Court File and Parties

CITATION: K.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2026 ONSC 1203

COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00002946-0000

DATE: 20260226

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: K.D., Appellant

and

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA and P.R., Respondents

BEFORE: Backhouse, Fregeau, Schreck JJ.

COUNSEL: M. Tronin, for the appellant B. Fisher, for the respondent Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa P.R., respondent, self-represented

HEARD: February 26, 2026 by video-conference

WARNING

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3), which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87(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.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“CAS”) brought the appellant’s children to a place of safety in October 2024, following which it brought a protection application pursuant to s.81 of the Child and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 The application was later withdrawn and the parties came to an agreement which addressed the concerns that animated the CAS’s actions.

[2] The appellant subsequently brought a motion for a declaration that the CAS acted unlawfully in bringing the children to a place of safety without a warrant as well as costs in the amount of $6824.07. The motion was heard by Doyle J. on October 23, 2024. Doyle J. declined to rule on the issue of whether a warrant was required in this case and also declined to order costs against the CAS.

[3] The appellant submits that Doyle J.’s decision in effect amounts to a conclusion that the CAS acted lawfully or, in the alternative, that it was incumbent on her to address the issue. We disagree. Doyle J. clearly stated, “Based on this record, the court declines to rule on whether a warrant was required in this case.” It is well established that whether or not to grant declaratory relief is entirely discretionary: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, 2024 SCC 27, 494 D.L.R. (4th) 383, at para. 279. We see no error in how that discretion was exercised in this case. As no decision was made, there is nothing for this court to review.

[4] The CAS acknowledges that Doyle J. did not rule on the issue and that the decision has no precedential value.

[5] With respect to costs, Doyle J. applied the well-established principles set out in Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L., 2014 ONSC 3679, at para. 14, and other cases. We see no error in how those principles were applied in this case.

[6] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent does not seek costs and none are ordered.

Backhouse J.

Fregeau J.

Schreck J.

Released: February 26, 2026