WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,
( c ) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
(8) Prohibition re identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged .— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142.— (3) Offences re publication. — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)( c ) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2022 04 25 COURT FILE No.: Sudbury C-370-14 ext. 02
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICTS OF SUDBURY AND MANITOULIN Applicant,
— AND —
S.M.L., M.L., A.D., and J.D. Respondents
Before Justice Leonard Kim
Heard on January 18, 2022 Reasons for Judgment released on April 25, 2022
Counsel: Patricia G. Marcuccio.................................................... counsel for the applicant society George Florentis.......................................... counsel for the respondent mother, S.M.L. Krista Fortier....................... counsel for the respondent foster parents, A.D. and J.D. No appearance by or on behalf of M.L., even though served with notice Tanya Farkouh Martin....................... counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child
KIM, Leonard J.:
A. GENERAL OVERVIEW
[1] In April 2016, the child, Z., born […], 2014, was found to be a child in need of protection and made a Crown Ward, or what we call now Extended Society Care, with no access in favour of her mother, the respondent, S.M.L.
[2] In January 2017, the respondent mother brought a Status Review Application. However, in July 2017, this was withdrawn on consent.
[3] In May 2018, the respondent mother brought a second Status Review Application which is the subject of these current proceedings. Numerous adjournments then followed to permit conferences and mediation to take place, obtain relevant collateral records and delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
[4] The child, Z. has been in the care of her current foster parents, A.D. and J.D. (respondent foster parents), since November 16, 2018. She has been in the care of the Society since August 2014.
[5] In March 2021, Mr. and Mrs. D. were added as parties to these proceedings and since then, Ms. Fortier has gone on record as their counsel representing their interests. The current respondent foster parents have confirmed their intention to adopt Z. in their Answer and Plan of Care.
[6] Seven-year-old Z. is a special needs child diagnosed with Global Developmental Delay with a vast array of social, emotional and developmental challenges. She requires a significant degree of support from various service providers in the Sudbury community.
[7] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) became involved after the Honourable Justice H. Mendes granted an Order appointing counsel to provide a voice on behalf of Z. in December 2020. Ms. Farkouh-Martin has met with the child on numerous occasions prior to this motion being heard and has provided the court with Z.’s input to consider in these proceedings.
B. DETERMINING LEAVE PURSUANT TO S. 115(5) OF THE CYFSA
[8] On January 14, 2022, the matter was scheduled for a Summary Judgment Motion brought by the Society, seeking to dismiss the respondent mother’s current Status Review Application. However, at the outset of the proceedings, I indicated to the parties that the issue of leave appeared to be unresolved, and that I would be seeking to verify the position of all parties. Section 115(5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) requires the court to first consider the issue of leave prior to considering an argument on the Status Review. This is because the Status Review is being requested by the respondent mother who is a parent within the meaning of s. 115(4)(b) of the Act.
[9] On January 18, 2022, Ms. Marcuccio on behalf of the Society confirmed that they were opposed to leave being granted to bring this Status Review. This position was echoed in the Society’s factum at paragraphs 9 and 10. Counsel for the respondent foster parents, Ms. Fortier, and counsel for the child, Ms. Farkouh Martin, were also opposed to leave being granted to the respondent mother.
[10] Mr. Florentis on behalf of the respondent mother, expressed that the broader issue of Status Review should not be resolved by way of a procedural avenue. However, as I indicated at the outset of this leave motion, an exercise in determining whether leave should be granted for the Status Review will, by necessity, require me to consider the substantive evidence of the parties as presented, although not within the legal framework of a Summary Judgment Motion.
[11] The issue of leave is a necessary pre-requisite that had to be identified at the outset of these proceedings because the legal test for leave on a Status Review under s. 115(5) of the CYFSA and who bears the burden is quite different than a Summary Judgment Motion.
C. THE LEGAL TEST FOR LEAVE TO BRING A STATUS REVIEW UNDER S. 115(5) CYFSA
[12] Where a child has been placed in extended society care, pursuant to section 115(4) of the Act, a parent of the child may apply for a status review. However, this application is not as of right. Section 115(5) of the Act requires leave of the court if immediately prior to the application, the child has received continuous care for at least two years from the same foster parent or from the same person under a custody order. By the time this matter was argued before me in January 2022, the child had received continuous care from the current foster parents for approximately 38 months.
[13] The CYFSA does not outline the specific factors a court must consider in exercising its discretion to grant leave in these circumstances. For this criteria, we must turn to the common law.
[14] A description of the test for leave to bring a status review application in these circumstances was summarized by Justice C. Lafreniere in the Superior Court decision of K.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2017 ONSC 565:
“5 The parties agree the test for leave is set out in the decision of Justice Bean in Catholic Children's Aid of Metro Toronto v. B.A.F. [1988] O.J. No. 295 -("B.A.F."). The five part test is as follows:
A. The judge must be satisfied that the status review application for which leave is sought is being brought bona fide, and not for some ulterior motive for attempting to review the child's status and upset the child's present living situation.
B. Leave ought not to be granted if the relief sought can be obtained practically otherwise than by reviewing the whole order itself.
C. There has to be some unusual circumstances to justify the review in spite of the child's permanent status as a Crown ward and despite living continuously with the same foster parents for two years.
D. The application must establish and the judge must be satisfied that a status review application at this time, after the lapse of two years, would likely accomplish the purposes of the Act as set forth in section 1.
E. The applicant must establish a prima facie case, that if leave were granted and the status review application proceeded to hearing, the result of the hearing would probably be the result sought by the applicant.”
6 In Durham Children's Aid Society v. J.S. 2009 ONSC 80106, [2009] O.J. No. 5901 at paragraph 97, Justice Timms considered the five criteria established by Justice Bean and stated:
...sufficient to say that any party making an application for a review of a Crown wardship order, which does not lie of right, must satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that such a review would meet the "paramount" and "other purposes" definitions found in section 1 of the CFSA. Best interests are included therein.
7 The paramount purpose of the CFSA is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children, which takes precedence over all other considerations.”
[15] All five parts of the test must be met by the party seeking leave to bring a status review application. The paramount purpose of the Act in s. 1(1) is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. Additional purposes in the Act are also described in s. 1(2). The best interests of a child is defined in section 74(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and must drive the analysis in this leave application:
“Best interests of child
(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.”
D. ANALYSIS
[16] I have reviewed the Society’s materials, including the Form 33B.1 which includes the Answer and Plan of Care from Nancy Galbraith (Tab 2), affidavit of Donna Rennehan (Tab 13), affidavit of Jade Leduc (Tab 18).
[17] I have also reviewed the mother’s Application for Status Review (Tab 1), affidavit of A.J. (and attached exhibits A to D at Tab 3) and the affidavit of S.M.L. (Tab 19).
[18] With respect to the foster parents A.D. and J.D., I have reviewed their affidavit (Tab 15), Form 33B.1 Answer and Plan of Care (Tab 16) and the affidavit and exhibits of November 2021 provided by A.D.
[19] There is no dispute as between the parties that the mother has proven the first two parts of the five-part test in Catholic Children's Aid of Metro Toronto v. B.A.F., (supra).
[20] The focus of the analysis as submitted by each of the lawyers before me will be on the steps three, four and five.
Step 3 - There has to be some unusual circumstances to justify the review in spite of the child's permanent status as a Crown ward and despite living continuously with the same foster parents for two years.
[21] At the time the current application was commenced in May 2018, the Society recognized that the respondent mother had made progress in stabilizing her mental health. In the spring of 2018, the respondent mother had been in a relationship with D.R. for approximately four years. A review of incidents on file with the Greater Sudbury Police Service in March of 2019 revealed an absence of violent incidents involving this couple and they completed the Triple-P Parenting Program later that same year. Both were able to provide a nurturing home for D.R.’s then 15-year-old son. The evidence from this youth cited at paragraph 93 of Ms. Leduc’s affidavit confirms that Ms. S.M.L. played an active role in caring for this teen and in doing so, she had demonstrated very good organizational skills in meeting his needs within the home and at school.
[22] In a remarkable personal victory, the evidence cited at paragraphs 92 to 97 in Ms. Leduc’s affidavit reveals that Ms. S.M.L. had been diagnosed and undergone treatment for cervical cancer in March 2019. In June of that same year, Ms. S.M.L. confirmed with Society Worker Donna Rennehan that she was cancer free.
[23] Currently, Ms. S.M.L. resides in Sault Ste Marie and is in receipt of ODSP benefits as her primary source of income. To her credit, she has completed the Child and Youth Program at Gates College.
[24] The Court recognizes that the respondent mother’s current situation illustrates signs of improvement since the Society apprehended Z. from her approximately seven and a half years ago. The mother was formally diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder at the age of 16 and there is a history of hearing voices. As indicated in Ms. Leduc’s affidavit at paragraph 31, she has been prescribed medication to treat depression and confirms in her own affidavit, that she continues to take medication for this diagnosis. She affirms that she has not heard voices for many years. According to Ms. S.M.L., she did her part to follow through with the recommendation of the Society to be under the care of a psychiatrist, but never received a call back. She is waiting to undergo an assessment but requires a family doctor to make the referral. Her mental health has improved, and she has in recent years overcome significant personal challenges with her physical health and invested in herself by enrolling and completing an educational program.
[25] Ms. Marcuccio for the Society and Ms. Fortier on behalf of the foster parents submit that there is a complete absence of unusual circumstances that warrant this status review to proceed. On the other hand, Mr. Florentis on behalf of the mother argued that her personal improvements to date meet the threshold of an unusual circumstance that justifies a status review.
[26] For reasons that I will expand upon in Step 5 below, the prior concerns to some degree continue to be prevalent in the respondent’s life that have the potential to negatively impact any progress that Z. has made to date. While I recognize the progress the mother has made, I adopt the reasoning of Justice C. Lafreniere in K.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton:
“I find that there are no unusual circumstances in this matter. I find a parent’s improvement in his or her circumstances cannot constitute an unusual circumstance.”
[27] The mother must be commended for taking steps to improve her personal situation. However, from a leave standpoint, I find that there are no unusual circumstances that justify a status review in light of the child’s permanent status in Extended Society Care and while in the care of the current foster parents well in excess of two years.
Step 4 - The application must establish and the judge must be satisfied that a status review application at this time, after the lapse of two years, would likely accomplish the purposes of the Act as set forth in section 1.
[28] It is evident that an established sense of stability and permanency continue to pose as obstacles for seven-year-old Z. A summary of the history of caregivers for her is an important starting point in ensuring that her best interests remain at the forefront of this leave application. Here is an overview of the various caregivers and length of time in each setting:
- From Z.’s birth on […]/14 to Aug. 26/14 - with her mother, S.M.L. in Sudbury.
- September 2/14 - Placed in the care of the Society on an Interim Without Prejudice Basis, with access to her parents as agreed upon.
- Feb. 4/15 – Placed in the care of Kin caregivers, M.B. and C.B. in Chapleau, with access to the parents as agreed upon.
- April 28/15 – First foster home;
- April 25/16 – Remained in first foster home but there was now a finding resulting in Extended Society Care CAS Sudbury – No access to her parents;
- Nov. 16/18 – Current foster parents who have confirmed their intention to adopt Z.
[29] An amplification of Z.’s personal circumstances as a special needs child is necessary in understanding what is in her best interest. The affidavit of A.D., the respondent foster mother, paints a clear picture of the circumstances that form a foundational part of the child’s special needs and what is in her best interest. Some of those challenges include:
i) a diagnosis of borderline intellectual functioning; ii) struggles in school where the child finds herself below her grade level; iii) violent outbursts where the child hits people, throws objects and damages property when she cannot communicate her needs or wants and then experiences difficulty in calming herself down; iv) is currently being assessed by a psychiatrist who suspects the child may have Intermittent Explosive Disorder; v) becomes very emotional when she has to be without one or both foster parents even for short durations. The child does not always understand her foster parents are coming back and as a result, withdraws herself for extended periods of time as she processes the change; vi) acts out and withdraws herself when she misses her previous foster family; vii) experiences difficulty listening to directions and is difficult to understand verbally. Becomes increasingly frustrated when others find it difficult to understand what she is attempting to communicate; viii) her comprehension and problem-solving skills are well below her age level; ix) she experiences challenges in social interaction with children her own age.
[30] The respondent foster parents have completed training in preparation of taking on the duties and responsibilities of foster parents to Z. They have enrolled her in a number of activities with an aim to keep her physically active such as swimming, soccer, and dance.
[31] They have also looked into behavioral modification therapy through community- based services to address the child’s possible diagnosis of Intermittent Explosive Disorder.
[32] As a demonstrated commitment to adopt Z., the respondent foster parents have completed the Pathways to Permanence 2 course through the Adoption Council of Ontario as well as courses on mindfulness during the pandemic to care for their mental health as a family.
[33] From an emotional standpoint, Z. is emotionally attached to both foster parents after benefitting from their stable care in a safe environment for the past three and half years. According to Ms. Farkouh-Martin, Z. perceives her foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. D., as her own mother and father. This subjective perception from the child must be given paramount consideration by the Court, in deference to our statutory obligations in s. 1 of the Act, placing the child’s best interest at the forefront.
[34] The notion of psychological attachment, stability and a sense of security the child has with her foster parents and the resulting emotional harm that would follow if she were to be removed from their care after three and a half years, ties directly into the best interest test as legislated in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA.
[35] Both foster parents affirm that the only barrier to them moving forward in their efforts to adopt the child is this very Status Review Application. In their opinion, seven-year-old Z. urgently requires stability and permanency in her life.
[36] The Court finds that permitting a status review to proceed would add further delay in a child protection proceeding that commenced back to August 2014, when Z. was first brought to a place of safety. Simply put, a status review on these facts would not accomplish the paramount purposes of the Act.
[37] In light of the above, I find that a status review application after a strong emotional connection has been established, combined with the security and stability the foster parents provide in meeting Z.’s special needs for the past 40 months, can only lead to one conclusion. It would not be in the child’s best interests to permit a status review to proceed at this late stage. Put another way, permitting a status review to proceed would not accomplish the paramount purpose of the CYFSA in s. 1(1) which requires the Court to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children, and takes precedence over all other considerations.
Step 5 - The applicant must establish a prima facie case, that if leave were granted and the status review application proceeded to hearing, the result of the hearing would probably be the result sought by the applicant.
[38] The mother’s status review was filed in May 2018, almost four years ago. The plan proposed by her seeks to remove Z. from her current foster parents in Sudbury and return her into the mother’s care in Sault Ste Marie where she has relocated. If leave were granted for a status review to proceed, the Court would consider Z.’s current situation of stability and permanency that permits her to benefit from a broad array of services as a special needs child in a loving and stable foster home being provided to her by Mr. and Mrs. D. This couple remains committed to adopt Z. as their own child with the only procedural barrier being this very status review application.
[39] There does not appear to be a material change in the respondent mother’s ability to care for Z. As documented at paragraphs 101 to 108 of Ms. Leduc’s affidavit, in May 2020, the respondent mother’s relationship with D.R., a former partner, ended on negative terms. The nature of this separation was turbulent and included allegations from D.R. that the mother had returned to her “old ways” upon relocating to Sault Ste Marie to the point where he had contacted the Society and the Greater Sudbury Police Service. Accusations made by D.R. included that Ms. S.M.L. was very controlling and had anger issues and allegations she was associating with drug dealers, sex offenders and drug addicts. It appears that when Constable Archer of the Greater Sudbury Police Service attempted to caution her about this complaint brought forward by D.R., he was unable to reach her by phone despite attempting to do so. However, Ms. S.M.L. vigorously denies these allegations in her own affidavit at paragraph 24.
[40] The mother has a history of Bi-Polar Disorder but her mental health appears to have stabilized in recent years. Hospital records from April 2019 indicated that she was not diagnosed with a mental illness but remained on a wait list for a psychiatric assessment. It is also noteworthy that in September 2020, concerns regarding her mental health were reported to the child protection services in Niagara by the extended family of a different former partner, D.X.
[41] As recent as September 2020, Ms. S.M.L. had indicated to the Society worker, Ms. Leduc, that she was residing between Sault Ste Marie and Port Colborne, Ontario, with the intention of relocating to the Niagara Region. It was also in September 2020 when the respondent mother was in a relationship with her former partner D.X., that the Family and Children Services of Niagara were involved because of concerns in relation to her mental health and conditions of their home.
[42] In January 2021, she cohabitated with her former partner, D.N., also in Sault Ste Marie for approximately one year.
[43] Since May 2021, the mother has been residing in Sault Ste Marie with her grandmother in a two-bedroom apartment. In her affidavit of November 2021, she expressed that she was in a new relationship with G.S. since August 2021 but does not reside with him. Her current source of income is provided by the Ontario Disability Support Program and as expressed in her affidavit, she had ceased employment with a cleaning company since the summer of 2021 to care for her sick grandmother.
[44] Upon careful consideration of the evidentiary record before me and the submissions of counsel, I find that there remains a significant degree of instability in Ms. S.M.L.’s life when it comes to where she chooses to live, which appears to be tied to some degree, to the changes in her intimate partner relationships. This demonstrated instability in recent years would effectively defeat any chances of a successful status review, if it were permitted to proceed.
[45] The mother has lived in Sudbury, Sault Ste Marie, Port Colborne and Niagara region since 2018. Her actions suggest that mobility for a variety of reasons, remain a distinct possibility. Judging by her geographical mobility and number of relationships over the past four years, there still appears to be a reasonable likelihood that these sources of instability will continue in the event she were to obtain a caregiving role with Z.
[46] Having reviewed the totality of the record, I find that there is no prima facie case established by the mother in this status review application. I come to this conclusion based on the following observations:
- The evidence before me does not reveal that a relationship between the mother and Z. exists today. Any relationship that did previously exist was minimal and this was the case prior to the child being placed in Extended Society Care. No access was granted at the time of that Order being put in place by the Honourable Justice P. Boucher on April 25, 2016. Z.’s last visit with her mother took place in May 2016.
- The affidavit of the mother is lacking in any meaningful plan of care that would adequately meet the needs of Z., who has extensive special needs.
- The affidavit of A.J. at Tab 3 contains vague assertions of progress the mother has made, with no detailed evidence to support those claims. Furthermore, the attached exhibits are unsigned sourced to individuals in hearsay form, one of whom has provided contradictory evidence to the Society workers since this affidavit was sworn in January 2019 (D.R.).
- The mother’s own affidavit contains insufficient evidence to ascertain what the child’s living arrangements would be. For example, it is unclear if she would have her own bedroom with the mother and grandmother also living in the same residence.
- The child would have to be uprooted from Sudbury where she has resided her entire life and move to Sault Ste Marie. This would effectively prevent her from accessing the medical, psychological, emotional and therapeutic services that are currently available to her for her own best interest. If the applicant mother can re-establish these services upon relocation to Sault Ste Marie, this would not come without considerable disruption to the child who depends on them on a daily basis. This disruption would have the potential to cause undue harm to the child and damage the progress that she attempts to make in her development.
- Given the recent history of geographical mobility by the mother to various communities across the province, the court has little confidence that the child would be afforded the stability that she vitally requires to stand the best chance of having her needs met during these important developmental years.
- There is no mention of what school the child would attend in Sault Ste Marie and what steps would be implemented to ensure that she could access the necessary services that she requires. For example, the court has not been provided any evidence by the mother as to what school resources would be in place to meet the child’s special needs in areas such as speech therapy, a modified curriculum, small group work, phonics or numeracy that are currently established in Sudbury.
- There is no vision to enroll Z. in extra-curricular activities while in the mother’s care upon relocation to Sault Ste Marie.
- The mother does not have a family doctor and therefore it is a reasonable inference that the child too would have no family doctor. This would add yet another obstacle for the child in seeking the specialized medical assistance she needs. Furthermore, the continuity of specialized care the child currently benefits from would likely come to an end. Referrals to specialists such as a pediatrician would be challenging to establish and maintain by relocating to Sault Ste Marie. There is no plan for psychiatric services in the mother’s plan of care that would specifically meet the needs of the child. These additional obstacles would not be justified, in my respectful view.
- The mother wishes to seek employment. However, there is no plan offered by the mother that speaks to childcare arrangements for the child if employment opportunities do become available.
- There is no plan for an ongoing relationship with the current or foster parents. The child has developed and maintains a close bond with both the prior and current foster parents.
- Some protection concerns remain with respect to the mother’s mental health. Through no fault of her own, she is without a family doctor or a psychiatrist. The net impact is a lack of continuity of care for her own mental health to ensure that requisite services are in place for proper diagnoses and medication so that she can provide the necessary care for Z. This is a process that will take time in its own right but should not come at the expense of the child at the center of our analysis.
[47] The prospect of moving Z., with the special needs that form an inextricable part of her identity and child development, is deeply concerning to this Court. It would be contrary to the best interests of the child to promote such instability from being re-introduced into Z.’s life, once again. Given the stability and attachment Z. enjoys with the current foster parents where her needs are being met, there is a reasonable inference that emotional harm will result if this court were to sever this relationship in light of the fact that the child has been with these parents for almost three and half years. As I have found above, it would not be in the best interests of Z. for this to happen, and thus, a prima facie case in favour of the mother’s wish to have Z. return to her care does not exist.
[48] I find that the respondent mother has not established a prima facie case in favour of her status review application succeeding.
[49] Furthermore, she has not proven each of the five (5) factors on a balance of probabilities as enunciated in Catholic Children's Aid of Metro Toronto v. B.A.F.
[50] Accordingly, the application for leave sought by the respondent mother, Ms. S.M.L., to bring a status review pursuant to section 115(5) of the CYFSA is dismissed.
Released: April 25, 2022 Signed: Justice Leonard Kim