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.
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.P., 2026 ONCJ 476
COURT FILE NO. 25-45902-00
DATE: August 7, 2026
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Karen Freed, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and -
L.P.
D. Tavawalla (Duty Counsel) for the
RESPONDENT MOTHER
RESPONDENT
MOTHER
- and -
H.T.
Mira Pilch for the
RESPONDENT (STEP)FATHER
RESPONDENT STEP-FATHER TO THE OLDER CHILD AND FATHER TO THE YOUNGEST
- and -
C. and S. C.
RESPONDENT
PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS OF THE ELDEST CHILD
Lorna Yates, for the OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, on behalf of the Children.
HEARD: August 7, 2026
JUSTICE J. HARRIS
INTRODUCTION
[1] This Child Protection application has been before the court since it was issued on February 28, 2025, for over 500 days.
[2] There are three subject Children.
[3] On September 3, 2025, a protection finding was made by the previous case management judge pursuant to sub-section 74(2) (b) (risk of physical harm) and (h) (risk of emotional harm) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) on a default basis based on the pleadings filed.
[4] On February 18, 2026, the eldest Child was ordered into temporary care from his paternal grandparents’ care.
[5] On April 20, 2026, the CAST amended its application and the final disposition order sought is currently a six-month supervision order with the Mother for the younger Children, and a six-month interim society care order for the eldest Child.
APPEARANCE TODAY
[6] Today the Application was scheduled for a Case Conference at 11:30 a.m. remotely by ZOOM.
[7] Counsel for the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the CAST worker and the Mother attended, as well as duty counsel to assist the Mother.
[8] However, the (Step)Father, the paternal grandparents, counsel for the Children (“OCL”) and counsel for the (Step)Father did not attend and provided no explanation for their absence.
[9] (Step)Father’s counsel also did not attend the appearance on January 5, 2026, or February 18, 2026, but asked CAST counsel to appear as her agent.
[10] At no time prior to the appearance today was an adjournment sought by any party.
[11] On June 5, 2026, the parties were ordered to file Form 17F Confirmation of Conference, which is also required by Rule 17(14) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “Rules”).
[12] On August 6, 2026, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto filed a Form 17F Confirmation of Conference. The CAST’s Form 17F Confirmation of Conference indicates that conference was proceeding for 30 minutes.
[13] No other party filed a Form 17F as ordered and neither did the OCL with any updates about the Children.
NON-ATTENDANCE AND DELAY
[14] Unfortunately, it has become increasingly common for the following to occur:
Counsel and parties fail to attend court, particularly on short notice.
Counsel and parties arrive late.
Counsel and/or parties request same day ZOOM attendances.
Counsel request adjournments by last minute 14B motions without a legitimate basis.
Counsel seek delays at the commencement of the appearance to speak with clients or counsel.
Agents are sent to court with little or no meaningful authority or instructions beyond advising the court of counsel's availability for a future date.
Often agents are counsel on the same case that are opposed in position, which is particularly problematic.
[15] Such conduct has become an unacceptable feature of the court's daily operations.
[16] By way of example, today in the three matters preceding this case, the court encountered absent counsel, including counsel for the Office of the Children's Lawyer, agents with insufficient instructions, and delays caused by matters that should and could have been addressed before the commencement of the appearance, which resulted in further delays, impacting other court appearances in this court and other courts, and adjournments.
[17] Regrettably, this is not unusual. Rather, it is representative of what is a typical court day.
[18] In light of the frequency of these issues and their significant impact on the administration of justice, the court issues this endorsement in the hope of discouraging and ultimately stopping these recurring unacceptable practices.
[19] The primary objective of the Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.
[20] Rule 2(3) provides that dealing with cases justly includes:
a) ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties;
b) saving expense and time;
c) dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity; and
d) allocating appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to allocate resources to other cases.
[21] Rule 2(4) imposes a duty on the court to promote the primary objective. Parties and their representatives are likewise required to assist the court in achieving that objective.
[22] This Rule reflects a shared responsibility among the court, counsel, and litigants to ensure the effective use of limited judicial resources and to promote the timely, fair, and efficient resolution of proceedings.
[23] Counsel are officers of the court. Their obligations extend beyond advancing a client's position and include duties to the court and the administration of justice. Attendance at scheduled court appearances, readiness to proceed, compliance with court orders, and adherence to procedural requirements are fundamental professional obligations.
[24] With respect to delay in the civil justice system, the Civil Rules Review Working Group Final Policy Report, dated October 31, 2025, wrote:
Delays have long been decried as anathema to justice yet have been permitted to become a defining feature of our current civil justice system.
... During that time, we have seemingly become complacent about delay, resigned to the belief that circumstances will never improve.
Today, litigants face daunting wait times in many of the province's regions, whether for short or long motions, judicial pre-trials or trial dates.
[25] There are countless other children and families awaiting access to the court system, many of whom require urgent judicial intervention.
[26] The justice system, Legal Aid Ontario, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer are all publicly funded resources. Non-attendances, tardiness, inadequate preparation, and unnecessary adjournments squander those scarce public resources.
[27] Counsel who fail to attend court without explanation or legitimate excuse demonstrate a troubling disregard for the court's process, the authority of the court, and the professional obligations that accompany participation in court proceedings.
[28] Failure to attend court on time and prepared to proceed contributes directly to delay, frustrates effective case management, undermines public confidence in the justice system, wastes scarce public resources, and impedes the court's ability to fulfil its mandate.
[29] Counsel and parties must be mindful that the consequences of failing to attend court can be significant. Depending on the circumstances, the court may strike pleadings, note a party in default, proceed in a party's absence, make substantive orders, or award costs, including costs personally against counsel.
[30] The most serious consequences, however, are borne not by counsel, but by the children affected by delay.
[31] This matter has been before the court for over 500 days, well beyond the timelines contemplated by rule 33(1) of the Family Law Rules.
[32] The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada observed in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27:
Timely justice is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society.
An efficient criminal justice system is therefore of utmost importance. The ability to provide fair trials within a reasonable time is an indicator of the health and proper functioning of the system itself. The stakes are indisputably high.
Our system, however, has come to tolerate excessive delays.
[33] While Jordan arose in the criminal context, the observations regarding the harmful effects of delay are equally compelling in child protection proceedings, where the interests at stake are no less significant.
[34] For adults, delay may be measured in months and years. For children, delay may be measured in prolonged uncertainty, postponed permanency, disruptions to schooling and social relationships, placement changes, lost opportunities for family reunification, and extended separation from parents and siblings. Such consequences are often incapable of meaningful remedy as developmental time can never be recovered.
[35] Unfortunately, excessive delays and non-compliance with child protection timetables and time limits under the CYFSA have become the norm. Child protection and family law proceedings languish. Children grow up in the system.
[36] In Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society v. N.S., 2024 ONCJ 391 at paragraphs 280-286, Justice Pawagi wrote about delay in child protection proceedings as a serious threat to children’s wellbeing, she stressed the need for timely permanency planning, and called upon all justice system participants to take active responsibility for ensuring that vulnerable children receive prompt and final decisions about their futures.
[37] Justice Pawagi poignantly wrote at paragraph 286:
286There needs to be a greater sense of urgency… there is no faceless system. We are the system. There is nothing in it except for us. And we each have an individual and a collective responsibility to make it work for the vulnerable children entrusted to us.
[38] In this case, no advance notice was provided to the court, no adjournment was sought, no explanation was communicated before or during the appearance, and no agent attended on behalf of the absent counsel. The matter proceeded virtually by Zoom, eliminating any requirement for travel or personal attendance at the courthouse. In the absence of an explanation, the failure to attend is particularly difficult to understand.
[39] The failure of counsel to attend court as required is irresponsible, unprofessional, and unacceptable. Court appearances are not matters of convenience. The court's orders are not suggestions.
[40] Compliance with attendance obligations is fundamental to the proper administration of justice. Absent a compelling explanation, non-attendance demonstrates a serious disregard for the court's process and authority and should reasonably attract procedural, substantive, and/or costs consequences.
[41] However, nothing in this endorsement should be understood as criticizing counsel or parties who are unable to attend because of genuine emergencies, or other legitimate reasons. Such situations will very occasionally arise. The concern is with avoidable non-attendance, chronic lateness, inadequate preparation, and failures to communicate with the court and opposing parties in a timely manner.
SERVICE AND PLEADINGS
[42] The Amended Application was served on the Mother on April 28, 2026.
[43] The Amended Application was served on the (Step)Father and OCL on April 21, 2026. The (Step)Father has not filed an Answer to the Amended Application,
[44] The Amended Application was served on the Paternal Grandparents on April 24, 2026.
[45] None of the Respondents has filed an Answer to the Amended Application.
[46] The Respondent (Step)Father and Grandparents have not filed an Answer to the Amended Application and did not attend court today or at previous court appearances. No request was made for an extension of the time to serve an Answer.
[47] Therefore, the (Step)Father and Grandparents are noted in default today.
UPDATE FROM THE CAST
[48] A Statement of Agreed Facts (“SAF”) has been circulated and signed by the Mother and (Step)Father, but not the Grandparents, with respect to the two younger children. The SAF seeks a 6-month supervision order for the two younger children with their Mother and access orders.
[49] Reportedly, the OCL has not signed the SAF, but is not opposing those final orders.
ISSUES THAT COULD NOT BE ADDRESSED AT THE CONFERENCE TODAY
[50] The SAF indicates that the Mother and the (Step)Father continue to be in a relationship.
[51] The (Step)Father has criminal charges, including assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause bodily harm and failure to provide the necessities related to the Eldest Child in 2019 and July 31, 2024.
[52] The (Step)Father is subject to criminal conditions that prevent him from contacting the Children and restrain him from being within 200 metres of the Children. According to a release order, dated August 9, 2024, the (Step)Father is required to reside with a surety.
[53] There were no updates on the status of these criminal charges.
[54] The SAF does not address contact between the parents should the Father’s criminal conditions no longer apply during the status review period, which likely requires a further supervision terms.
[55] The court requires further submissions on this issue and an update on the criminal proceedings. If there has been a finding of guilt the court requires the underlying facts as found in the criminal proceeding.
Youngest and Middle Child
[56] The Youngest Child was demitted from public school on October 2, 2024, and was still not enrolled in school by February 2025.
[57] The SAF indicates that the Youngest Child’s significant school attendance issues continued into December 2025. However, his February report card indicates that he is doing well academically. There is no reference to his June 3, 2026, attendance record in the SAF, which indicates continued poor school attendance.
[58] The OCL had been unable to meet with the Youngest Child prior to the last court appearance and there was no available update today.
[59] The Middle Child was not attending school regularly when the Protection Application commenced.
[60] The SAF indicates that the Middle Child has significant school attendance issues and she is chronically late. Some of her attendance issues were related to health issues that have now been addressed. There was no update since her February 2026 report card on the Middle Child’s attendance.
[61] At a minimum, the court requires that the proposed supervision term related to meeting the Children’s educational needs, includes a requirement that the Children attend school daily and on time, and that CAST request that the Children's schools report any absences to CAST.
Eldest Child
[62] On August 1, 2024, the eldest Child disclosed “physical discipline” by the (Step)Father including with a metal pole. He also disclosed “physical discipline” by his Mother.
[63] The Eldest Child was also not attending school regularly when he was living with his Mother.
[64] In January 2025, the Eldest Child expressed that he did not wish to be in his Mother’s care and would prefer to be in foster care.
[65] The Eldest Child was temporarily placed with his Grandparents.
[66] In February 2026, the Eldest Child was ordered into the CAST’s temporary care, and there was a question about whether he requires a psych-educational assessment.
[67] The CAST’s position, however, changed very recently, and the CAST is assessing a plan to reunify the Eldest Child with the Mother.
[68] Today, the CAST was seeking an order for extended access for the Eldest Child with the Mother, which could not be discussed meaningfully.
[69] There was no update available from the OCL about this 15-year-old’s views and wishes on the proposed reunification plan, which is a very important factor under the CYFSA for the court to consider.
[70] At the appearance on February 18, 2026, the Child’s OCL indicated that the Eldest Child was expressing a wish to stay in foster care until he was 18, and to see his Mother on weekends. At that time, the OCL was advocating for permanency for the Child according to his wishes.
[71] There are outstanding police checks from the Maternal Grandparents, and a Family Group Conference that will be scheduled. The Mother has agreed to a Keeping Families Together Program to assist with reunification.
NEXT STEPS
[72] As a result of the failure of the OCL and Father’s counsel to attend court today, the CAST intends to address the issue of an extended access order by 14B, as it seeks to have the eldest Child returned at least on an extended access visit, prior to the commencement of the academic school year.
[73] The court is seeking the input of the OCL on this issue.
[74] Counsel for the (Step)Father and the OCL shall prepare an explanation as to why they did not attend court today and file it along with their Form 17F Confirmation of Conference prior to the next appearance.
[75] The matter has been scheduled for a further case conference.
[76] This matter is not within the timetable stipulated by Rule 33(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
[77] The matter has not 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, but this was the first available date.
ORDERS
[78] The following orders are made today:
The Respondent (Step)Father and Grandparents are noted in default.
Status quo to continue.
The matter is adjourned to a Case Conference on September 10, 2026 at 12:30 p.m. IN-PERSON.
Parties and the OCL shall file comprehensive Form 17F Confirmations of Conference pursuant to the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
[79] Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the Respondents, and counsel for the Respondent Father, and the OCL.
___________________________
Justice J. Harris