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.

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 File and Parties

Court File No.: Toronto C 60321/13

Date: 2019-08-28

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto Applicant

— And —

E.D., M.A. Respondents

Before: Justice Curtis

Heard on: 23, 24, 25, 28-30 January; 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 February 2019

Reasons for Judgment released on: 28 August 2019

Counsel:

• Lauren Stringer for the Applicant Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
• David Miller for the Respondent mother E.D.
• Benjamin Vincents for the Respondent father M.A.

CURTIS, J.:

INDEX

1. Over-view
2. Positions of the Parties
3. Background
4. Litigation History
5. The Protection Findings
6. Disposition
   • a. Disposition Legal Principles
   • b. Plans Proposed at Trial
     • i. The Mother's Plan
     • ii. The Father's Plan
7. The Father as a Witness
8. The Credibility of the Parents
9. Issues And Evidence Regarding the Protection Concerns, Custody And Access
   • a. The Children Were at Risk of Harm while in the Father's Care and the Protection Concerns about the Father Have Not Been Addressed
   • b. The Mother Long Ago Addressed the Protection Concerns C.C.A.S. had about Her
   • c. The Father has Engaged in and Continues a Campaign to Undermine the Mother's Relationship with the Children
   • d. The Children have Thrived in the Mother's Care since March 2018
   • e. The Father has no Insight into his Shortcomings or the Impact of his Behaviour
   • f. The Father is Ungovernable, by C.C.A.S., by the Court, by any Court Order
10. The Children's Views and Preferences
11. Is Intervention through a Court Order Necessary to Protect the Children in the Future?
12. Who Should Have Custody?
13. Access
    • a. The Father's Current Access
    • b. Should the Father's Access be Terminated?
    • c. Should the Father have Unsupervised Access?
    • d. The Mother's Plan for Access
      • i. Can the Father's Access be Successfully Supervised?
      • ii. Possible Access Supervisors
        • 1. The Mother's Relationship with the Father's Family
        • 2. The Paternal Aunt B.
        • 3. The Paternal Grandmother
        • 4. The Paternal Grandfather
        • 5. The Father's Partner Ms. B.-O.
        • 6. The Father's Family as Possible Access Supervisors
    • e. The Father's Access
    • f. Why Access at the Supervised Access Program?
14. Orders
15. Costs

1. Over-view

This is the decision in the ten day trial of a status review application (regarding the three oldest children) and a protection application (regarding the youngest child).

The trial dealt only with the issue of what disposition is in the children's best interests. All four children had previously been found to be in need of protection (the details are below). Essentially, this trial was a dispute between the parents about custody and access.

2. Positions of the Parties

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto ("C.C.A.S.", or "the agency") was seeking a disposition of custody to the mother, under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act ("the C.Y.F.S.A."). C.C.A.S. asks for an order that the father's access be in the mother's discretion. The mother supports this position and makes the same claims.

The father opposes this position and these claims. The father claims sole custody, and no access to the mother.

The issues for determination are these:

a) Is intervention through a court order necessary to protect the children in the future?

b) If so, what disposition order is in the best interests of the children?

c) Is it in the children's best interests to be in the custody of the mother, or the father?

d) What access to the other parent is in the children's best interests?, and,

e) Should that access be supervised?

3. Background

E.D. is the mother ("the mother") of the children. She was born on […] 1975 (44 years old). M.A. is the father ("the father"). He was born on […] 1970 (49 years old).

The parents had a relationship between 2009 and 2015, which included many separations and reconciliations. They have four children:

• M., born […] 2010 (9 years old)
• G., born […] 2010 (9 years old)
• E., born […] 2013 (6 years old), and,
• A., born […] 2015 (4 years old)

4. Litigation History

The C.C.A.S. has had previous involvement with this family, as far back as 2010, when the twin boys were born. The twins lived with the mother only for the first two years of their lives. At the time, the agency's concerns were regarding domestic violence, and the effect of the parent's conflict on the children. Despite the ongoing violence, the parents had a history of reuniting. Both parents admitted to using some physical discipline with the children. There were also concerns about the mother's mental health.

The original protection application regarding the oldest children (the twins) was started on 12 February 2013, with a temporary order made 21 February 2013 placing the children in the father's care, with a supervision order. The parents reconciled, and two more children were born after that. There was a final supervision order made on 15 April 2014, placing the twins and E. jointly with the father and the paternal grandmother.

The parents separated for the final time in 2015. The current protection application regarding A. was started on 28 July 2015, with an order made 29 July 2015 placing A. in the father's care, with a supervision order. At that time all four children were in the father's care, subject to supervision orders.

With some adjustments these orders were in place until November 2017, when there was contested litigation about the mother's access, and then in March 2018, when there was contested litigation about custody of the children.

As a result, the children were living with the father for several years, from 2013 to March 2018. The mother's access was originally supervised. In February 2017 her access became weekly unsupervised eight hour daytime access visits. The mother brought a successful access motion on 14 November 2017 and a very detailed access order was granted. The father breached the access order almost immediately, and continuously.

The mother then brought a motion on 22 March 2018 to place the children with her, with a supervision order. C.C.A.S. had significant protection concerns regarding the father's care of the children:

• the ongoing breaches of the access order by the father;
• the father's failure to ensure the children's academic needs were being met;
• the father's attempts to remove the mother from the children's lives; and,
• the father's unwillingness to meet with the C.C.A.S. worker to discuss issues.

The court ordered the children placed in the mother's care subject to a supervision order on 22 March 2018. There were no terms of supervision regarding the mother's care of the children. The father was to have access in the discretion of the agency, supervised in the discretion of the agency.

5. The Protection Findings

The three oldest children (M., G. and E.) are in court on a status review application (as amended). A. is in court on a protection application (as amended).

On 15 April 2014, M., G. and E. were found to be in need of protection, on consent, under s. 37 (2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act ("the C.F.S.A."). This section refers to risk of physical harm.

On 24 July 2017, A. was found to be in need of protection, on an unopposed basis, under s.37 (2)(l) of the C.F.S.A. This section refers to the parent being unable to care for the child, and the child being brought to court with the parent's consent.

6. Disposition

Disposition Legal Principles

This is a case about custody of the four children. Section 101 (1) C.Y.F.S.A. sets out the orders available to the court once a child has found to be in need of protection, and the court is satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future. The case involves claims by all parties under s. 102 C.Y.F.S.A.. C.C.A.S and the mother are asking for an order of custody of the children to the mother. The father is asking for custody to him.

These are the relevant sections of the legislation:

Order where child in need of protection

101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child's best interests:

Supervision order

1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.

Interim society care

2. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.

Extended society care

3. That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision

4. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.

Custody order

102 (1) Subject to subsection (6), if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 101 (1) would be in a child's best interests, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.

Deemed to be order under s. 28 Children's Law Reform Act

(2) An order made under subsection (1) and any access order under section 104 that is made at the same time as the order under subsection (1) is deemed to be made under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act and the court,

(a) may make any order under subsection (1) that the court may make under section 28 of that Act; and

(b) may give any directions that it may give under section 34 of that Act.

Deemed to be final order under s. 35 Children's Law Reform Act

(4) An order under subsection (3) is deemed to be a final order made under section 35 of the Children's Law Reform Act, and shall be treated for all purposes as if it had been made under that section.

Once a finding is made that the child is a child in need of protection, the court must determine what order for her care is in her best interests. The criteria to determine the child's best interests are set out in s. 74 (3) C.Y.F.S.A.:

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.

The pattern of behaviour must be considered: the lack of improvement in the pattern; the lack of insight; the lack of progress in addressing well-founded concerns, despite repeated opportunities to do so; the lack of candour; the lack of good faith; and the lack of any reason to have confidence that the parent has the ability and/ or commitment to make necessary improvements within timelines sensitive to the child's needs.

The court when making a custody order may order any of the incidents of custody and access set out in section 28 and 34 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Orders dispensing with a parent's consent to travel with children outside of Canada and to obtain government documentation can be found to be in the children's best interests.

Plans Proposed at Trial

There were two plans proposed at the trial:

a) C.C.A.S.'s plan and claims are for an order that the children be placed in the custody of the mother under a s. 102 C.Y.F.S.A. order (with certain terms about documents and travel), with access to the father at the mother's discretion. This is what the mother claims as well; and,

b) The father's plan and claims are for sole custody to him, under a s. 102 C.Y.F.S.A. order, with no access to the mother.

The Mother's Plan

The mother lives with her fiancée, V.N. ("Mr. N."), who is 52 years old. They met in 2016, and have lived together since January 2017. They live in his home in Toronto, where he has lived for 11 years, a semi-detached home with a finished basement and a backyard. The four children live there with the mother and Mr. N., and have lived there since the change in custody ordered in March 2018. Mr. N. is a self-employed carpenter, with his own company, doing general contracting. He has run this company for over 20 years.

The agency is supporting the mother's plan for the care of the children, and is seeking an order granting her custody of the children. The agency has no protection concerns about the mother's care of the children.

The Father's Plan

The father lives in a two-bedroom home. Living there with him were the following five other adults:

• his partner, C.B.-O. ("Ms. B.-O.") (born […] 1970, 48 years old);
• her son (19 years old);
• the paternal grandparents; and,
• the father's 19 year old daughter My. (born […] 2000).

There isn't room for the children to have overnight access there, let alone for them to live there (there are four children). The father did not disclose in his evidence that his parents are living with him, but both of them were witnesses at the trial. The father said that he is planning to move.

The father's partner Ms. B.-O. works as a personal support worker. She had known the father for five months at trial, and had been living with him since October 2018 (for about three to four months). There were some curious gaps in her knowledge about the father and the children. She knew that the court case was about custody of the children, but she did not know details. She admitted that she did not know why C.C.A.S. is involved with the family and that she did not know why his access was supervised. She said that she knows what the C.C.A.S. concerns are about him (that he was coaching the children, that he was making allegations against the mother of abusing the children, and that he was telling the children they are coming home with him). She said that she knows he is not supposed to be doing these things. She said that she did not ask questions about the mother. She did not even understand the questions asked of her about these issues.

The father told the children to call his partner "mummy C.", which she thought was unusual. At trial she had only been to five visits with the children.

The father works and has a business which does construction and renovations. Before a recent cut to a tendon in his hand (which required surgery) he worked full time, every day, all day. He was not working at the trial. His evidence was that he is receiving Ontario Works benefits now, and accepting cash for jobs he does. His partner Ms. B.-O. admitted that she did not know details of how he injured his hand. She did not recall when he was injured. She did not know when he started working. She did not know if he was receiving social assistance income. She did not know if he was bringing any money in.

The father gave evidence that Ms. B.-O. is planning to go back to the Philippines (no date was specified).

In the middle of the trial (after about seven days of trial), the father gave evidence that Ms. B.-O. and her son had moved out of the father's home. He said it was to make room for the children, to live there. Only the father gave this evidence.

The father has other children (My., born […] 2000 (19 years old), N., born […] 2002 (17), K., born in […] 2008 (11) (the father did not know her date of birth). His evidence was that he does not have contact with any of them.

The father called his daughter My. as a witness at the trial. She was born in the Philippines and came to the United States with her mother as a child. The father had never met her, and had never visited her, until she came to Canada in December 2018. She knew that she had other siblings (other than the four children involved in this case) from her father's side, one in the Philippines and one in Toronto, neither of whom she has ever met. The Toronto sibling is a 12 year old daughter that the father does not have contact with. My. lives with the father, and says that she is part of his plan for custody of the children. She believed the court case was about custody of the children. She does not know why his access is supervised. Her evidence was that he has not told her what C.C.A.S. is concerned about, and that she did not know what the C.C.A.S. concerns are. C.C.A.S. did not know, until the trial, that the father's daughter was part of his plan, and they had not assessed her. Her evidence was wholly unhelpful, both to the court, and to the father's claims.

The father also did not seem to understand that C.C.A.S. would not be involved regarding access after the trial. He said that without C.C.A.S. the mother would continue arguing with him, and that at least with C.C.A.S. involved he had a witness.

The father was clear in his evidence that if he was given custody of the children, he wanted there to be no access to the mother. He defines the children's best interests in a way that would entirely end their relationship with their mother and exclude the mother from their lives. He does not see this as harmful to the children. He believes that this is in the children's best interests.

7. The Father as a Witness

The father's evidence was very telling. His evidence was not believable and the court did not believe him.

The father's evidence was hard to follow. He was difficult, evasive, refused to answer clear questions put to him (even by his own lawyer), made speeches rather than answering a question, and was unfocused. It was difficult to get him to focus on relevant issues and facts. He openly and repeatedly denied things which were given previously in evidence by multiple witnesses. He was abrupt and confrontational. In not answering clear questions, and refusing to answer some questions, he had to be told they were proper questions.

The father said he had no criminal record and then described assault charges laid against him by a previous wife, the mother of another of his children, which resulted in a guilty plea and conviction.

The father repeatedly denied that he stopped or denied the mother's access. There was evidence from many different witnesses that he repeatedly interfered with, cancelled and denied the mother's access. His evidence was that he never once denied access to the mother. He repeatedly denied in evidence that he ever told C.C.A.S. workers that he wanted to stop the mother's access, that he wanted for the mother to never see the children again, and that he would get a new mother for the children. It was the evidence of many witnesses that he told C.C.A.S. workers this repeatedly and over a significant period of time. It was clear that he was lying to the court. It was not possible to believe him.

The father repeatedly denied that he cancelled the mother's access for no reason. He said that every visit that was cancelled was cancelled because the children were sick. C.C.A.S. workers had asked him to produce medical evidence about this. No medical evidence was produced to support this (neither produced to C.C.A.S. workers while it was happening, nor produced to the court).

There was evidence of the C.C.A.S. workers that the father refused permission for the worker to see the children at school. He denied that he refused this permission for the worker, and he denied that he said the worker had to see the children in his presence.

The father denied that he ever told the C.C.A.S. workers that he did not want the mother's boyfriend Mr. N. at the mother's access. He also said he never said anything bad about the boyfriend to workers. There was evidence to the contrary from four witnesses who were professionals.

The father said that the children are not happy with Mr. N., or with being with Mr. N., and that the children do not want to visit with Mr. N. In evidence, he repeatedly insisted on calling Mr. N. "the guy", until the court asked him not to do so. He said "I can't even say the name".

The father repeatedly denied that he ever whispered to the children at access that they should come to live with him. He denied that he ever said anything to the children at access against the mother. There was evidence to the contrary from witnesses who were professionals.

The father denied he ever had any difficulty dealing with C.C.A.S. workers, although the evidence of the workers was that he was confrontational, aggressive and difficult to deal with. In fact, he asked for two consecutive workers to be removed as the case worker.

The father says the children love the mother but are scared of her. No other witness even suggested this.

The father does not believe that the mother is caring for the children properly (now that she has custody). He said that the children are being emotionally and physically abused by the mother. There was no evidence to support this claim.

The father believes that the children do not want to see the mother, and that they do not want to spend time with her. There was no evidence to support this claim.

The father denied the evidence from the many professionals who gave evidence of their observations of him or of conversations that they had with him. He repeatedly denied telling anyone that he wanted no access for the mother. Yet he gave that evidence (that he wanted no access for the mother) openly at trial. He did not appear to understand the contradiction in that evidence, and that such a contradiction would cause the court to not believe him. He admitted that he lied to the court on many occasions.

8. The Credibility of the Parents

The evidence of the parents differs substantially.

The mother's evidence was consistent, straightforward and coherent. She did not deny events, did not accuse the workers of lying, and did not accuse anyone of lying.

The father's evidence was contradicted by the evidence of many independent professionals. Much of the father's evidence was not believable. The evidence of several of his witnesses was either not believable (the paternal grandmother) or not helpful to his claims (his daughter, the paternal grandfather). The father's evidence was not credible and the court did not believe him.

The father was repeatedly late for court, even after he was cautioned by the court about this, and told to come on time. He was late the majority of the trial days. He was significantly late on two occasions, missing about one-half day of the trial each of those days.

The evidence regarding the custody and access claims was not complicated and was clear.

9. Issues And Evidence Regarding the Protection Concerns, Custody and Access

These are the findings the court makes regarding the protection concerns, and the questions of custody and access:

(a) The children were at risk of harm while in the father's care and the protection concerns about the father have not been addressed;

(b) The mother long ago addressed the protection concerns C.C.A.S. had about her;

(c) The father engaged in and continues a campaign to undermine the mother's relationship with the children;

(d) The children have thrived in mother's care since March 2018;

(e) The father has no insight into his shortcomings or the impact of his behaviour; and,

(f) The father is ungovernable, by C.C.A.S., by the court, or by any court order.

The Children Were at Risk of Harm while in the Father's Care and the Protection Concerns about the Father have not Been Addressed

There was overwhelming evidence that the children were not only at risk of harm, but were actually being harmed while living with the father:

• the father was not meeting the children's educational needs. There was serious neglect of the children's educational needs, including poor attendance, not completing homework, impaired academic progress, and oppositional relationships with teachers. They were missing school and were missing a lot of class time due to being late. When their homework was not completed or was sent back incomplete or late, concerns were communicated to the father with no change or improvement. By March 2018 the children were attending school about 50% of the time;

• the father was not meeting their medical needs;

• the father waged a long-term and open campaign to undermine the mother's relationship with the children and to end that relationship. He repeatedly frustrated and denied the mother's access. He unilaterally and repeatedly cancelled the mother's access. He actively opposed the mother's access and openly admitted to C.C.A.S. that he wanted the children to have no access to her. The mother brought a successful access motion on 14 November 2017 and a very detailed access order was granted. The father breached the access order almost immediately, continuously and openly;

• the father made repeated unfounded reports to the police and to C.C.A.S. about the mother abusing the children, accusations which were not substantiated;

• the father repeatedly involved the children in the conflict, coaching the children on what to say, and pressing the children during visits. His ongoing conflict with the mother directly impacted the children as they were witnesses to the incidents. He was preoccupied with his feelings about the mother and her partner to the point that he did not care about engaging in conflict with her in front of the children. He focused on his feelings towards the mother, and was not focused on the well-being of the children;

• the father became increasingly unco-operative with C.C.A.S.. He refused to allow private interviews with the children. He was repeatedly aggressive, insulting, and abusive to C.C.A.S. workers. He was unco-operative and resistant with C.C.A.S. recommendations for services (a situation that continues);

• the father was ungovernable, by anyone or anything. He was ungovernable by the court, and by C.C.A.S.. There were considerable and repeated breaches of court orders (of supervision orders and of access orders) over a significant period of time; and,

• the father's behaviour escalated substantially when the mother got a new partner.

The father did not really dispute this evidence. His response to this evidence about his behaviour when the children were living with him was to offer explanations and justifications for this behaviour, which explanations were not believable. He showed no insight into the protection concerns about his care of the children.

Here are some startling examples of the father's inadequate care of the children:

• In June 2017, when M. was about 7 years old, he fell when jumping on the bed and cut his head, hitting a corner of the table. The father's evidence was that it was bleeding a lot, that it was gushing and spurting blood. He admitted that it was a serious wound. The father stitched the cut himself, with no follow up medical care. He felt that this action was appropriate. He did not take the child to the hospital or to the doctor. He was told repeatedly by C.C.A.S. to take the child to the doctor or to the hospital, and he was told by the case management judge to take the child to the doctor or the hospital, and he did not. The child did not see a doctor for nearly five months after this injury. His explanation was that he was overwhelmed with the task of caring for four children; and,

• When the twins were 6 years old, the father required the twins to clean E.'s bottom (when she was 3 years old), with soap and water, after she went to the washroom. The father did not deny this.

The protection concerns about the father's care of the children have not been addressed. In fact, many of these concerns have intensified and increased.

The Mother Long Ago Addressed the Protection Concerns C.C.A.S. had about Her

C.C.A.S. had protection concerns about the mother in 2013, and later. The father believes that the mother always was and still is physically and emotionally abusive to the children.

The court accepts the mother's evidence that in their relationship, the father was abusive, assaulted her, and was emotionally controlling. His controlling behaviour was corroborated by the evidence of professionals and was on full display during the trial. The relationship negatively affected her parenting and her mental health. She separated from him, but returned to him many times, because of the children.

The mother made significant changes. She was eventually able to get out of this relationship and to get herself into programs, individual counselling and two psychiatric assessments. She was able to stand up for herself and to understand the whole situation. She got help from her counsellor, her case worker, the C.C.A.S. workers (particularly the most recent family services worker), and her friends. She says that she gained more understanding. She did everything C.C.A.S. recommended. She took programs in anger management and programs for abused women.

The mother showed insight into the protection concerns C.C.A.S. had about her at the time. She fulfilled the expectations C.C.A.S. had of her. She has shown that she will protect the children from conflict. C.C.A.S. has had no protection concerns about the mother's care of the children for several years now. This confidence in her care is reflected in the fact that no terms of supervision were ordered about the mother's care of the children in the most recent supervision order made by Jones, J. on 22 March 2018.

The Father has Engaged in and Continues a Campaign to Undermine the Mother's Relationship with the Children

The father's evidence at trial was very clear. He was open about the mother, his view of the mother, his attitude towards her, and his view of her relationship with the children. He wants full custody and no access to the mother. In reply evidence on the second last day of the ten day trial, he said "I fight for the full custody and no access. That's what I want."

The father repeated his plan to have full custody and no access to the mother on many occasions, to many different professionals (including several different C.C.A.S. staff).

The father has never supported the children's relationship with the mother. He has repeatedly, and over a long period of time, acted to intentionally and openly interfere with, undermine and end the children's relationship with the mother. He repeatedly cancelled her visits with the children. He repeatedly denied the mother access to the children, in the face of several court orders, and in the face of detailed and specific court orders. When he did so, and the C.C.A.S. worker advised the mother to contact the police to enforce the court order, she would not do so, as she thought it would be too traumatic for the children.

The father told C.C.A.S. workers repeatedly and openly that the mother should have no access to the children, that the children would be better off with no contact with her, and that he intended to remove her from the children's lives. He told C.C.A.S. workers repeatedly that he was not going to allow her to have access to the children. When he was told by the C.C.A.S. worker that the visits were court ordered and he had to follow the court order, he said despite the court order, he would not facilitate her visits with the children.

The mother did not have access to the children at Christmas in 2015 and 2016 due to the father's behaviour. He told the C.C.A.S. worker that he did not want her to have Christmas access.

The father believes the mother is harming the children, and that she is abusing the children, emotionally and physically, although there is no evidence to support this belief, and the C.C.A.S. workers have not ever found the mother to be physically or emotionally abusive towards the children. He still believed this at trial. When he had custody he often took the children to the hospital after her access. These allegations were repeatedly reported to and investigated by the C.C.A.S. and the police. When the C.C.A.S. and the police repeatedly investigated his allegations and determined them to be unfounded, he blamed the C.C.A.S. and the police.

The father thinks the worst of the mother and Mr. N., without any evidence to support this belief. He repeatedly told workers and the police that the children did not want to see Mr. N., and that they did not like Mr. N.

The father has said and continues to say completely inappropriate things to the children, even at supervised access. He asks the children if they want to come home with him, and tells them they will be coming home with him soon. The children have a dog at their mother's home, whom they love so much that they referred to the dog as their brother (in conversations with the C.C.A.S. workers). The father told them that this is not their dog, that it's the mother's dog and Mr. N.'s dog.

During time that the mother had access to the children, she admitted she sometimes said things to the children that were inappropriate (e.g., saying bad things about the father to the children). She admitted that this behaviour was inappropriate. Compare this response by the mother to that of the father, who never acknowledged that his behaviour during access was inappropriate, even when it was described by several witnesses.

The Children have Thrived in the Mother's Care since March 2018

C.C.A.S. has no concerns about the mother's care of the children.

All the evidence presented confirms that the children are thriving. They are doing well in school, and the mother is vigilant about their education. The evidence of the C.C.A.S. workers was that the mother and Mr. N. are completely compliant. She is very open, communicative, follows recommendations, and is always respectful. She brings the children to every visit with the father and promotes a positive relationship with the father. She has never threatened to withhold access to the father's family, and she would promote a secure place for the children as members of both extended families.

The mother's partner V.N. helps the children with their homework, and spends a lot of time with the children on evenings and week-ends. He is not looking to replace the father, nor to undermine the father's authority with the children. The children love him, and he loves them. C.C.A.S. observed him acting very positively with the children, and has no concerns about him at all.

The Father has no Insight into his Shortcomings or the Impact of his Behaviour

The primary theme of the trial was that the father will never stop trying to undermine the mother's relationship with the children. The evidence about this was clear, convincing and was overwhelming. Even the father did not suggest otherwise.

The father does not have any insight into his behaviour, the impact of his behaviour on his children or his shortcomings as a parent.

The father did not argue that he would change or suggest that he would change. When asked three times if he would now do anything different than he had in the past, he said no, he would do exactly the same. He said he would not change anything he has done to help change the outcome in the custody trial.

The father cannot change his approach. He cannot respect the mother's relationship with the children. He cannot respect Mr. N.'s relationship with the children.

The father has been given an opportunity over a significant period of time to demonstrate that he understands the children's needs, and that he is capable of meeting those needs, and of putting the children's needs ahead of his own needs. He has not done so. He is not capable of doing so.

There is no prospect of change for the father. He will never stop.

The Father is Ungovernable, by C.C.A.S., by the Court, by any Court Order

The father has been aggressive, insulting and abusive towards C.C.A.S. workers. He did not allow home visits by the worker. He did not cooperate with the C.C.A.S. workers.

The evidence about the father's current relationship with the C.C.A.S. workers was serious and concerning. His attitude towards and co-operation with the C.C.A.S. workers is getting worse. For many months before the trial, he had refused all contact with the workers, said that he does not want to work with the workers, and has insisted that all contact go through his lawyer.

The father repeatedly and openly stated he would not comply with the court orders regarding the mother's access. And he did not do so.

The father will do what he wants. He has done so in the past, and will continue to do so. He justifies this behaviour by saying that he loves the children and that he is protecting the children.

If access is unsupervised, no matter what the court order says, the father will continue his campaign to end the mother's relationship with the children, he will pressure the children to live with him, he will take them to the doctor and to the police, and he will refuse to return the children to the mother.

The father will never stop trying to undermine the mother's relationship with the children. He does not dispute nor deny this. He believes that the children are being harmed by the mother and Mr. N.

10. The Children's Views and Preferences

The children are now 9, 9, 6 and 4 years old.

When the children were living with the father, they consistently said they wanted to live with him.

Since the children have been living with the mother (since March 2018), the father has openly pressured the children about where they wanted to live, even during supervised access. Either he has no understanding of the harm this pressure would do to the children, or he recognizes this pressure might harm the children and does not care about that. He also pressured the family services worker to interview the children about their views in his presence, which would be inappropriate.

All four children told the current family service worker that they wanted to live with the mother. They said this more than once, and said it recently. They cited these reasons:

• there is a positive relationship between the mother and the children;
• things are going well in the mother's family home;
• they have more space;
• they have extra activities;
• the dog (all the children love the dog, and they all call the dog their brother);
• there is a positive relationship with Mr. N.;
• the children are enjoying school; and,
• the mother and Mr. N. help them with their homework.

The children also stated views and preferences regarding access to the father.

M. and G. (9 and 9 years old) said they wanted visits to be at the C.C.A.S. office and that they do not want unsupervised visits, and they do not want community visits. They said that they feel more comfortable with C.C.A.S. staff present at the visits. M. and G. feel they will be pressured by the father without C.C.A.S. staff present. The father was whispering to them during supervised access, and asking them where they want to live, even during supervised access. The evidence of the worker was that the children are fearful of the father and always want to say what the father wants to hear. M. and G. said that they believe that the father will pressure them to say they want to live with him. They believe that the father will get upset if they say no to coming home with him.

M. and G. believe that no matter who was present, the father would still pressure them to say they want to live with him. M. and G. have never told an independent professional that they want to live with the father.

The other two children E. and A. are 6 and 4 years old. They love the father and are excited to see him, and sad to say good-bye. The only time they say they want to live with the father is when the father pressures them to do so. E. and A. have never told an independent professional that they want to live with the father.

11. Is Intervention through a Court Order Necessary to Protect the Children in the Future?

The evidence is overwhelming that a court order is necessary to protect these children in the future. There have been several years of supervision orders, with the father as both the custodial parent and the access parent, and the father has consistently, openly and repeatedly not complied with the court orders. The current supervision order cannot be ended without a highly structured order in place, due to the risk that the father poses to the children.

12. Who Should Have Custody?

A comprehensive best interests analysis requires consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of every option.

(a) The court must consider the risk each child may suffer by remaining in or being placed in a parent's care; and,

(b) The court must also consider the risk of emotional harm each child may suffer by being kept away from a parent.

The evidence about custody in this case is clear, convincing and is overwhelming. The mother is the parent who is best able to meet the needs of the children. She understands their needs. She understands that the children need to excel in school and to have a healthy relationship with both parents. She has shown she is able to facilitate access with the father without difficulty. She is able to put their needs first, ahead of her own needs.

The father does not understand the children's needs. There was overwhelming evidence, set out in detail, that the children were being harmed while living with the father (evidence which was not really disputed by the father). He has repeatedly and openly tried to remove the mother entirely from the children's lives, and he continues to do so. He does not understand how harmful that would be for the children. He has openly and repeatedly disobeyed court orders regarding access and other issues about the children. He cannot even control himself and behave in ways that are suitable for the children in a supervised access setting with professionals supervising his access, and while there is an on-going court case dealing with these issues.

A parent who wants to exclude the other parent from the children's lives, without good reason, is not acting in the children's best interests. This is not a parent who understands the children's needs. Or, if the parent does understand the children's needs, he puts his own needs to exclude the mother, to punish her, ahead of the children's needs. This is not the behaviour of a good parent.

The protection concerns about the father's care of the children have not been addressed. In fact, these concerns have intensified and increased. He is focused on his feelings towards the mother and cannot focus on the well-being of the children.

The mother asked for orders allowing her to apply for government documents for the children without the father's consent, and allowing her to travel with the children without his consent. The father has shown that he would not co-operate with her and sign these documents. It is in the children's best interests to make these orders.

13. Access

Under s. 105 (2) C.Y.F.S.A., the court is directed to make an access order in cases like this (where an order under s. 102 for custody is being made), unless it is not in a child's best interests to do so. There is a presumption that there will be an access order in favour of the parent who was caring for the children before the C.C.A.S. started the court case.

Access order

104 (1) The court may, in the child's best interests,

(a) when making an order under this Part; or

(b) upon an application under subsection (2),

make, vary or terminate an order respecting a person's access to the child or the child's access to a person, and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate.

Access after custody order under s. 102

105 (2) If a custody order is made under section 102 removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall make an order for access by the person unless the court is satisfied that continued contact will not be in the child's best interests.

The Father's Current Access

The current access order for the father is access in the discretion of the agency, supervised in the discretion of the agency. The father currently has supervised visits to the children, for two hours, twice per week. Despite the visits being supervised, he engages in conflict with the mother at the visits. He is not concerned that the conflict is in the presence of the children, who appear to be upset by it. He also remains at visits after the end of the visits, and engages in conflict with the mother in the presence of the children.

As well, despite the visits being supervised, the father engages in inappropriate discussions with the children during visits (e.g., where do they want to live). The children have disclosed that he pressures them about where they want to live and tells them to say they want to live with him. The two older children, M. and G., have said that they want access to the father to continue to be supervised.

Should the Father's Access be Terminated?

The father does not see his behaviour as harmful to the children. That is the biggest hurdle for the father to overcome in this case. He continues with harmful behaviour towards the children, and feels justified about this behaviour. When he told the court that he wanted full custody of the children with no access for the mother, it was apparent to the court that he did not understand the needs of the children at all.

The father's behaviour is so egregious, so serious, and so harmful to the children that the court considered whether stopping the father's access was the right path. The court seriously considered terminating his access. He should be aware of this, that this outcome was considered, even though none of the parties asked for this order. He needs to hear and to understand that his behaviour is so negative, and so toxic that one way to protect the children from the harm caused by his behaviour is to terminate his access.

The court is satisfied that the mother will ensure that the father has reasonable access to the children. No access by the father is not what the mother intends, nor what she wants. The mother is not asking for an order for no access, and neither is C.C.A.S. The mother knows that the children love the father, and should maintain a relationship with him.

Should the Father have Unsupervised Access?

The access, if there is access by the father, needs to be supervised. He has conducted himself poorly in a supervised access setting for many months. When the children were in his care, he took them to the police and to doctors for investigations that proved groundless. While they are in the mother's care and he has access, he has pressured the children, interrogated them, and he continues, even under C.C.A.S. supervision, to say negative things to the children about the mother and about Mr. N. Even when C.C.A.S. staff are present he had conversations with the children he should not have had.

The father has not addressed the protection concerns. His attitude and co-operation towards the C.C.A.S. workers is getting worse. He has shown that he will not follow through with court-ordered conditions.

The father consistently uses his contact with the children as an opportunity to expose them to conflict with the mother, to his negativity, his hatred of the mother, his hatred of her fiancée and his general toxicity. He has shown repeatedly that he cannot conduct himself in appropriate ways with the children. He has shown, by his behaviour with the children, that he cannot put their needs ahead of his own. This is not going to get better if the access is unsupervised. There is a risk of harm to the children if there is unsupervised access.

The father has not shown that he understands the children's needs. In fact, his behaviour has consistently shown the opposite. He has had many chances over many years to show this, as the custodial parent, and as the access parent. Any access by the father other than supervised access will impact the children, and would put the children at an unacceptable risk of harm.

The Mother's Plan for Access

The mother is asking for an order for access at her discretion. She says that at present, that would be supervised access.

The mother believes that it would not be in the children's best interests to stop access to the father. She says that the children need their relationship with the father and the paternal family.

The mother is proposing six hours per week at a supervised access centre. The publicly-funded centres who offer this service do not generally offer access this long. They offer two hours, every other week, or one hour once a week. The mother says that two hours per week with the father is not enough time for the children, and that she wants it to be more for the children.

Despite the father's evidence to the contrary, the family services worker said that the mother has never said anything to lead him to believe access at the mother's discretion would mean no access to the father. The mother has never said the father should have no access to the children, whereas the father has said many times, to many different people (including under oath, at the trial) that the mother should have no access. The family services worker does not believe an order for access at the mother's discretion would result in no access to the father. The court does not believe that, either.

Can the Father's Access be Successfully Supervised?

The mother appears optimistic that the father's family members can adequately supervise the father's access. She did not want to deal with the supervised access program. She offered several of the father's family members as possible supervisors. Several members of the father's family gave evidence at trial (including the paternal aunt B., and the paternal grandparents), as well as his current partner.

Possible Access Supervisors

The Mother's Relationship with the Father's Family

The mother has not spoken to the father or his family for many years, although the mother was once close to the father's family. The mother believes that she has a good relationship with them.

The mother and the twins lived with the paternal aunt B. for more than a year, before and after the twins were born, during which time the father was not told she was living there. Although the paternal aunt did not really know the mother then, and had never really spoken to her, she took the mother in to protect her. The father's family had a meeting and decided not to tell the father that the mother was living with the paternal aunt. The mother did not want them to tell the father she was living there, as she was afraid that the father would come over there. The father's family supported and protected the mother. They kept the father away from her and the children for a time, which is what she wanted. The mother moved out when the paternal grandmother said she was going to tell the father where the mother and the children were. The paternal grandmother wanted to give the father the mother's telephone number, and tried to stop the mother from leaving. The father did not know how old the twins were when he first saw them.

The Paternal Aunt B.

The paternal aunt is 31 years old and has two children (14 and 1 years old).

The father presented the paternal aunt to C.C.A.S. as a possible access supervisor in fall 2018. Then after the worker tried to contact her, he said "stop using my family". He would not let the workers speak to his family members when the workers were trying to discuss possible access supervisors.

The evidence of the family services worker is that the paternal aunt is aware of the protection concerns and able to identify them, that she understood the protection concerns as the worker explained them to her, and that she is the family member he has most confidence in being able to supervise the father's access. The paternal aunt could have been tried out as a supervisor before the trial: she was willing to do it, but the father would not permit it. That is regrettable.

The paternal aunt appears to understand what has been happening regarding first the mother's access and then the father's access. She was able to identify events that were harmful to the children. She identified the C.C.A.S. concerns as these: C.C.A.S. workers heard the father tell the children they are going to come home soon (to his home), and that the father would cancel the mother's access on purpose because he did not like the children to see the mother. She said that she thinks it is important for the children to see the mother. She was concerned that the father had contacted the police, which she saw as unnecessary. She said the father was furious seeing his children with another man. She knew that the father had repeatedly told C.C.A.S. workers that he did not want the mother to have any access to the children. She believes that is not right and is not in the children's best interests. She believes that the father was cancelling visits for reasons other than the children's illness, and that this was improper. She said she was tired of the conflict, and that the paternal grandparents were tired of the conflict.

This was the evidence of the paternal aunt regarding the possibility of her supervising the father's access:

• she does not understand the role of access supervisor;
• she thinks her role as supervisor is to be a mediator between the mother and the father;
• she thinks the father will listen to her, but she expressed doubt about her ability to perform even this role;
• she said it is difficult to say whether she could be the middle man regarding access and whether she could make it work;
• she felt it was a big responsibility;
• she did not understand that C.C.A.S. would no longer be supervising access after the trial, if custody was awarded to the mother;
• she felt it would be nice to have C.C.A.S. still supervising access;
• she felt it would be quite scary to be on her own supervising access;
• she wanted to know who she could call in this scenario;
• she felt she would not know what to do;
• she felt she could not do this on her own;
• she did not know what to do if she was put into that scenario (supervising access); and,
• she said it was only then, during the trial, that it was sinking in to her that C.C.A.S. would no longer be supervising access.

The paternal aunt did not understand what was happening at trial at all. As her evidence progressed it became clear she was unwilling to be the access supervisor, or at least, felt she was unqualified to do so.

The Paternal Grandmother

The paternal grandmother's evidence was clear: she is very loyal to the father.

The paternal grandmother knew some of the C.C.A.S. concerns about the father, and was able to list these concerns, but did not appear to understand the concerns:

• the father tried to stop the mother's access to the children;
• the father was always bringing the children to doctor's appointments to stop the access;
• the father hangs around the community centre when the access is already ended;
• the children were going to school late; and,
• the father is coaching the children, telling the children to say something against the mother.

The paternal grandmother said that if the mother was not seeing the children that would be horrible for the children and would be extremely emotionally harmful for the children.

The paternal grandmother felt that the relationship between the mother and the rest of the father's family was very good. She believes the father will listen to her. Both paternal grandparents were fed up with the father and the mother arguing all the time.

However, the paternal grandmother cannot be the access supervisor, for these reasons:

• she thinks the mother is unfit to be in a caregiving role;
• she believes, as the father believes, and as he said in evidence, that the mother is capable of stabbing one of the children with a fork, and of forcing E. to eat eggs when she is allergic to eggs;
• she believes that if the father has shortcomings as a parent, that he can fix that;
• she does not understand the C.C.A.S. concerns about the father;
• she had not read the court's decision about access in November 2017 nor the decision changing custody in March 2018;
• the father said that if the mother did not want to re-unite with him, the mother should not see the children at all, and the paternal grandmother supported that position (although in her evidence she later denied this, and said she would not allow the father to do this);
• she is very loyal to the father; and,
• her evidence was contradictory, confusing, hard to follow, and not credible. Most importantly, it was clear she did not understand some of the questions asked, including questions on significant issues. Her evidence was not helpful to the court, nor to the father's claims at trial.

The Paternal Grandfather

The paternal grandparents are currently living with the father, and have lived there since before March 2018, when custody of the children was changed by court order to the mother. It was odd that the father did not disclose this in his evidence.

The paternal grandfather was not assessed by C.C.A.S. as an access supervisor. The first time that he was proposed as an access supervisor was at the trial. He says he was not put forward earlier as his wife is there and he is very busy. He said that he did not know why C.C.A.S. was involved with the father. He understood that the visits were supervised to make sure the children were in good condition and that the father should not be telling the children they would be coming home soon.

The paternal grandfather described the father as someone who can sometimes be a hothead. He has seen the father get angry and lose his temper, sometimes with the children, enough so that the paternal grandfather has to tell the father that he has to be calm with the children.

The paternal grandfather says that his relationship with the mother is good.

The paternal grandfather says he was in the military in the Philippines and he will follow a court order.

Like the paternal grandmother, he had not read the court's decision about access in November 2017, nor the decision changing custody in March 2018. The father did not tell him why the court changed custody to the mother in March 2018.

The paternal grandfather did not know it was the father's position that the mother should have no access. He did not believe that the father has denied the mother access to the children. He said he will tell the father not to do that. The father did not tell him that he told C.C.A.S. repeatedly that the children should never see the mother again. He said he would never do that, and that he would tell the father not to do that, as it was not good for the children (to not see the mother). He was not aware that the father called police regarding the mother three times in 2017.

Both the paternal grandparents are fed up with the father and the mother arguing all the time.

It was clear the paternal grandfather did not understand some of the questions asked. He did not have much of the information that was essential to being a supervisor of the father's access. He is not suitable as an access supervisor at all.

The Father's Partner Ms. B.-O.

Ms. B.-O. met the C.C.A.S. worker in November 2018 and told him she wanted to think about whether she would supervise the father's access. She did not get back to the worker about this. She admitted she did not give her real name to C.C.A.S.

The father's current partner was not assessed as an access supervisor, as the father prevented that from happening. The mother has never met her nor spoken to her. She was not considered by the court as a possible supervisor.

The Father's Family as Possible Access Supervisors

The mother says she had a good relationship with the paternal family and that the children love the whole family, and that this is very important. The mother is open to the paternal aunt B. and the paternal grandfather as possible supervisors of the father's access. She says that she has a good relationship with these two.

It is a very high expectation that a non-professional person could manage the father at supervised access. It is an unrealistic expectation.

The father's family all said repeatedly they were there for the benefit of the children. All had a very superficial understanding of the C.C.A.S. concerns regarding the father. Some family members had no understanding of the concerns. They are all loyal to the father.

The father's family did not really understand what the trial was about, and what the possible range of outcomes was. Only one (the paternal aunt B.) appeared to accept that the father's access needed to be supervised. And even the paternal aunt expressed real doubts about her ability to do so. She also said that she did not understand that C.C.A.S. would not continue to be involved in the access after the trial finished.

The mother's belief that his family members sufficiently understand the dynamics and the harm caused by father's behaviour is a misplaced belief, and was not supported by the evidence at trial. It was clear from the evidence of his family members that they do not.

The father's access cannot be supervised by his family members. He is presently continuing to behave inappropriately with the children at access, even with professionals supervising his access, and even though there is a court case going on regarding these issues. His family members do not understand, or do not accept that his behaviours cause harm to the children. Although they think they could, they could not control the father at access. And they could not stand up to him to prevent such behaviour. The father's family members are wholly unsuited to supervising the father's access.

The Father's Access

The children love the father and are bonded to the father, particularly the girls. The boys do not want to see the father in an unsupervised setting. Unsupervised access would place these children at risk of harm. The court even has concerns about the risk associated with supervised access for these children.

The father does not understand his children's needs. He is stuck on what he believes to be the truth about the mother and about Mr. N. He has to change how he thinks about the mother and her partner. He has to work to resolve his feelings of anger and animosity towards the mother if he ever expects to have unsupervised access. At present he would be actively harming his the children if access was unsupervised.

The father needs substantial therapy and counselling. However, his belief is so strong and so deep that it is hard for the court to imagine that he would be a good candidate for therapy, or that therapy would result in a change in his attitude towards the mother. If there is no therapy and no change in the father's approach to the mother, his access will remain supervised.

The father should understand that if access as ordered is not successful for the children that the court would consider terminating his access. This is a last chance for the father to make access to the children work for them.

There is no dispute that the father and his family love the children very much. However, the focus of this whole process is the protection, well-being and best interests of the children. Right now, the father's access is to be supervised long-term. The court does not see a time in the future when it would not be supervised.

Why Access at the Supervised Access Program?

The children need to be able to see the father in a structured and controlled setting. The Supervised Access Program can offer this to the children. The program uses professional staff to supervise. The supervisors are neutral and independent. The program keeps records. There are rules and structure. And the access can be organized so the mother and father do not have contact with each other.

14. Orders

Extensive and detailed evidence was presented at the ten day trial. There were 20 witnesses.

These are the orders:

1. The four children shall be placed in the custody of the mother under s. 102 of the C.Y.F.S.A.

2. The father shall have supervised access to the children, every other week for two hours, at a Supervised Access Centre, nearest to the children's residence. The father shall pay all costs charged by the program.

3. The father shall not discuss the court case, the mother or Mr. N. with the children, and shall not criticize the mother or Mr. N. to the children.

4. The mother may apply for the children's passports and other government documents without the father's consent.

5. The mother may travel with the children outside Canada without the father's consent.

6. The father shall not remove the children from Toronto without the mother's prior written consent or court order.

7. The father shall not bring a motion to change custody or access without leave, obtained in advance, to be requested on a Form 14B motion, maximum two pages in support, and not to be served on the other parties unless the court orders. The court shall take into account, in determining leave, whether he has taken parenting courses and has received therapy to assist him in understanding the children's needs for a relationship with both their parents, and whether his attitude towards the mother has changed.

8. C.C.A.S. shall be served with any motion to change this court order.

15. Costs

The issues for determination is this trial were not complicated nor difficult. This trial should not have required ten days. In fact, this trial should not have been required. If either the agency or the mother is seeking costs, costs submissions may be submitted on a Form 14B motion, maximum two pages (plus summary of time spent, and Offers to Settle), on this timetable for serving and filing:

• Costs claimants by Friday 20 September 2019;
• Father by Friday 4 October 2019;
• Reply, if any, by Friday 18 October 2019.

Released: 28 August 2019

Justice Carole Curtis

Footnotes

[1] S.O. 2017, c. 14, Schedule 1, as amended.

[2] R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended. This was the relevant governing statute at the time of this order.

[3] Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. S.(B.L.), 2014 ONSC 5513 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) para. 99.

[4] Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society v. E.W., 2014 ONCJ 562 (Ont. Ct.).

[5] Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S., 2018 ONCJ 145 (Ont. Ct.).

[6] Some details are set out elsewhere.

[7] For example, he said that he only denied the mother access when the children could not attend for medical reasons.

[8] CAS of Toronto v. S. (G.), 2012 ONCA 783, 2012 ONCA 783 (Ont. C.A.).

CAS of Hamilton v. C. (K.), 2016 ONSC 2751, 2016 ONSC 2751 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. V.C., 2017 ONSC 5557 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

[9] There were 12 witnesses for C.C.A.S. (including five teachers and a school principal), for the mother 2 witnesses, and for the father 6 witnesses.