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:
PEEL CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY Applicant
— AND —
K.P., T.P., and J.P. Respondents
Before Justice S. V. Khemani
Heard on May 27, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on May 27, 2026
L. Eaton............................................................................. counsel for the applicant society K.P., respondent mother .............................................................. duty counsel, A. Ajurias No appearance by or on behalf of T.P., respondent father, as deceased No appearance by or on behalf of J.P., respondent stepfather, even though served with notice
1This matter comes before the Court on the first appearance of a child protection application brought by the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (“CAS”) under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”).
2The children, T1.L.-P., born October XX, 20XX (13) and T2.L.-P., born January XX, 20XX (9), reside with their mother, K.P., and her partner, J.P. Their father, T.P., is deceased.
Issues
3The issues before the Court are whether the children are in need of protection and, if so, what temporary order is necessary to ensure their safety and well-being pending further proceedings.
CAS’s position
4The CAS submits that the children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(d) of the CYFSA, on the basis of a risk of sexual harm and ongoing failure to provide adequate protection and supervision.
5The CAS alleges there is ongoing risk to the children arising from the presence of adult sibling, J.M., who was previously charged and involved in sexual assault of T1.L.-P. and who is now living in the home and is acting as caregiver to the children.
6There is evidence of an unsafe home environment with exposure to domestic conflict and yelling, aggressive behaviour (throwing objects) and unsanitary/unhygienic home conditions. The CAS asserts that the children are exposed to sexualized material, sexualized behaviour and access to marijuana from J.M.
7The CAS position is that the children can remain with their mother, but only if strict supervision and controls are imposed, because there is a documented history of harm and risk, especially involving sexual abuse (historical) and inadequate supervision.
8The CAS submits that the current environment remains unstable, particularly due to reliance on J.M., the mother’s alleged diminished capacity; and that a structured safety framework with monitoring is necessary to reduce risk to the children.
9Based on the foregoing, the CAS seeks a temporary and without prejudice order placing the children with their mother, K.P., subject to supervision by the CAS and on terms and conditions. The CAS’s Notice of Motion dated May 21, 2026 forms part of the motion record.
Mother’s position
10The mother opposes the application, denies the need for intervention, and maintains that she is willing to comply with a safety plan. The mother was served with the CAS’s Application and all related material on May 21, 2026. She has, to date, not filed any responding material.
Stepfather’s position
11The stepfather was served with the with the CAS’s Application and all related material on May 21, 2026. He has, to date, not filed any responding material and he has not attended at court.
Evidence of Risk: Affidavit of Chid Protection Worker Destiny Hindle sworn May 21, 2026
12On or about April 16, 2026 Society Screener, Nikki Shannon, received a referral from […] Catholic Elementary School staff member, J.B., reporting concerns with respect to T2.L.-P. who had not attended school for approximately 3 weeks, the mother’s inability to adequately care for the children, and their adult sibling, J.M., being a sole caregiver to the children and residing in the family home.
13On May 6, 2026 Child Protection Worker (CPW) Hindle completed a safety assessment in the family home. During this meeting, the CPW observed mother to be dishevelled, fatigued, eyes bloodshot and having difficulty comprehending the discussion. The respondent mother informed the Child Protection Worker that what happened between J.M. and T1.L.-P. happened years ago, and everybody is now fine. J.M. lives with them because he has nowhere else to go. During this visit the Child Protection Worker learned that the mother relies on J.M. and the stepfather for caregiving.
14The children refused to be interviewed by the Child Protection Worker on this date and requested to be interviewed at their schools.
15On May 7, 2026 CPW attended at […] Separate School and met with Principal M.A. and learned that there is evidence of educational neglect of the children as borne out by chronic school absenteeism and significant developmental delay. Reportedly, T1.L.-P. is usually absent from school, attending once per week. He is diagnosed with a learning disability, ASD, and is “moderately functioning”. He is behind almost 4 grade levels. It was conveyed by Mr. M.A. that the mother does not enforce school attendance. When T1.L.-P. does not attend school, he usually sleeps throughout the day.
16Approximately 2 weeks ago, there was an incident at T1.L.-P.’s school where police attended. Allegedly, T1.L.-P. was pursuing a female classmate, and the female rejected him. The CAS claims that T1.L.-P. did not take this well and sent a picture to a group chat with multiple classmates of him holding a butcher knife to his neck and threatening to kill himself.
17Apparently, there are “consistent and ongoing” concerns regarding T1.L.-P. exhibiting aggressive sexualized behaviour towards his classmates and school staff. T1.L.-P. has shared with school staff that he regularly has nightmares and trouble sleeping due to a historical sexual assault and will wet himself.
18In a private meeting with T1.L.-P., the CPW was informed that there is “lots of yelling in the home…this makes him feel scared; [J.M.] will yell and swear towards him, his sibling and his mother”. He also shared that he (T1.L.-P.) and J.M. will watch sexually explicit anime together and stay up very late during the week, resulting in him being tired the next day. T1.L.-P. also confirmed that he watches pornography daily. T1.L.-P. shared that he occasionally uses marijuana with J.M. Their mother usually sleeps for many hours during the day, so, J.M. and J.P. usually act as their caregivers. He also reported feeling safe in the home.
19On the same day, CPW attended at […] Catholic Elementary school and met with Principal J.L. Mr. J.L. reported that T2.L.-P. is not attending school and is behind almost 4 grade levels; T2.L.-P. has had previous incidents showing sexualized behaviours towards his peers; T2.L.-P. will grab at female classmates’ breasts and shout explicit language at his peers in the classroom. The school has attempted to discuss these concerns with the mother, however, she is either unable or unwilling to engage with them.
20In a private meeting with T2.L.-P., the CPW learned from him that when J.M. gets mad, he will yell, scream and sometimes throw things, including a chair against the wall one time. He shared that he would hear J.M. and T1.L.-P. up at night watching TV and playing video games; that the house is usually dirty, sticky and there is “dog poop and pee” on the floor; there is lots of garbage and dirty dishes in the home which makes him feel anxious and mad. He shared that his mother has trouble keeping him safe and J.P. makes him feel unsafe sometimes as J.P. sometimes yells at him, becomes angry, he sometimes throws things, including a glass which broke and made T2.L.-P. feel frightened. He recalled that when he was approximately 5 years old his mother punched him in the face with a closed fist and his eye “really hurt” and he had a big bruise which made him feel very sad and scared. T2.L.-P. shared that his mother is usually not present at home; he does not know where she is; and if she is home, then she is usually sleeping. She admitted having challenges in getting the children to school; she has things to do; she does not always have the car; she struggles with getting the children to make the school bus in the mornings. She told the worker that she and the children are currently accessing support at the Jean Tweed Centre. There is no information with respect to the support she and the children are receiving there.
21On May 8, 2026, Child Protection Workers Hindle and Anroop attended at the family home. After approximately 4 minutes of knocking, T1.L.-P. answered the door and reported that his mother was sleeping; he proceeded to wake her up. The CAS workers attempted to discuss the various concerns with her. The mother denied being unable to care for the children, admitted that her current medications make her very tired and sleepy, that she relies on J.P. and J.M. to help her with the kids and with the house. Mother was dismissive of the concerns related to J.M. During this meeting both J.M. and the mother voiced concerns regarding following a safety plan where J.M. is prohibited from being a caregiver to the children. Attempts to discuss school attendance and limiting access to devices were dismissed by the mother.
22During this home visit the workers observed T2.L.-P.’s bedroom to have the stench of urine; T2.L.-P. confirmed that he will wet himself at night and urinate in his bed as he does not want to use the washroom at night.
23The CAS’s evidence is that the mother was dismissive and against ongoing support and services from the CAS; she did not understand why the CAS had to be involved.
24Somehow, the CPWs developed a safety plan whereby J.M. would not be in a sole caregiver role to the children, he would not be left unsupervised with them, and the children would not have access to unprescribed drugs/substances in the home.
25On May 11, 2026, CPW Hindle spoke with the respondent mother on the phone. The mother reiterated that she did not understand the need for the safety plan and maintained that J.M. was safe as a primary caregiver to the children. Notwithstanding, the respondent mother told the worker that they were following the safety plan, and she was trying to enforce regular school attendance by T2.L.-P. and T1.L.-P.
26On May 14, 2026 it was reported by T1.L.-P.’s school social worker that T1.L.-P. was absent from school that day.
27CPW Hindle met with both T1.L.-P. and T2.L.-P. on May 20th, 2026. She met with them separately at their respective schools. She observed them to be well groomed; they each reported that everyone was following the safety plan; they have not been left alone with J.M. They also each reported feeling safe.
28The family has accepted the support of the CAS’s Child and Youth Worker, the CAS will offer counselling services in addition to the services they are currently accessing supports at Jean Tweed.
29The CAS has a very lengthy history of involvement dating back to 1999. For the purposes of this motion, I have cautiously considered the CAS’s involvement with this family dating back to October 2012.
30On the date of T1.L.-P.’s birth, October XX, 20XX, mother expressed to hospital staff that she could not properly care for the infant. Upon verification of mother’s drug misuse, mental health concerns and mother’s ability to make “sound and appropriate” judgments for herself and baby T1.L.-P., the file was transferred to “ongoing services”. There are no details of what ongoing services were provided or for how long the CAS remained involved.
31On July 20, 2016, the CAS received a community referral from Bolton YMCA staff regarding T1.L.-P. Concerns were shared regarding T1.L.-P.’s disclosures regarding domestic violence between his parents and inappropriate physical discipline from the mother; it was also reported that T1.L.-P. was demonstrating physically aggression and sexualized behaviours towards his peers. He would have been about 4 years old at the time.
32In February 2017, the CAS received a referral that T1.L.-P. was being sexually abused by J.M. during access visits at the mother’s home. Allegations were verified; J.M. was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference against T1.L.-P. The file was closed by the CAS who deemed that they had completed safety planning and a no contact order was in place between J.M. and T1.L.-P. It is unclear when J.M. returned to reside with the mother and T1.L.-P. Relying on a report from Radius Child and Youth Services dated November 30, 2019, the CAS asserts that J.M. is a low risk to repeat the offence and had completed all court ordered services.
33I note that the Radius Report is marked as being private and confidential and is not to be shared without the written consent of the client and the permission of the author, namely Vanessa Junior. There is no evidence that the CAS has the consent of the author or of J.M. For this reason, it shall be sealed in the court record unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
34In July 2020 a referral was received from the father’s then partner, T.S., who reported that the mother had fallen and was in critical condition, the children were living in an unsafe and unstable environment and were being passed from caregiver to caregiver. The concerns were verified by CAS, and the file was transferred to ongoing services. There are no details of what ongoing services were provided or for how long the CAS remained involved.
35On October 21, 2021, and October 26, 2021, the CAS received three separate referrals from neighbors and Caledon O.P.P. reporting concerns for the children, surrounding inappropriate physical discipline, inadequate supervision of children, exposure to intimate partner violence and the father uttering threats of harm towards mother and children. An investigation was opened, where the assigned Society Worker, Cassandra Fezzuoglio observed T2.L.-P. to have a black eye, however an interview could not be conducted due to 9-year-old T2.L.-P. refusing to speak to Ms. Fezzuoglio. Allegations were not verified and the file was closed.
36On September 7, 2022, the Society Screener, Krista Young, received a referral from […] Catholic Elementary School staff, S.B., regarding the children. Concerns were reported surrounding T2.L.-P.’s sexualized behaviours and inadequate supervision of children. During the investigation, the father passed away and concerns surrounding the mother’s ability to parent the children and cope were also identified. Allegations were verified and the file was transferred to ongoing services. There are no details of what ongoing services were provided or for how long the CAS remained involved.
37On July 5, 2023, during ongoing involvement, the CAS received a referral from Family Transition Place regarding inappropriate physical discipline towards T1.L.-P. Concerns were verified as bruising on T1.L.-P. was also identified.
38On September 24, 2024, during ongoing involvement, the Society Screener, Vanessa Woods, received a referral from Caledon O.P.P. regarding the mother being charged with assault with a weapon against J.P. and a neighbour. Allegations surrounding the children’s exposure to partner violence were verified and J.P. was cautioned by police.
39On December 4, 2024, during ongoing involvement, the CAS received a referral from Peel Paramedic, Selena Moreira, regarding inadequate supervision of T2.L.-P. resulting in T2.L.-P. ingesting two 10mg cannabis gummies and being transported to hospital. T2.L.-P. was 7 years old. The CAS closed the file on concluding that the family was stable, the mother was looking for additional supports and a Child and Youth Worker was working with the family.
Analysis and Conclusion
40There are reasonable grounds that the children are in need of protection. The evidence, while including some hearsay, is credible, consistent, and supported by multiple professional sources. It establishes a longstanding pattern of concern, including verified sexual abuse of one child by an adult sibling, repeated issues of inadequate supervision, exposure to violence and instability, and significant educational neglect.
41The current circumstances give rise to ongoing risk. Of particular concern is the presence in the home of the adult sibling who was previously involved in sexual abuse, and the mother’s continued reliance on him for caregiving, coupled with a lack of insight into the associated risk.
42The evidence further establishes that the mother’s capacity to provide consistent supervision is compromised by her own circumstances. The home environment is unstable, and the children are exposed to inappropriate material, substance use, and conflict. Both children exhibit behavioural and developmental concerns that are not being adequately addressed.
43While a safety plan has recently been implemented and some short-term compliance has been reported, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to mitigate the risks identified. The mother has demonstrated limited insight into the seriousness of the concerns and has minimized the need for intervention.
44The CYFSA mandates that children be protected and that their best interests are paramount. The Court must consider the least intrusive measure; however, removal is warranted where necessary to ensure protection.
45In this case, a supervision order, even with conditions, is insufficient. The evidence demonstrates an ongoing pattern of risk and an absence of reliable safeguards within the home. The children’s own behaviours may place themselves and others at risk; and their needs are not being consistently met in the current environment.
46There is no alternative caregiver available.
47Therefore, I reluctantly find that removal, while an extraordinary measure, is necessary and proportionate to the level of risk.
48The evidence establishes that the children cannot, at this time, be safely maintained in the care of their mother, even with supervision. Temporary removal is necessary to ensure their protection, stability, and well-being pending further determination.
ORDER:
49On a temporary and without prejudice basis:
The hearing of this Motion on the basis of urgency is permitted in order to comply with the requirements of s. 88 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The children, T2.L.-P., born January XX, 20XX, and T1.L.-P., born October XX, 20XX, are placed in the temporary care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel.
The children, T2.L.-P., born January XX, 20XX, and T1.L.-P., born October XX, 20XX, right of access to the Respondent Mother, K.P., is at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, as to location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision, in consideration of the children’s wishes.
The children, T2.L.-P., born January XX, 20XX, and T1.L.-P., born October XX, 20XX, right of access to the stepfather, J.P., is at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, as to location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision, in consideration of the children’s wishes.
The Office of the Children's Lawyer is directed to provide independent legal representation for the children, T2.L.-P., born January XX, 20XX, and T1.L.-P., born October XX, 20XX in this proceeding pursuant to s.78(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The requirement of having the draft Order approved as to form and content by the unrepresented parties is waived.
Court’s Administration shall release endorsement.
Court’s Administration shall enter and issue OCL order and serve same on the OCL along with this Endorsement.
Schedule “A” to the affidavit of Destiny Hindle sworn May 21, 2026 shall be sealed in the court record unless ordered otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction.
This matter returns TBST on June 1, 2026 at 11.30 AM in a court TBD by the TCO.
Approval of OCL order is waived.
Released: May 27, 2026
Signed: Justice S. V. Khemani