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 Information
Date: July 10, 2020
Court File No.: C71022/14
Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Fatima Husain, for the Applicant
APPLICANT
- and -
K.S. and R.B.
Lauren Israel, for the Respondent, K.S.
RESPONDENTS
The Respondent, R.B., acting in person
Hearing and Judge
Heard: June 1 and July 10, 2020
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Endorsement
[1] This is the continuation of a temporary care and custody motion concerning the subject 7-year-old child, T.S.B. (the child). The motion was first heard on June 1, 2020.
[2] On June 3, 2020, the court released an endorsement stating that the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the society) had met its onus of establishing that the child should not be placed in the temporary care and custody of the respondent, K.S. (the mother). The mother was the person who had had charge of the child prior to society intervention under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act). The court also made a specified access order regarding the mother and the child. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.S., 2020 ONCJ 268.
[3] The society asked the court to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the respondent, R.B. (the father). The father supported this request. The mother supported this relief once her request to have the child placed in her care was denied. However, the court was not satisfied on June 3, 2020 that it had the necessary evidence to make the requested order, other than on a temporary without prejudice basis. It made that order and adjourned the motion.
[4] The court set out its concerns about the father in paragraph 65 of its June 3, 2020 endorsement.
[5] The court set out its expectations regarding the society's investigation of these concerns in paragraph 66 of that endorsement.
[6] The matter returned to court on July 10, 2020. The society had taken the investigative steps requested by the court and the parties agreed that the child should be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision.
[7] The court was advised that:
a) The society had interviewed the father and his partner and had no further protection concerns about their relationship.
b) The society had obtained information from the police about the criminal charges the father is addressing in criminal court and the charges did not create additional protection concerns.
c) The father has complied with the court's temporary without prejudice supervision order.
d) The father has been cooperative with the society.
e) The father has facilitated the mother's access.
f) The society has spoken with the father's two sisters who are offering parenting support to him. The society is arranging a Family Centred Conference and will invite the father's sisters to attend.
g) The father has made contact with Aisling Discoveries to set up services for the child.
h) The father has been in contact with the child's school.
In paragraph 64 of its June 3, 2020 endorsement the court set out several positive considerations that supported placing the child with the father. The court's protection concerns about the father have been sufficiently addressed during the adjournment period.
[8] The court finds that it is in the child's best interests to make the temporary order sought by the parties today.
[9] A temporary order will go on the following terms:
a) The child shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to the supervision of the society, on the terms and conditions set out in the society's notice of motion.
b) The court's June 3, 2020 order regarding the mother's access shall continue.
[10] The case is adjourned until September 22, 2020 at noon for a case conference. Unless the parties are advised otherwise, this will be conducted by teleconference. Court staff will advise the parties of the call-in numbers.
Released: July 10, 2020
Justice S.B. Sherr