WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be 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.

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.

87(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.

The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.— (3) Offences re publication.

A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2019-05-27

Court File No.: Woodstock C245/17

Between:

Children's Aid Society of Oxford County Applicant

— AND —

N.J.W. S.M.L.B. D.L. T.S. Respondents

Before: Justice S. E. J. Paull

Motions Heard on: April 17 and 29, 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: May 27, 2019

Counsel

Mary Ann Costea — counsel for the applicant

Sharon Hassan — counsel for the respondent(s), D.L. and T.S.

James H. Rayner — counsel for the respondent(s), S.M.L.B.

Susan Gordon — Office of the Children's Lawyer

PAULL J.:

Introduction

[1] There are two motions before the court, both having been brought by the respondents, D.L. and T.S.

[2] The first motion found at tab 44 seeks to vary the current access order by fixing increased access including in the community.

[3] The OCL supports the motion on the basis that the proposed increases are in accordance with the childrens' views and preferences as reported to her. The applicant opposes the motion and S.M.L.B. takes no position.

[4] The second motion found at tab 46 seeks a specified order that S.M.L.B. have no access to J.L., who is her biological child.

[5] This motion is opposed by the applicant, the OCL for J.L., and S.M.L.B., who all support that J.L.'s access to his biological mother continue.

Background

[6] The three children subject to these motions are M.L. born […], 2008 (male), K.L. born […], 2008 (female), and J.L. born […], 2012 (male).

[7] The respondent, D.L. is the children's father, and the respondent, T.S. is his partner and the children's stepmother.

[8] M.L. and K.L. began to reside with their father in or about January 2012 and remained there pursuant to a 57.1 custody order dated January 17, 2013. D.L. began residing with his common-law partner, T.S. in or about August 2013.

[9] J.L. began to reside with his father and stepmother in or about November 2013 and has remained there pursuant to a 57.1 custody order dated August 9, 2015.

[10] The Society brought a Protection Application first returnable February 9, 2018 seeking a six month order with the children remaining with the D.L. and T.S. subject to terms of supervision.

[11] The Society took the position the children were at risk of harm on the basis that D.L. and T.S. were restricting and controlling the children's food intake to the point that they were malnourished and not growing as they should be as a result.

[12] The Society alleged that the parents are fixated with proving that their children have either Prader-Willi syndrome (a genetic disorder characterized in part by a constant state of hunger) and/or hyperphagia. The children have been exposed to numerous doctors and examinations, and D.L. and T.S. resist any medical advice that runs counter to their beliefs, particularly any advice that suggests that their behaviour in controlling the children's food intake is primarily responsible for their food seeking behaviours.

[13] The applicant's initial temporary care and custody motion sought to maintain the placement of the children with D.L. and T.S. pursuant to terms of supervision including that they cooperate with an assessment by the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Program (SCAN) at SickKids Hospital in Toronto. The applicant withdrew this motion in favour of a motion which sought temporary care and custody of the children in Society care.

[14] D.L. and T.S. opposed any order and that motion was argued on February 6, 2018. They took the position that they were carefully monitoring and limiting the children's food intake based on medical advice and in response to the children's significant behavioural issues, primarily related to their fixation with food. Their position was that if they did not maintain careful control over the children's food intake they would be at serious risk by overeating. The children require close supervision at all times to ensure their safety because they will eat uncontrollably and will often ingest nonfood items including soap and shampoo, bugs, and wood chips.

[15] Reasons for Judgment were released on February 22, 2018 which granted an interim supervision order maintaining the placement with the respondent's and requiring that they cooperate with an assessment by the SCAN Program, and supervision terms including that the children not be punished through food restriction, limitation or removal.

[16] The court concluded at that time that there were compelling grounds to find that there was a risk that the children would likely suffer harm in the parent's care based on their persistent limitation of the children's caloric intake, and that they did not recognize that their approach may be contributing to the food seeking behaviours in the children.

[17] Following the interim order of February 22, 2018 the children, M.L. and K.L., were assessed by the SCAN Program and were inpatients in the General Pediatric Inpatient Ward at SickKids Hospital from May 1-14, 2018.

[18] M.L. and K.L. were apprehended with a warrant upon their discharge from SickKids Hospital on May 14, 2018, and J.L. was brought to a place of safety from the respondent's care on May 17, 2018 in part on the basis of the assessments and opinions of Dr. Emma Cory, the co-director of the SCAN Program, and a consultant pediatrician in the general pediatric Growth and Feeding Clinic at SickKids Hospital.

[19] On the basis of her assessments K.L. and M.L. were diagnosed with severe Failure to Thrive. Dr. Cory was also of the view that the food seeking behaviours in all the children were the result of the inadequate or inconsistently adequate access to appropriate caloric intake, and that food seeking behaviours are to be expected in children who are experiencing chronic inadequate caloric intake. The court found that the validity of this opinion was supported not only by the overall catch-up in growth in height and weight that has been observed in K.L. and M.L. since they were removed from the D.L. and T.S.'s care, but most importantly by the fact that the food seeking behaviours in all the children have substantially or completely resolved.

[20] I was not convinced by the parent's arguments that the assessments by Dr. Cory amounted to a fraud, and that the issues the children experienced after removal from the parent's care were solely the fault of the negligence and abuse of the Society and Dr. Cory.

[21] I noted a particular concern at that time on the basis of Dr. Cory's opinion that further deprivation could lead to a greater likelihood of permanent developmental consequences and brain damage.

[22] The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the children had been exposed to serious caloric deprivation by the parents, which had been severe and chronic in the case of M.L. in K.L., and led to serious food seeking and aggressive behaviours in all the children. I noted that the parents continued to strongly resist any medical advice that ran contrary to their firmly held views, even when the evidence was clear the children's food seeking behaviours had diminished or entirely resolved since their removal from the home environment, and that they exhibit satiety and no excessive consumption when there are no food restrictions in place.

[23] On this basis on November 13, 2018 the court found a material change in circumstances and varied the interim supervision order and placed the children in the care of the applicant. D.L. and T.S.'s urgent motion seeking immediate return of M.L. was also dismissed.

[24] A copy of the Reasons for Judgment dated November 13, 2018 shall be appended to these reasons.

[25] S.M.L.B. was not involved in this matter or either of the first two motions for temporary placement of the children. She was noted in default with respect to the original protection application on April 24, 2018, however, filed an answer seeking access to J.L. after being served with the applicant's Amended Protection Application on November 8, 2018.

[26] Following her re-engagement with the Society in late 2018 some limited and supervised access with J.L. was arranged. D.L. and T.S. seek an order for no access to S.M.L.B.. The remaining parties, including J.L.'s counsel, support ongoing access.

[27] In addition to the submissions of counsel, I have reviewed and considered the affidavits at tabs 45, 47, 48, 55, 57-60, 62, and 64.

Motion of D.L. and T.S. to Increase Access

The Law

[28] As outlined in the previous Reasons for Judgment which also dealt with a motion to vary an interim order, section 94(9) of the CYFSA states that the court may at any time vary or terminate an order made under subsection (2), which provides the provisions governing adjournments of protection cases, and orders of temporary care that may be made pending these adjournments. Pending a hearing the court should make the least intrusive order that is consistent with the protection of the child from a risk of harm as outlined in section 74 of the Act.

[29] Justice Susan Himel in Children's Aid Society v. E.L., [2003] O.J. No. 3281 (O.S.C) para. 42, in writing about subsection 51(6) of the CFSA, which is now section 94(9) of the CYFSA, stated that the statute does not provide that the moving party on a variation motion must demonstrate a material change in circumstances. However, in order to give effect to the statutory scheme and recognizing that stability and continuity for children is desirable, it is appropriate to impose a threshold test of material change in the circumstances.

[30] The decision of Justice Himel was an appellate decision and is binding authority on this court. As such, before considering changing the temporary order made on November 13, 2018, the court must find a material change in circumstances since the making of that order.

[31] With respect to the threshold issue of a material change I agree with the approach taken by Justice Sherr in Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2017 ONCJ 784. The court supported a flexible approach in interpreting what constitutes a material change in circumstances, and noted that if the new evidence points to making a different placement order courts should not be restricted by an overly technical interpretation of material change to make the appropriate order (para.57 and 60).

[32] Justice Sherr endorsed taking a flexible approach to changing access orders and child protection cases. The moving party should only have to establish a sufficient change in circumstances and not necessarily a material change in circumstances. What change is required is a case specific and will depend on the risk concerns and the nature of the access increase requested. The court wrote at paragraphs 75 to 80:

[75] In a constructive child protection case where it appears that the child is in need of protection, the risk concerns are clearly delineated for the parents and clear expectations are established to assist the parents in addressing them. The hard work that is required by the parents, the Society, counsel and the court will then begin, to ensure that the parents have the best chance to reunify their family.

[76] This means that if a child is apprehended from a parent, the process of reunification, if done properly, often takes some time.

[77] It is imperative in this process that the initial access order not stay frozen until trial, unless it would be unsafe for the child to change it. Families sometimes fail in the reunification process because no steps were ever taken to change the original access order.

[78] The failure to change temporary access places a trial judge in a difficult predicament. The statutory time limit for a child to stay in Society care set out in subsection 70 (1) of the Act may have expired. This means that the child must either be made a crown ward or returned to a parent who might only have had supervised access for two hours once each week since the child was apprehended. Even if the access was positive, how can the judge confidently return the child to a parent if he or she does not even know that the parent can safely parent the child for a full day?

[79] In a constructive child protection case, access is constantly being re-evaluated. Where it can safely be done, access should be gradually increased. This not only improves the parent/child bond, but gives the court some basis to assess whether the parent is capable of parenting the child on a full-time basis. In child protection cases, full family reunification is often achieved one hour at a time.

[80] This means that if the level of access is in dispute, the court should be receptive to access change motions. The goal should be to gradually increase a parent's access. Material change or compelling evidence that is necessary for the child to make the change should generally not be required. The Act is remedial legislation. It would be contrary to the purpose of the Act to construct a legal test to change access that is too onerous for parents to meet, discourages them from moving to court to increase their access with the child and sets up more families to fail.

[33] I agree with the view of Justice Kukurin in Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. A.D., 2010 ONCJ 760, that the change in circumstances required to change a temporary placement order should only need to be "sufficiently material", and what change will be sufficiently material depended on the circumstances of the case.

[34] In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2017 ONCJ 784, the court set out distinct tests for the variation of a placement order and the variation of an access order under subsection 94(9) of the CYFSA as follows:

[85] The court will apply the following legal test to change a temporary access order during an adjournment of a protection application:

a) The moving party has the onus of establishing that a sufficient change in circumstances has taken place since the making of the last court order. Whether the change is sufficient to change the order will depend on the circumstances of the case.

b) The court should conduct a contextual analysis when exercising its discretion as to whether it is in a child's best interests to change the access order, and if so, what terms and conditions are appropriate. The purposes in section 1 of the Act should always be at the forefront of the analysis. The suggested non-exhaustive list of factors should be considered, where relevant:

1. The nature and extent of the variation sought and the proportionality of the requested change to the change in circumstances since the making of the last court order. In particular, the court should examine the extent to which the passage of time has yielded a fuller picture to the court about the child, the parent or any family and community member involved with the family.

2. The degree to which the change in circumstances reduces or increases the risk of harm to the child.

3. The extent to which the proposed change meets the objectives set out in section 1 of the Act and the expanded objectives set out in section 1 of the CYFSA.

4. The best interest factors set out in subsection 37 (3) of the Act and the expanded best interest factors set out in subsection 74 (3) of the CYFSA.

5. The importance of:

a. Ensuring that access not remain static unless the safety of the child requires this;

b. Gradually and safely increasing access between a child and the parents; and

c. Providing the court with some basis to assess the parent's long-term parenting potential.

6. The stage of the proceeding. Is a trial that will determine the issue imminent? If so, it might be in the best interests of the child to have the trial judge determine the issue.

[35] In making any determination under the CYFSA, the court must consider what is in the children's best interests. The court has considered the criteria set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act in making this determination. This subsection reads as follows:

Best interests of child

74 (3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child's views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child's cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(i) the child's physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child's physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child's race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child's cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) the child's relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child's extended family or member of the child's community,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child's care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child's care proposed by a Society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

[36] Section 94(10) of the CYFSA states that:

(10) Evidence on Adjournments -- For the purposes of this section the court may admit and act on evidence that the Court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

[37] It must be noted, however, that the relaxed evidentiary standard in s.94(10) does not otherwise change the rules of evidence.

Evidence and Analysis

[38] Access to D.L. and T.S. under the interim orders in this matter has remained at the discretion of the applicant. Their access after the apprehension in May 2018 was on Monday from 4 PM to 6 PM, Wednesday from 4 PM to 6 PM, and Saturday from 9 AM to 11 AM. The supervised access took place in both the community and at the Tillsonburg offices of the applicant.

[39] The following changes to access were made by the applicant:

1. On July 28, 2018 Saturday access was extended from 9 AM to 1 PM.
2. On September 1, 2018 Saturday access was changed from 10 AM to 2 PM.
3. On October 26, 2018 the parents were no longer permitted to bring food or beverages for the children to access.
4. On October 27, 2018 community access was removed.
5. On November 12, 2018 Monday access visits were stopped. On November 14, 2018 Wednesday access visit was shortened to 4:30 PM to 6 PM.
6. On November 17, 2018 Saturday access was shortened to 10 AM to 12 PM.

[40] The applicant takes the position that it has exercised its discretion over access appropriately in the circumstances and that the motion for increased access should be dismissed.

[41] The Society has provided a follow-up report from Dr. Cory regarding K.L., which identified that K.L. was seen again in October 2018 accompanied by the worker and the foster parent. Dr. Cory was very happy with the catch-up in height and weight since August 1, 2018, and noted no food seeking behaviours or issues were reported.

[42] Dr. Cory concluded that K.L.'s overall progress supported her prior conclusions that K.L. had experienced long-term inadequate caloric intake in the home environment.

[43] K.L. started school in September 2018 and is doing well with no food seeking behaviours or unusual eating habits being reported by the school. K.L. expressed in October 2018 to the foster parent and the worker that four hours for the Saturday visit is too long which led in part to the Society shortening the Saturday visit. This position was also confirmed by OCL counsel.

[44] M.L. remains at Vanier in the Cornerstone Treatment Group. He has been placed there since September 11, 2018 and staff at Vanier noted that since the order of November 13, 2018 they have observed decreased aggression and struggles but issues with his behaviour and regulation continue. Staff at Vanier reported that M.L. struggled the most at bedtime and there were several incidents when Malachi became dysregulated which led to the need to restrain him. By December 2018 staff at Vanier reported that Malachi was getting more used to the bedtime routine and restraints around bedtime have reduced.

[45] M.L. had a further follow-up with Dr. Cory on October 30, 2018. Dr. Cory noted continued catch-up growth in height and weight. M.L. was put on medication for ADHD in December 2018 and the school reported in January 2019 positive changes and increased focus in M.L.. The school reported no concerns with M.L.'s eating behaviours.

[46] J.L. was also seen again on October 30, 2018 by Dr. Cory, who indicated she was pleased with his growth progress.

[47] On January 23, 2019 the school reported that J.L. was doing well and was better settled, and that he was better connecting with peers. The school noted that J.L. still has general struggles with transitions and there were no grave concerns regarding J.L.'s eating behaviours. J.L.'s foster mother reported that J.L.'s behaviour in the home continues to improve and that he exhibited no eating issues.

[48] The Society has a number of concerns which it submits have necessitated changes to the access schedule. These include an allegation that the parents may be drugging the children's food at access, the parents and children frequently become escalated and dysregulated at access, that the parent strategies of excessive timeouts and of being "hands on" the children are not working, and that the parents continue to not follow Dr. Cory's recommendations around food.

The Melatonin Allegation

[49] The applicant alleges that a major concern that has necessitated changes to access was that the parents surreptitiously gave Melatonin to M.L. at an access visit on October 20, 2018.

[50] The basis for this concern is that when M.L. returned home from the visit that day he went to his room and did not come down until later. The applicant alleges that when M.L. did come down he told staff that he had received Melatonin that day from his parents. Vanier staff reported this to the applicant and a worker interviewed M.L. on October 24, 2018 at which time M.L. confirmed to her that his parents put Melatonin in the bun he ate at lunch.

[51] On this basis the Society determined that the children were at risk of being drugged by the parents at access and made the decision that the parents could no longer provide food or drinks to the children at visits.

[52] The applicant takes the view that M.L.'s statements about being given Melatonin should be believed because of the consistency between his statements to the workers at Vanier and to the Society worker several days later, and the fact that M.L. was uncharacteristically sleepy on that day which represents corroboration for the truth of his statement.

[53] As noted, the court at this stage is permitted to act on evidence that it considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances, including the hearsay or out-of-court statements of the children.

[54] In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. Family and Children's Service v. R.O., [2006] O.J. No. 969 (OCJ).

[55] While a Kahn voir dire is not undertaken in the circumstances of an interim motion, the court must nonetheless carefully scrutinize the evidence to ensure it meets the credible and trustworthy standard required.

[56] The evidence the court has to support the allegation that M.L. was drugged comes from Vanier staff and the worker who interviewed M.L..

[57] The contact log from Vanier confirms that staff sent an email on October 20, 2019 to the worker which included the following:

"ML returned from his visit round 2:30 PM and went to his room due to it being shift change. When invited down, he stayed in his room for about another hour. Staff checked in with him frequently but he didn't want to get up yet. He came down for dinner and said that he was still really tired. At bedtime, he struggled a bit and talked to staff, he said that his parents were "weird", staff asked what weird meant to him and he said that it means mean. Staff asked him what they do that is mean, but he said he doesn't want us to do what they do. Staff asked ML about when he was at home, what helped him fall asleep. He said that he got Melatonin at 6:30 and fell asleep by 7:30 because it takes an hour to kick in. He then told us that he got Melatonin today on his visit. When staff asked why, he said that it helps with his digestion. ML stated that this is why he fell asleep when he got back to Vanier from his visit. He didn't say anything else about this, and wouldn't go into detail but thought it was important information for you to have!! [sic]".

[58] Jaclyn Fakete, the worker who conducted the interview of M.L. on October 24, 2018 regarding this incident deposed to the following in her affidavit:

18. On October 24, 2018 I met privately with M.L. at Vanier Children's Services. When I arrived, M.L. appeared to be in a positive state and was happy to meet with me. I asked M.L. how his visits with his family have been going and at first, M.L. appeared hesitant to answer. However, eventually M.L. seemed to feel comfortable and shared some details of his visits. I mentioned to M.L. that it appeared from the access case notes from his visit on October 20, 2018 that he was not very happy. M.L. shook his head yes to indicate he agreed with me. I then asked M.L. about his comment to Vanier staff about his family being mean and asked him if he could tell me more about that. M.L. responded by saying "I don't want to talk about it".

19. I asked M.L. about the statement he made to Vanier staff after his October 20, 2018 visit regarding someone giving him Melatonin at the visit. I asked M.L. if anyone at the visit had given him Melatonin. At first, M.L. responded by saying no one gave him Melatonin at the visit. However, after I started asking questions to verify if M.L. knows what Melatonin is of which he replied, "it helps your body rest", M.L. shared with me that he has taken Melatonin before when he was living with his parents and then abruptly stated to me "the white stuff in my bun". I asked M.L. to clarify what "bun" meant and he replied by saying "like bread". I asked M.L. to clarify if what he was saying was that Melatonin was crushed up into his bun and M.L. replied by saying "yes". M.L. did not offer further details at that time.

[59] The Society's position is that the out-of-court statements of M.L., while hearsay, meet the standard of credible and trustworthy, and further that they establish that the parent's drugged M.L., which justified the change in access including the direction that the parents may not bring food to the visit.

[60] The fact that Vanier staff observed M.L. to be uncharacteristically tired after access may be indicative that he was tired as a result of taking Melatonin during access earlier in the day. Further, M.L. did indicate in both statements that he had taken Melatonin at the access visit.

[61] However, in spite of these factors I am not of the view based on the evidence before the court that the statements by M.L. meet the standard of credible and trustworthy for the following reasons.

[62] The context and particulars of the conversation that M.L. had with Vanier staff and the worker are not clearly outlined in the contact log and the affidavit. Most importantly, there is no indication that either Vanier staff or the worker asked M.L. the important and obvious question of how did he know his parents gave him Melatonin in his food at the visit. A careful review of the evidence offered by the Society indicates M.L. appears to have had this belief but not the factual basis for the belief (for example-he witnessed his parents do it, or they told him they did). The basis and context of his reference to "the white stuff on his bun" was unclear and few other particulars were provided. M.L. appears to have agreed to the worker's leading question that it was crushed up into his bun.

[63] The parents adamantly deny providing Melatonin to M.L. or any of the children at visits, but have always acknowledged that they provided Melatonin to M.L. when he resided in their care to assist him sleeping.

[64] Further, according to the access notes for October 20, 2018 the supervised community visit which the parents arranged took place at the Cheese Museum in Ingersoll where Pumpkin Fest activities were occurring. M.L. became significantly dysregulated at the end of the visit. When the volunteer drivers were waiting K.L. and D.L. picked out a pumpkin for the family. M.L. felt this was unfair and became extremely angry, yelling and swearing, and stomped down on T.S.'s foot when she attempted to hold his hand. He also yelled at her that she was dumb and stupid. The visit ended on this unfortunate note and may have contributed to M.L.'s behaviour when he returned to Vanier and his comments to staff that his parents were weird and mean.

[65] Given the seriousness of the allegation that the parent's drugged M.L. and the fact that the Society seeks to rely on M.L.'s statement a more formal and forensic style interview was warranted so that the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement could be properly assessed. Unfortunately this appears not to have been done and on the basis of the limited evidence before the court there are insufficient indices to establish reliability even under the less rigorous standard in section 94(10) applied at the interim stage of a proceeding.

[66] In the absence of more detailed evidence on the nature of the worker's interview, the specific questions asked, and the circumstances surrounding the interview itself, I am unable to conclude that using M.L.'s statements as evidence of the truth of their content meet the credible and trustworthy standard required.

Food and Feeding at Access

[67] The Society also alleges that access was reduced because the children have requested it. Their counsel Ms. Gordon takes the position as she did at the previous motions, that her clients have consistently and strongly expressed the desire to return home or to have more access. Ms. Gordon confirmed that K.L. has expressed a desire for a shorter visit on Saturday of 2½ or 3 hours but this was because she had other activities she wished to participate in and not because she did not wish to see her parents. Ms. Gordon also confirmed that K.L. wants the Monday visits to recommence.

[68] The Society points out that M.L. missed a series of visits with his parents in October and November 2018 because he chose not to go. However, it is clear that these visits were missed because there were programs and activities planned at Vanier that he wanted to participate in, and not because he did not want to see his parents. These activities included going out for Halloween with his peers at Vanier, and participating in an afterschool program on Wednesdays run by the Vanier nurse.

[69] The applicant also alleges that the parents use excessive timeouts to control the children's behaviour at access and often get physical with them, neither of which is effective. This concern is compounded because the parents refuse to engage and meet with the family service worker, or to take the Triple P parenting course offered by the Society in a face-to-face manner, rather than online.

[70] While the parents did undertake one part of the Triple P program online, this was not the method that was requested by the Society, who have a worker prepared to work with them one-on-one.

[71] A review of the access notes reveals that there are clearly issues at access due to the children frequently acting out and the parents have at times been frustrated and unable to manage them.

[72] However, the access notes also indicate that the parents have attended regularly, and that they made efforts to plan appropriate outings and activities for the family to engage in. Activities arranged by the parents include fishing, swimming and playing at the park, attending at various museums, at Apple Land, and at the Leaping Deer Farm. The access notes also provide some examples of positive interactions and successful efforts at times to redirect and manage the children's behaviours.

[73] The Society also alleges that the parents continue at access to impose food restrictions contrary to its direction based on Dr. Cory's recommendations, including the use of alarms for when it is time to eat and not providing food when requested by the children.

[74] When the access notes are reviewed it is evident that the parents continue to pre-portion the children's food, supervise their use of the bathroom, and have not always provided food when requested contrary to Dr. Cory's direction. However, the behavioural issues and dysregulation the children experience at access are not centred on food issues. The access notes also suggest the parents went to great lengths to try to provide balanced meals and ample food for the children at visits.

[75] I would note that when the Society began providing the food it appeared to be unlimited access to snacks, some of which were sugary in nature, and also likely at odds with Dr. Cory's recommendations.

[76] Dr. Cory made recommendations around feeding the children which the parents are required to follow, however, I am not convinced these recommendations included supporting essentially a "free-for-all" approach at access of any food at any time with no enforcement of basic table manners or structure.

[77] The parties, through counsel if necessary, shall be required to engage with Dr. Cory on the issue of feeding at access so that she may provide more particular direction, which shall be implemented by the parents at access visits.

Parental Behaviour at Access

[78] The concerns of the applicant regarding the parent's ability to regulate the children's behaviour, and of becoming elevated and "hands-on" themselves at times relate to numerous examples cited by the worker, Jeremy Horrell. Mr. Horrell was not one of the access supervisors, however deposed that he reviewed all the case notes and summarized the issues.

[79] He noted numerous concerns with D.L. and T.S.. He cited two instances of physical force on October 20, 2018. One related to D.L. becoming angry with K.L. when she was agitated and that he appeared to be very frustrated and angry, forcefully grabbing K.L. by the upper arm and told her that she was going to the car and then forcefully putting her down in the car.

[80] D.L. and T.S. deny excessive physical discipline or that they have become dysregulated themselves, however, their counsel in submissions acknowledged some frustration on their part at times outlined in the access notes.

[81] D.L. and T.S. provided the case notes from the two access supervisors at visits, including the visit on October 20, 2018, and note that Mr. Horrell used the description as outlined by one of the access supervisors only. The second supervisor's case notes indicate that D.L. "marched" the children outside but does not reference that he was not gentle or that he was very frustrated and angry.

[82] As I noted in the previous Reasons for Judgment direct evidence from witnesses is likely to be more reliable, as it is not being interpreted or summarized by a third person. When courts are dealing with the protection of children and the intrusion by the state into a family, it is imperative that it be able to make decisions based on the most reliable evidence that can be presented. It would have been appropriate for the access supervisors to provide their own sworn affidavits.

[83] The access notes do not indicate that either the supervisors were regularly intervening in access as a result of concerns they had for the parent's behaviour.

[84] What can be gleaned from the access at this stage is that the parents have some success at times and a significant inability at other times to manage the children's behaviours and their own frustration.

[85] As I have repeatedly stated in previous Reasons, the parents need to learn better strategies in addressing the children's behaviours, and the way to do so is to engage in the supports recommended and offered, however, they also require the opportunity to parent the children in a supported and structured way.

Trauma Assessment

[86] The applicant, based on the recommendation of Dr. Cory, has engaged CAAP to complete a trauma assessment which is scheduled to be completed in June 2019. The Society takes the position that access should not be changed until these assessments are completed.

[87] In support of this position the applicant filed a short, seven paragraph affidavit from Dr. Anne Niec, the medical director of the CAAP program. Dr. Niec confirmed that the assessments are in the process of being completed and that as part of the assessment recommendations will be made on several issues including, "the access relationship between the children and their parents and between the siblings".

[88] Dr. Niec concluded her affidavit by stating the following at paragraph 6:

Because we have concerns that the children have experienced trauma, until the assessment is completed, and the written report is provided, I strongly recommend that no changes be made to the current access arrangements between the children and their parents, and between the children, as these changes may be contraindicated by the conclusions of the assessment"

Finding of Material Change in Circumstances

[89] For the reasons that follow I am of the view that D.L. and T.S. have established a material change in circumstances.

[90] As previously outlined the case law supports a relaxed standard of the need to establish a material change in circumstances related to interim access in a protection proceeding. I am of the view that a relaxed standard is particularly important where the interim order directs, as it does in this case, that access be at the discretion of the Society.

[91] Further, the Society reduced the access frequency and duration and removed the supervised access that was occurring in the community. These factors alone satisfy the standard for material change in circumstances in my view.

[92] D.L. and T.S. did bring this motion to vary access very soon after the interim order was made, however, in spite of the timing of the motion, based on the changes in how the Society exercised its discretion over access there has been a material change justifying a review.

[93] Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the access changes it made were done just prior to the date of the order of November 13, 2018, and therefore the respondent's cannot establish a material change in circumstances from the date of the order.

[94] There is no doubt that the threshold requirement of a material change in circumstances must arise following the order so that parties are not simply re-litigating the same facts that have already been ruled upon. However, the reductions in access imposed by the applicant occurred while the judgment on the previous motion was in reserve after the five days of submissions were completed on October 10, 2018.

[95] As a result, the circumstances surrounding the reduction of access were not before the court at the previous motion. In these particular circumstances I am not prepared to preclude the respondents from seeking a review of the Society's reduction in their access in spite of the timing of the motion and the changes in access. To do so would be unjust.

Best Interests Analysis

[96] On the basis of a finding of a material change the question now becomes what if any change in the order is appropriate. The real issue here is whether the Society was exercising its discretion in a reasonable manner when the access was modified and reduced.

[97] The court must undertake a contextual analysis with respect to whether it is in the children's best interests to change the access order.

[98] In determining what order is appropriate, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1 (1) and (2) of the Act). In assessing best interests, the court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 74 (3) of the CYFSA.

[99] The factors in subsection 74 (3) of the CYFSA are subject to the paramount duty in s. 1 to protect the best interests of an apprehended child. In other words, family and parental relationships are to be recognized only to the extent that they are "consistent with the best interest, protection and well-being of the children". Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. D.(B.), 2007 SCC 38.

[100] In the Reasons for Judgment dated November 13, 2018, the court outlined concerns that were occurring at access, particularly related to the issue of feeding. The court noted that if the parents were unable or unwilling to follow the direction around feeding from Dr. Cory, the applicant may need to make changes to the access parameters and schedule.

[101] The applicant's position is that the changes it directed to access are the very changes contemplated in the Reasons and that they were done to ensure the safety and well-being of the children.

[102] The court has previously found that there are significant risks to the children with respect to how the parents have viewed and addressed the children's behaviours, particularly their insistence that the children have a genetic disorder as the basis for their food seeking behaviours, when these particular behaviours have largely if not entirely resolved since the children were removed from the parent's care.

[103] In addition to the risks to the children previously found by the court, the current evidence does not establish that D.L. and T.S. have taken sufficient steps to ameliorate those risks. They have resisted the Society's request to take the Triple P parenting program in person, only agreeing to do a portion of it online, and there is no evidence that they have taken any other programming recommended, including what was recommended by LHSC previously.

[104] D.L. and T.S. continue to largely not engage or cooperate with the family service worker and blame the Society for all the issues the children and family have experienced. They depose that, "the continued abuse of our children by the applicant knows no bounds", and that there has been a, "gradual deterioration of our children in the care of the applicant…".

[105] This characterization is not supported by the current evidence. As noted in the previous Reasons the children, particularly M.L., have significant issues. Since then the children have continued to show improvements in growth with little or no food seeking behaviours, and the foster parents, staff at Vanier, and the school noted a continued stabilization of the children's behaviours.

[106] D.L. and T.S.'s continuing inability or unwillingness to positively engage with the Society and with supports and programming that are contrary to their firmly held views remains an impediment to this matter moving forward towards the family reuniting in a healthy and safe manner.

[107] Having said this the analysis must be undertaken in the context of the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purpose of maintaining the integrity the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children.

[108] I am not convinced by the applicant on the limited evidence it presented that M.L. was drugged or that the children are at risk of being drugged by the parents at access. The evidence was insufficient to support that finding as a result of the scant particulars around M.L.'s disclosure.

[109] The parents did make efforts to provide appropriate and balanced meals at visits, and the behaviours of the children at access appear not to be related to feeding issues in any event.

[110] As previously noted the parents will be expected to follow the directions of Dr. Cory regarding feeding at access, the particulars of which the parties shall seek in writing from Dr. Cory.

[111] The court has previously found that there are significant concerns with how the parents have responded to the children's behaviours. The current evidence clearly establishes significant dysregulation of the children at times at access, and the parents being unable to consistently manage or redirect them.

[112] However, I am not persuaded that a two or three hour reduction in weekly visits lessens these risks. The solution for these issues is for the parents to accept the supports offered by the Society rather than for the access to simply be reduced. The parents will be required to engage in the Triple P programming as recommended by the applicant as a basis to increase and improve the access.

[113] Further, I am not convinced that removing all the community access is necessary in the circumstances when it remains entirely supervised by two Society workers in any event. There were examples in the access notes of positive family interactions in the community. I do not accept that removing a supervised community visit in favour of visits at the Society offices is mitigating a concern or improving the safety and well-being of the children, particularly since all the access is supervised.

[114] It is appropriate that access remained entirely supervised at this time, however, a short and fully supervised community visit does not increase the risks and provides the opportunity for more meaningful and natural interaction between the family. The evidence suggests that in spite of the difficulties D.L. and T.S. made efforts to plan community visits that would be meaningful and enjoyable for the children and that some of these visits were successful. However, it is appropriate that until the parents are better able to manage the children that a majority of the access continue to occur at the Society offices.

[115] In spite of the level of risk previously found, the extent of the variation sought by the parents is relatively small. They are seeking to return to essentially what the arrangement was in October 2018.

[116] The court has also taken into consideration the children's views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the children's age and maturity pursuant to section 94(11) of the Act. Ms. Gordon reports that the children have consistently expressed a desire to be at home, or for more access. As previously noted when the children have expressed that they did not want to go to access it appeared to be motivated by the desire to engage in other activities, rather than not wanting to see D.L. and T.S..

[117] As noted in the previous Reasons, however, their views must be considered in context based on the circumstances of the significant risk that that I have found that exists.

[118] I also note that while this matter has been outstanding for a considerable amount of time, that the trial is not imminent. An order for a PCA was made in March 2019 which is not scheduled to be completed until the fall of 2019 given the volumes of documents and medical records involved in this matter.

[119] Based on the limited evidence of Dr. Niec before the court I am not convinced that access should remain static, particularly since the adjustment that will be ordered is a relatively modest one. No CV was provided for Dr. Niec to establish her expertise and insufficient evidence was provided to establish the basis of her opinion other than that increased access may be contraindicated by the conclusions of an assessment that is not yet completed.

[120] It is understandable why a major change in access may not be appropriate in the middle of an assessment, however, it was not clear in Dr. Niec's evidence whether she was aware of the modest increase to access that was sought (from 3 ½ hours to 7 hours per week), or that all the access would remain fully supervised in any event.

[121] Overall, while the risk factors previously found to have not been ameliorated and significant concerns remain which are compounded by the parents continuing approach to this matter, the evidence provided by the applicant has not established that a modest increase in access and a change to the parameters would be contrary to the best interests of the children, or increase the risks to them.

[122] In my view the best interests of the children support an order directing access of six hours a week, with one of these visits in the community, and that the parents be permitted to provide food based on the updated input of Dr. Cory. This change does not increase the risks based on the facts as I found them, particularly since all the access shall remain supervised.

[123] It is appropriate that the Saturday access visit reflect K.L.'s view as expressed to her counsel that it be 2 ½ to 3 hours in duration in the morning so that she may have the opportunity to engage in other activities.

[124] It is important that Societies and courts do not get locked into a default position of overly restricted or limited interim access. The restriction on a parent's access must be proportionate to the risk concerns. If parents have difficulties managing the children the response ought not to only be to reduce the access. Other avenues ought to be explored which can support access improving and increasing if successful. This requires cooperation and affective and ongoing communication between the Society and parents. The parties in this matter with the assistance of counsel are encouraged to work cooperatively to problem solve the current challenges with access.

[125] On the basis of all these considerations the least restrictive alternative consistent with the safety, well-being, and best interests of the children is that an interim access order issue as follows:

1. Access to D.L. and T.S. shall remain at the discretion of the applicant as to duration, frequency, and need for supervision subject to the following:

i. D.L. and T.S. shall participate in the Triple P program directly with the Society worker.

ii. When D.L. and T.S. have arranged and begun participating in the Triple P program access shall increase to:

1. six hours per week.

2. one weekly visit will be arranged in the community on the basis of an outing planned by the parents and approved of and supervised by the applicant.

3. the respondents shall be permitted to bring a meal to the visits subject to conditions outlined in writing by the applicant in accordance with the updated recommendations of Dr. Cory.

Motion for No Access to S.M.L.B.

[126] The current interim order dated November 13, 2018 is silent with respect to access by S.M.L.B. to J.L.. She was not participating in this matter when that order was made. Since that order she has served an answer seeking access to J.L. in response to the Society's Amended Application which was served on her in early November 2018.

[127] D.L. and T.S. have brought a motion seeking an explicit order that she have no access to J.L.. They take this position on the basis of two main arguments. Firstly they submit that the significant protection concerns which necessitated J.L.'s removal from her care remain unaddressed. Secondly there has been a significant gap in access by her own choice, and it is not in J.L.'s best interest to have access start up only to stop again because S.M.L.B. is not likely to follow through given her past conduct. They also note that J.L. has experienced a lot of instability since this proceeding began and as a result this would not be the appropriate time to reintroduce S.M.L.B. into his life.

Background on S.M.L.B.

[128] Until the apprehension in May 2018, J.L. had been with his father and stepmother from in or about November 2013 pursuant to a Protection Application brought with respect to J.L. and one of his half-siblings, K. born […], 2012, and a Status Review Application with respect to another half-sibling, S. born […], 2004.

[129] During that proceeding, S.M.L.B. took the position that J.L. should remain with D.L. with liberal and generous access to her, and D.L. took the position that J.L. remain in his care under a custody order and that S.M.L.B. have supervised access.

[130] Those applications were disposed of by the final order following trial of Justice Marshman dated October 9, 2015 which ordered, in addition to findings in need of protection, that K. be placed for 12 months supervision with a maternal aunt and uncle with monitored phone contact to S.M.L.B.. The child, S. was made a Crown Ward with access to her siblings but not to S.M.L.B. or any of the other respondents. J.L. was placed in the custody of D.L., with inter-sibling access, and access to S.M.L.B. supervised at Merrymount weekly for a maximum of two hours, with dates and times agreed-upon by the parents in conjunction with Merrymount.

[131] Justice Marshman had the benefit of a Parenting Capacity Assessment conducted by Dr. Sudermann. The court noted in its Reasons for Judgment that S.M.L.B. has some strengths including above average intelligence, the ability to accomplish numerous tasks as a parent, and the ability to engage in very good activities for the children and to provide them with good verbal stimulation. This led Dr. Sudermann to the opinion, which was accepted by the court, that S.M.L.B., "is capable of providing intellectual stimulation of a very adequate nature to the children."

[132] However, the court found that the negatives outweighed the positives regarding S.M.L.B. in terms of her personal history of significant employment and housing instability (including numerous periods where she resided in shelters), an inability to manage her finances, and not following through consistently with access or services. The court noted that the most concerning issue was S.M.L.B.'s tendency to lie and manipulate, and her failure to take responsibility for her actions.

[133] The court accepted Dr. Sudermann's view that these traits indicated a "high degree of immaturity and poor personality functioning" on S.M.L.B.'s part. Justice Marshman concluded by stating that the child, S. is said to be "10 going on 25 but S.M.L.B. can be said to be 30 going on 14", and that S.M.L.B. needs to follow up with the psychiatric assessment and the intense counselling that has been recommended numerous times over the years.

[134] However, in spite of these negative findings the court concluded the following:

"[36] J.L. deserves to know and appreciate his mother. He will be placed in the custody of his father and will have twin half-siblings residing with him. His mother's access should be supervised, at least for the foreseeable future. She would have to do much in the way of counselling and self-improvement before her access to J.L. becomes unsupervised and more in line with what she sees as reasonable…"

[135] D.L. and T.S. also note that since the order of Justice Marshman that S.M.L.B. has had another child, T. born […], 2015 which was removed from her care. In Reasons for Judgment dated June 12, 2018, Justice LeRoy granted a final order on summary judgment making T. a Crown Ward with no access, and noting that the protection findings made by Justice Marshman in the context of the other children, including J.L., remained valid with insufficient improvement made by S.M.L.B..

[136] S.M.L.B. appealed this order. Her appeal was dismissed by Justice Aston in reasons dated November 5, 2018.

[137] These earlier decisions and findings are relevant to the issues before this court insofar as they provide not only context but evidence of past parenting which is admissible under the CYFSA. The prior PCA is also admissible under s.98(14) of the CYFSA. They are also relevant as the starting point for the court in determining whether S.M.L.B. has addressed any of the protection concerns that have been found to exist.

[138] In her affidavit S.M.L.B. offered little evidence that she has taken steps to address the concerns that resulted in the protection orders with respect to her children.

Current Access Arrangement

[139] When S.M.L.B. reengaged with the applicant in November 2018, the applicant planned for a reintroduction and some limited and supervised access for J.L. with S.M.L.B. The first visit occurred on December 1, 2018. As a result of the visit being successful a further visit occurred on January 5, 2019 which was also positive for J.L. The applicant's plan at this time is to facilitate supervised access once a month for a period of two hours each to ensure that S.M.L.B. follows through and that it remains positive for J.L.

[140] Before the visits arranged by Oxford CAS, the last time that S.M.L.B. saw J.L. was in or about October 2016. A letter from Merrymount Access Centre dated January 18, 2017 confirms that S.M.L.B.'s access was terminated as a result of her non-attendance.

[141] S.M.L.B. does not dispute the significant gap in her contact with J.L. and acknowledges that her access to J.L. was terminated by Merrymount due to her non-attendance at that time.

[142] She deposes in her affidavit that she tried to resume the access but was advised by Merrymount that D.L. would have to consent. She further deposed that she made numerous efforts to contact D.L. in an effort to resume access but never received a reply.

[143] D.L. and T.S. dispute that S.M.L.B. made any effort to contact them, and point out that S.M.L.B. was served with the original protection application in this matter on December 21, 2017 and did not respond and was subsequently noted in default.

[144] There is no evidence that S.M.L.B. took any other steps to have her access reinstated at that time through counsel and/or a motion or other means of enforcement, including participating in this proceeding after she was served with the original protection application in late 2017. Up until November 2018 the evidence supports that she did not take the steps that would have been reasonable if she was trying to have access reinstated.

Court's Decision on S.M.L.B. Access

[145] However, for the following reasons the court is not prepared on an interim basis to order that J.L. have no access to his mother.

[146] There is no order in this proceeding prohibiting access between J.L. and S.M.L.B., and the current interim order of November 13, 2018 is silent with respect to this issue.

[147] The applicant has initiated some limited and supervised access for J.L. and has taken the appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of J.L. in the circumstances of the protection concerns regarding S.M.L.B. and the length of time since the previous contact. The applicant is aware of the history and protection concerns regarding S.M.L.B. and implemented access on the basis of a slow reintegration focused on J.L.'s needs in a fully supervised and supported setting.

[148] The foster mother was present for support at the first visit on December 1, 2018. That visit was viewed as overall positive for J.L. and the supervisors noted good interactions and communications between J.L. and S.M.L.B.

[149] On the basis of the successful reintroduction the applicant made the decision to continue to facilitate supervised access on the first Saturday of each month for 2 hours. The subsequent visit was attended by S.M.L.B. and was also noted as positive with no concerns reported. J.L. appears to enjoy the visits and reported to the worker on January 22, 2019 that he is enjoying seeing his mother, and his OCL counsel takes the position that his views and preferences support ongoing visits with S.M.L.B..

[150] I agree that it would not be in J.L.'s best interests if S.M.L.B. were to start access again and then not follow through. However, the reintroduction has taken place and access has begun and appears to be positive for him. To terminate it again now would likewise not be in his best interests. It should remain carefully planned and supported until S.M.L.B. has established a track record of consistent follow-through and attendance, and to ensure that the access remains positive for J.L.

[151] It is clear that S.M.L.B. did not previously follow through with access and Merrymount terminated it based on her non-attendance, and further that S.M.L.B. did not take any additional steps through counsel or in court if she felt that D.L. was not agreeing to a reinstatement of access. To the extent that it remains relevant, the issue of D.L. and S.M.L.B.'s positions of why access did not recommence after January 2017 will be determined at a trial if necessary when the contrary allegations can be properly tested.

[152] In the meantime J.L. has begun access with S.M.L.B. in a fully supervised and supportive setting and it appears to be positive for J.L.

[153] The current final order of Justice Marshman grants S.M.L.B. a right of supervised access to J.L. and the Reasons for Judgment noted that in spite of the significant concerns, "J.L. deserves to know and appreciate his mother". This order has not been varied.

[154] The applicant has taken an appropriate and child focused approach with respect to S.M.L.B.'s access.

[155] Access is the right of the child and in all the circumstances I am not prepared on an interim motion to terminate J.L.'s contact with S.M.L.B. particularly since it has already commenced and is going well, and J.L. himself wants the access to continue. An interim order terminating access at this stage would not be in J.L.'s best interests or be the least intrusive option sufficient to address the risks. An interim order for no access would likely have the impact of being a permanent termination. Based on the evidence before the court, continuing access to S.M.L.B. is in J.L.'s best interests until this matter is resolved on a final basis.

Final Order

[156] On the basis of all the considerations outlined herein, there shall be an order as follows:

1. The respondent, S.M.L.B. shall have supervised access to the child, J.L. as arranged with the Children's Aid Society of Oxford County and in the discretion of the Children's Aid Society of Oxford County as to frequency and circumstance.

2. Access to D.L. and T.S. shall remain at the discretion of the applicant as to duration, frequency, and need for supervision subject to the following:

a) D.L. and T.S. shall participate in the Triple P program directly with the Society worker.

b) When D.L. and T.S. have arranged and begun participating in the Triple P program access shall increase to:

1. six hours per week.

2. one weekly visit will be arranged in the community on the basis of an outing planned by the parents and approved by the applicant.

3. the respondents shall be permitted to bring food to the visits subject to conditions outlined in writing by the applicant in accordance with the updated recommendations of Dr. Cory.

Released: May 27, 2019

Signed: "Justice S. E. J. Paull"