 1, 2026 with respect to Jas..
81K.C. also completed the Triple P Parenting Program between March 18, 2025 and May 20, 2025 and testified that she has retained the information and used it effectively.
82However, Ms. Hart testified that the Report from the Triple P Parenting Program identified the K.C. lacked insight into her own parenting, and that she struggled with coming up with goals for change for herself, and could not identify any struggles with managing the children’s behaviour. The Report indicated that K.C.’s focus was on informing the group that she only had limited time left to see the children. The Report indicates that despite staff speaking with K.C. to clarify that there were no limits on her visits, she continued to repeat this during sessions.
83With respect to J.D., there have been continuing concerns with his alcohol use since November 22, 2024.
84On January 13, 2025, on his way home from a drug and alcohol misuse program, he was charged with another incident of driving under the influence. This was not immediately reported by J.D.. As a result of the concern for J.D.’s alcohol use, he was required to move out of his parents’ home on January 29, 2025. His parents continued to supervise his access.
85On April 8, 2025 he completed an eight-week alcohol misuse program. However, J.D. did not follow through with further one-on-one counselling with the facilitator of that program. He stated an intention to do so initially but later said his return to work left him with no time to attend further counselling.
86He acknowledged that he continues to consume alcohol occasionally, but less then he used to and not before or during his access.
87He completed the Caring Dads Program successfully on August 6, 2025. The final report recommended that he retake the Triple P Parenting Program but he declined, indicating that he had taken it previously in 2024.
88J.D. confirmed that he has maintained contact with K.C. since the final order for several months in early 2025, and that this included a sexual relationship.
89There were also concerns that J.D. was continuing to expose the children to adult conflict. The grandparents acknowledged that J.D.’s access in their home was challenging, and he has gotten upset and loud at times. In September 2025 the decision was made to move J.D.’s access out of the grandparents’ home and into the community, supported by extended family members.
90He now resides with his aunt, H.V., and she, along with a cousin, D.R., supervise his access. Since that time there have been no concerns with his access. J.D.’s access remains four times per week, supervised by both the grandparents and the aunt and cousin. Recently the worker indicated approval of some unsupervised daytime access in the community for J.D., and was content that the grandparents have discretion to expand the access when appropriate.
91Since January 1, 2025 K.C.’s attendance at access has improved. Evidence from the access monitors was provided which included positive observations as follows:
The children appear to enjoy visits with their mother.
K.C. will get on the floor to play with the children and brings appropriate activities.
She attempts to redirect the children’s swearing and aggressive behaviour.
92The access monitors also observed significant concerns with mother’s access which have persisted including:
Verbally redirecting the children when their safety required her physical intervention (ex. the children engaging in physically aggressive or risky behaviour).
K.C. was often not receptive to suggestions during debriefings after access visits, and was not willing to reconsider her own approach. Instead, she would focus on past issues or the court proceeding.
K.C. was consistently unable to address the children’s significant behavioural issues during access.
93Laurie Flannery has been the Lead Access Monitor assigned to K.C. and the boys since May 2023. Her evidence included the following:
Starting in February 2025 when K.C.’s attendance improved, her access was increased to Monday and Tuesday from 4 to 6 PM.
Starting July 8, 2025 access times on Monday and Tuesday were expanded to include additional time in the community supervised by R.V..
The children continue to exhibit significant behavioural challenges which K.C. remains unable to manage. K.C. was not open to feedback from herself and other access workers about strategies to address the behaviour, and insisted that the negative behaviours were due to problems in the paternal grandparents’ home.
The children’s behaviours included physical and verbal aggression towards each other, K.C., and the access monitors. K.C. would attempt to verbally redirect the children but would not follow through when this was unsuccessful. As a result, the challenging and physically aggressive behaviours have continued and escalated.
The behaviour includes regular swearing and vulgar language, threats to kill babies (referring to dolls), biting, throwing things, and hitting.
During debriefing following a visit, K.C. would at times believe that the visit went well and be unable to reflect on the children’s swearing and negative behaviour.
94K.C. stopped attending access in person starting February 24, 2026 because of her pregnancy. She provided a letter from her nurse practitioner confirming his advice not to drive long distances around her due date. R.V. facilitated virtual visits for K.C. during this period, and her supervised access in Oxford County resumed on May 11, 2026 on Mondays and Tuesdays.
95Ms. Flannery monitored visits on June 9 and June 16, 2026 when K.C. began attending access in person again with Jas.. Ms. Flannery testified that she was concerned by the interactions of the children, particularly J.J.W.D., with the baby. During one visit J.J.W.D. had a toy plastic knife and threatened to kill the baby and made a motion to throw the baby. He also tried to turn up the speed on the baby’s swing. K.C. took the plastic knife away and stopped him from turning up the swing. J.J.D. was interested in the baby but had to be stopped from trying to remove him from the chair. K.C. attempted a timeout for J.J.W.D. which was unsuccessful, and she did not follow through when he refused to obey her.
96Ms. Flannery felt that the visits remained chaotic and K.C. remained unable to manage. She felt there were significant safety concerns for all the children. Ms. Flannery felt strongly that full hands-on supervision of the children with the baby was required for safety reasons.
97K.C. did not dispute or challenge any of the evidence offered about the access visits, other than to state that she was implementing the parenting strategies she had learned.
98The observations of the children’s behaviours during K.C.’s access are in marked contrast to those observed by the kin worker, Elizabeth Messer of the children’s behaviour while in the grandparents’ home. She has been working with the paternal grandparents since October 2024 and has noted no concerns. The grandparents, particularly the paternal grandmother, have been diligent in addressing the children’s medical and educational needs, and arranging counselling for the boys, and speech therapy for J.J.W.D..
99The grandparents have remained active with the school to address the children’s behavioural concerns. She confirmed that the grandparents also continue to facilitate sibling access with J.M..
100Ms. Messer observed that the children were generally calm and happy and did not use foul language in the grandparents’ home. When she did observe the children act out or act aggressively, the grandparents were able to effectively redirect them.
101A.M., J.M.’s father, gave evidence that since the final order granting him sole custody and primary residence of J.M., K.C. has not followed through with attending any supervised access. He stated that both he and K.C. did their intakes at Merrymount but that no access occurred as K.C. was required to provide additional information about her criminal charges which she failed to do.
102As a result, K.C. has not had in person contact with J.M. since prior to December 3, 2024. A.M. confirmed that he and the grandparents facilitate regular sibling access approximately one time per month which all the boys enjoy. He consents to the order sought that this sibling access continue.
103A.M. also testified that J.M. is hearing-impaired and had a cochlear implant in 2020, which he arranged. He also arranged speech therapy and J.M.’s speech has improved significantly. He stated that K.C. was only involved in one appointment at the beginning but not after that. J.M. attends Robart’s School for the Deaf in London, Ontario. He stated that K.C. opposed J.M. attending that school because she “didn’t want to deaf child”. As a result, she was not cooperating or engaged with J.M.’s school.
104A.M. testified that when J.M. lived with K.C. he missed a lot of school and he struggled academically and behaviourally. Since May 2023 when J.M. began residing with him full-time, he stated that J.M. has improved significantly both academically and behaviourally. J.M. now plays sports and has won an award at school in each of the last three years.
105K.C. did not challenge or dispute A.M.’s evidence.
106K.C.’s position was that M.S. was no longer involved, she was engaged in the recommended programming, and as a result the children can be returned to her care.
107The evidence of the applicant with respect to the events since the last final order was largely not challenged by K.C. or J.D..
108In those few areas where the evidence of K.C. conflicted with that of the family service worker or the access supervisors, I accept the evidence of the workers for the following reasons.
109I do not accept K.C.’s assertion that she was successfully implementing the parenting education she had taken and that there were no protection concerns. The access monitors all recorded the same concerns over a lengthy period. The evidence of the access supervisors was consistent that the children’s aggressive and dysregulated behaviour was escalating and that K.C. remained unable to address it.
110Further, there were areas of K.C.’s evidence that were at times evasive and inconsistent, which negatively impacted her overall credibility which included the following:
A police occurrence report of April 7, 2025 was put to her that indicated that M.S. had contacted the police about K.C. taking his dog. She denied that she had to the police at the time and initially in her cross-examination. When pressed, she acknowledged that she did in fact have the dog in question and that someone else took the dog from M.S. on her behalf.
K.C. stated to the worker that M.S. moved out west in May 2025 and that there had been no further contact with him, and that she had blocked his attempts to contact her since. However, she acknowledged during cross-examination that she was referring to M.S. when she told Dr. Pham in October 2025 that she was “having a long-distance relationship with her current boyfriend of three years.”
K.C. was not forthcoming with respect to who the father of Jas. was. She initially testified that she did not know as the pregnancy was a result of a “hook-up” in a bar in Sudbury in July 2025. However, when Ms. Hart asked her about the paternity of Jas. she refused to provide a name but acknowledged that she had met again with this person. This suggests she does know who he is.
She also denied that M.S. could be the father or that she was in a relationship with him at the time. However, she reported to Dr. Pham that she was still with him in October 2025, which means they were still in a relationship when she became pregnant.
K.C. was also not forthcoming about her current relationship with J.G., and disputed that he was the father of Jas.. The Society is involved with J.G. and has verified concerns with his alcohol use and domestic violence. He has outstanding domestic criminal charges with his former partner. K.C. was made aware of these concerns but maintained that he was not a risk.
K.C. advised access monitor, Dana Gear on June 15, 2026 that she was in a relationship with the ex-partner of a woman she named. This woman’s ex-partner is J.G.. Ms. Hart followed up with her on June 18, 2026 and K.C. acknowledged she was in a relationship with J.G. and that she stays with him when she is in town.
K.C. and J.G. both gave evidence denying that they were in a romantic relationship. K.C. continued to deny during cross-examination that she was involved with J.G. and denied saying that she was to both Ms. Gear and Ms. Hart. However, she later acknowledged that she had a sexual relationship with J.G..
111Her evolving and evasive evidence on these issues negatively impacts her credibility. K.C.’s evidence on these issues led the court to conclude that she knows or suspects who the father of Jas. is, and is simply refusing to say, as it might undermine her position in this matter. She has not been forthright that she maintained a relationship with M.S., and she was clearly in a relationship with J.G., regardless of the label she attached.
Analysis
112The first issue to be determined is whether the children remain in need of protection and, if so, whether an order is required for their future protection.
113K.C. took the position that the children are no longer in need of protection. The applicant, J.D., and the grandparents’ consent to an order that the children remain in need of protection.
114The evidence is compelling that the children remain in need of protection and that an order is required. The following factors support this conclusion:
The starting point for the analysis is that there have been long term protection concerns and findings related to domestic conflict with both parents, J.D.’s alcohol use and aggressive behaviour, and K.C.’s mental health, parenting capacity, and unsafe partners.
In the most recent period of supervision J.D. acquired another alcohol-related driving offence, and his inappropriate and aggressive behaviour necessitated that some of his access be exercised outside the grandparent’s home.
J.D. has successfully engaged in some programming for his alcohol use. However, he acknowledges that he continues to consume alcohol and that he did not follow through with the one-on-one counselling with the facilitator of the alcohol misuse program he attended. He also did not follow the recommendation of the Caring Dads Program that he retake the Triple P Parenting Program.
There were very serious protection concerns with K.C. that have not been addressed, despite improvements in her attendance and cooperation since January 2025.
The original protection application was brought when the children acquired numerous unexplained injuries in K.C.’s care. She was unable to recognize the risk that M.S. posed to the children, and she was not cooperative with safety planning.
K.C. repeatedly breached reasonable directions from the worker that she not permit M.S. to be around the children. The police and workers repeatedly found him in her home.
Even after the children’s injuries and after she and M.S. were both criminally charged, she maintained a relationship with him and continued to deny that he posed a risk.
I am not satisfied that K.C. has addressed the underlying issues. After delaying for 2.5 years she recently obtained a psychiatric assessment which made a number of recommendations. There is no independent evidence she has engaged in treatment for her mental health and substance use and that she has made progress in addressing these issues. She refused to sign consents or to provide confirmation when requested that she has engaged in the treatment recommended by Dr. Pham.
Despite completing the Triple P Parenting Course and having the support of access monitors for a significant period of time, K.C. remains unable to manage the children’s challenging and aggressive behaviours. I agree with Ms. Flannery that there are significant safety risks to all the children during K.C.’s access.
K.C. continues not to be receptive to feedback, and despite her best efforts, is unable to safely parent the children without close monitoring.
K.C. was not forthright about the father of Jas., or that she maintained a relationship with M.S., and was now in a relationship with J.G.. The Society has identified concerns with J.G. and K.C. was made aware of them. However, as she did with M.S., she was unable to appreciate the risk that J.G. may pose to the children.
115The court does not find that the unexplained injuries alone establish present risk. Rather, the continuing risk arises because the underlying factors associated with those injuries remain substantially unresolved. K.C. continues to demonstrate limited insight into the circumstances that led to the children's removal, has not demonstrated completion of the recommended therapeutic interventions, has continued to engage in relationships involving identified protection concerns, and remains unable to safely manage the children's significant behavioural needs during access. These factors support the conclusion that the children remain at risk of harm and that a further order is required.
116For these reasons the children remain in need of protection pursuant to section 74(2)(a)(i), (a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act., and an order is required for their future protection.
117For the following additional reasons, the best interests of the children support that they be placed in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102(1), with supervised access to the parents.
118In determining the best interests of the child, the court must assess the degree to which the risk concerns which existed at the time of the apprehension still exist today. They must be examined from the child’s perspective. CAS Toronto v. C.M. 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165.
119The best interest elements outlined in section 74(3) of the CYFSA, and in section 10 of the Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families are applicable.
120K.C.’s circumstances have improved since the order under review. She now lives close to her parents, who are her primary support, and she is maintaining some employment. She has followed through with some services including the Triple P Parenting Program and completed a psychiatric assessment in October 2025. Jas. remains in her care and she has successfully engaged with Healthy Babies Healthy Children since May 1, 2026. She provided confirmation that CASNPS has closed its file with respect to Jas..
121There have also been positive observations during her access with the children including:
The children appear to enjoy their visits, and K.C. brings appropriate activities.
She attempts to redirect the children’s swearing and aggressive behaviour.
122However, despite these improvements significant concerns remain. K.C. continues to lack insight into how her behaviour and choices have created a risk of harm for her children. There are numerous examples including the following:
She continued to not take responsibility for the injuries suffered by the children in her care, and she continued to minimize the role her choices and actions played. She maintained a relationship with M.S. and was not forthright about it.
She was also not forthright with Dr. Pham that her children had suffered repeated and unexplained injuries while in her care.
Despite attending the Triple P Parenting Program and having debriefs after each visit by access monitors, she remains unable to cope during access visits and to address the children’s escalating aggressive and dysregulated behaviour. She was unable to recognize the extent of the significant safety risks, including to her baby, during her access visits.
K.C. lacks insight into the nature of the relationships she continues to maintain. She acknowledges maintaining a sexual relationship with J.D. following the order despite the history of domestic violence. She was not forthcoming about her continued relationship with M.S. or her current relationship with J.G.. She is clearly in a relationship with J.G. and was made aware that there are protection concerns with his alcohol use and that he has domestic criminal charges outstanding. She was unable to appreciate the risk these choices posed to her and her children.
123K.C. has a history of noncooperation and not following through which has improved somewhat since January 1, 2025. She took steps to have the psychiatric assessment completed and testified she was following through with the recommendations in Dr. Pham. Unfortunately, there was no independent confirmation provided of follow-through or progress despite repeated requests from Ms. Hart.
124K.C.’s current living circumstances are also a concern. She lives in a remote cabin with few supports. She gave birth to Jas. at home without medical support, and refused to attend the hospital with the child when recommended to do so by the EMS who attended after the birth. She was not immediately forthcoming about the birth to the Society, and she has not been forthcoming about the parentage of Jas..
125The court recognizes that Jas. presently remains in K.C.'s care and that CASNPS has closed its file. However, the issue on this application is whether J.J.W.D. and J.J.D. require ongoing protection and what order is in their best interests. The evidence is compelling that these children present significant behavioural and parenting challenges that K.C. has not demonstrated an ability to manage safely. The circumstances relating to Jas. do not displace the evidence before the court concerning these children.
126The risks to the children’s physical and emotional well-being remain high if they were returned to K.C.’s care. These risks could not be sufficiently mitigated by a supervision order placing them in her care.
127The significant dysregulation observed in the children during K.C.’s access is in contrast to that observed in the grandparents’ home. The children have been in the care of the grandparents since April 2023 and the workers have observed the grandparents’ ability to manage the children’s behaviour effectively.
128There have been no concerns with the paternal grandparents and there have been no unexplained injuries suffered by the children since they have been in their care. They have continued to cooperate, act protectively, ensure the children’s needs and special needs are being met, advocated for them with respect to medical and educational needs, facilitated regular access with the parents and inter-sibling access with J.M.. They have facilitated counselling services for the children and successfully advocated for Rapid Response Funding.
129The children’s physical and emotional needs are being met in the grandparents’ care.
130The court also places weight on the children's Indigenous identity and their ongoing connection to culture, family, and community. The grandparents are maintaining and supporting those connections through their involvement with Six Nations of the Grand River and cultural activities available to the children. The continued placement with the grandparents promotes cultural continuity and is consistent with the placement objectives for First Nations children under both the CYFSA and the federal legislation.
131The best interests must be examined from the child’s perspective and take precedence over parental interests. The children have been with the grandparents since April 2023, which represents more than half of their lives. They are residing in a loving and stable home with the grandparents and it would not be in their best interest to disrupt this placement at this time. To remove the children from the grandparents would create an unacceptable risk of emotional harm to them.
132The best interests of the children strongly support that they remain in the care of the grandparents.
133I am also satisfied that a custody order to the grandparents under section 102(1) is preferable to a supervision order. A further supervision order would not adequately address the children's need for stability and permanence. The children have been involved in protection proceedings for more than three years, are securely attached to the grandparents, and require a stable and enduring caregiving arrangement. The children have already been exposed to significant risk of harm in the parent’s care. Neither parent has taken sufficient steps to mitigate the risks. The level of risk remains high, particularly with respect to K.C..
134A custody order under s. 102(1) in favour of the grandparents best serves the children’s need for finality and stability.
135The issue that remains is what type of access order for the parents is in the children’s best interest.
136Courts should give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., 2024 ONCJ 607.
137A starting point to assess a child’s best interests when making a parenting time order is to ensure that the child will be physically and emotionally safe. It is also in a child's best interests when making an access order that his or her caregiver be physically and emotionally safe. I.A. v. M.Z., 2016 ONCJ 615; J.N. v. A.S., 2020 ONSC 5292; A.L.M. v. V.L.S., 2020 ONCJ 502; M.R.-J. v. K.J., 2020 ONCJ 305; Abbas v. Downey, 2020 ONCJ 283; N.D. v. R.K., 2020 ONCJ 266.
138The party who seeks to reduce normal access will usually be required to provide a justification for taking such a position. The greater the restriction sought, the more important it becomes to justify that restriction. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.P.I., 2020 ONCJ 304; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., 2024 ONCJ 607.
139From: C.A.S. v. C.F., 2020 ONSC 37555, about the nature of access and supervised access:
32Access is the right of a child. As stated by Justice Blishen in V.S.J. v. L.J.G., 2004 CanLII 17126 (ONSC), “there is a presumption that regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children. The right of a child to visit with a non-custodial parent, to know and maintain or form an attachment to a non-custodial parent is a fundamental right and should only be forfeited in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.”
33A child’s right to access with a parent invites a further layer of complexity in a child protection proceeding. Court must engage in a careful balancing of the benefit of a parent’s care, the specific risk of harm to the child while in that parent’s care, and the measures in place for risk reduction.
34Supervised access is a critical tool in that engagement. Supervision provides a safer bridging period during which parental deficits can be assessed and whenever possible: repaired. Supervised access is clearly indicated when parenting judgement is impaired, there is a history of violence and other harmful behaviour directed toward the primary caregiver and/or evidence of abuse or neglect of the child.
140I am satisfied that the children have a loving relationship with both their parents and that access is important to them. This is consistent with the observations of the workers and access monitors. The primary issue is whether the access remains supervised, and otherwise at the discretion of the grandparents.
141The Society seeks an order that the parents’ access remain supervised with discretion to the grandparents to expand or remove the need for supervision in the future.
142J.D. consents to this order.
143K.C.’s position was that if the children were not returned to her care, that she have liberal and unsupervised access in her home.
144In the circumstances the best interests of the children require that K.C.’s access remained supervised at this time.
145I am mindful that supervised access is not intended to be a long-term solution to problems. However supervised access is appropriate in specific situations which includes where a child requires protection from physical or emotional harm, or where there are clinical issues which remain unresolved with an access parent.
146I am also mindful that supervised access is an intrusive measure into the parent-child relationship and as such it must be demonstrably justified on the evidence, and should not be ordered lightly as a long-term arrangement.
147A final order for supervised access may be appropriate where a parent has clear parental deficits which pose a risk of harm to the children, and the parent has not undertaken appropriate treatment, and showed limited insight into the concerns. This is the case for both parents.
148For the same reasons outlined above which support the children’s permanent placement with the grandparents, I am unable to conclude that the children would be physically and emotionally safe if not supervised in the care of K.C.. I agree with the assessment of Laura Flannery, the lead access Monitor, that there are significant safety concerns which necessitate ongoing supervision, particularly now that K.C. has another child.
149This is one of those exceptional cases where a final order for supervised access is necessary.
150Further, the court is not prepared to order that K.C.’s mother, S.A., be an approved supervisor at this time. However, it will remain open to the parties to work towards this.
151Early on in this proceeding S.A. had put herself forward as a proposed supervisor and produced record checks with no concerns. However, the Society did not approve her as a supervisor because she was unable or unwilling to acknowledge the serious protection concerns with her daughter’s care. Unfortunately, S.A. did not continue to work with the Society to remedy this.
152K.C. also offered Victoria Goyette as a potential supervisor, and she agreed but ultimately did not follow through. In September 2025 her name was provided by K.C.. The worker requested a criminal record check as part of the process of approval. Ms. Goyette acknowledged being told this but decided to wait until December 2025 when she was required to obtain a bi-annual vulnerable records check for her employment. In December 2025 when she received this records check, she acknowledged not forwarding it to the worker or following up on it at that time or since.
153In the circumstances the parents’ access shall remain supervised and at the discretion of the grandparents. The parent’s access shall be supervised two times per month at Merrymount access Centre or by another supervisor agreed by the parties.
154I am satisfied that the grandparents retain the discretion to expand the parents’ access or review the need for supervision in the future. They have continued to behave reasonably in facilitating access to both J.D. and K.C. and the court is satisfied they will continue to do so in the same child-focused manner. The following factors support this:
The grandparents remained cooperative with the applicant and accommodating with facilitating the parents’ access and with supervising access at times for both parents.
There was no evidence that they did not actively supervise J.D.’s access when they were directed to do so.
The grandparents have been appropriately protective of the children when required, including with respect to their son. In doing so they have appropriately prioritized the children’s needs over that of either of the parents.
They required J.D. to move out of their home following his latest impaired driving charge and reported concerns with respect to his aggressive behaviour in their home during access.
They continued to supervise access for K.C. on special occasions despite K.C. continuing to make unfounded allegations against them.
They facilitated regular virtual access to K.C. when she was unable to travel during the late stages of her pregnancy.
155The inter-sibling access order between the children and J.M. shall issue. J.M.’s father consented to this order being made.
156Based on all the considerations outlined herein, there shall be a final order as follows:
The children, J.J.W.D. and J.J.D., remain in need of protection pursuant to section 74(2)(a)(i), (a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The Final Order of November 20, 2024 shall be terminated.
The respondents, R.V. and W.D., shall have sole custody of the children pursuant to section 102(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The Respondents, K.C. and J.D. shall have access with the children a minimum of two times per month, as arranged with the Respondents, R.V. and W.D., and supervised in the discretion of the Respondents, R.V. and W.D., by an agreed-upon supervisor or by a third-party agency such as Merrymount Family and Crisis Centre, pursuant to section 104 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The children shall have access to their sibling, J.M., born […], 2016, a minimum of one time per month, as arranged by the Respondents, R.V. and W.D., and A.M., the caregiver of the sibling, J.M..
This Order shall be deemed to be an Order made under s. 28 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.
Pursuant to Rule 7(4.1) and Rule 7(6) of the Family Law Rules, for any subsequent Motion to Change this Order:
a. The Motion to Change shall be given a new court file number;
b. The person making the motion shall be named as the Applicant, and every other party shall be named as a Respondent; and
c. The Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County shall not be named as a party.
- The remaining claims are dismissed.
Released: July 23, 2026
Signed: “Justice S. E. J. Paull”