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.

Court File and Parties

DATE: 2023 12 14 COURT FILE No.: Toronto C 43254/22

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO Applicant

- AND -

R.B. L.C. J.T. N.P. Respondents

Before: Justice Curtis

Heard on: 22-24, 27 November 2023 Endorsement released on: 14 December 2023

Counsel: Margarida Pacheco . . . . . . for the applicant Children’s Aid Society of Toronto L.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The respondent father, unrepresented J.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The respondent paternal grandmother, unrepresented N.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The respondent paternal grandfather, unrepresented

Endorsement

[1] This four-day trial dealt with a protection application brought by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto [^1] regarding the child A.E. (born […], 2020, now 3 years old). The agency was asking for:

(a) Statutory findings about the child;

(b) a protection finding regarding the child under ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) [^2] of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 [^3], and,

(c) an order placing the child in the care of the paternal grandparents [^4] subject to a six months supervision order, with access to the father at the agency’s discretion, under s. 101 (1) of the CYFSA.

[2] The grandparents are consenting to this order.

[3] The father filed an Answer asking for the return of the child to his care.

[4] The mother was noted in default in the case, was not visiting the child, and did not participate in the court case or in the trial [^5].

[5] The agency had these protection concerns about the father [^6]:

(a) Domestic violence and partner conflict in the parent’s relationship, and the child’s exposure to this;

(b) The father’s behaviour;

(c) The father’s possible undiagnosed mental illness; and,

(d) The use of drugs, including crack-cocaine.

The Protection Finding

Evidence about the Protection Finding

[6] The child has frequently, and for long periods, been in the care of the grandparents since she was born. The grandparents had been used by the parents a great deal to care for the child, and perhaps inappropriately.

[7] The child was living with the grandparents on 2 November 2022, when the father was admitted to the Mount Sinai Hospital, pursuant to a Form 1, and was then transferred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [^7]. He had been found running through the streets naked, saying that his body was on fire. He had defecated on a porch. He was later transferred to Mount Sinai Hospital for a physical clearance check, but he left there without clearance.

[8] CAST was contacted. On 7 November 2022, the grandparents agreed with the agency that the father should have no unsupervised access to the child. On 9 November 2022 the father attended at the grandparents’ home uninvited and took the child to a store. The father did not return the child to the grandparents. The police were called, and an Amber Alert was issued regarding the child. The child was found at the father’s home address, and was returned to the care of the grandparents. The father was arrested on an unrelated outstanding warrant from Windsor.

[9] The agency’s concerns were the father’s mental health, his extreme, impulsive and risky behaviour, the fact that the child was very young (then two years old) and vulnerable, and the need for a stable and safe care-giver for the child. The child would be at extremely high risk of harm if left alone with the father.

[10] The evidence is clear and strong that the child was in need of protection at the time the agency became involved with the family, and continues to be in need of protection. The court is satisfied, under s. 101 CYFSA, that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future. There will be protection findings under s. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CYFSA.

Litigation History

[11] CAST started a protection application, and on 14 November 2022 Jones, J. made a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the care of the grandparents, subject to agency supervision, with terms and conditions. Access to the parents was at the discretion of the agency.

[12] The father recorded a prior court appearance, without the knowledge of any of the parties or the court, and posted the recording to a You Tube channel on the Internet. On 13 April 2023 Jones, J. made a detailed and comprehensive order prohibiting the father (among other things) from recording any of the court case, prohibiting him from posting or publishing any video or audio recordings about the court case, requiring him to delete any such recordings in his possession, and requiring him to remove and delete any recordings or documents he had posted on the Internet. This order continued and was valid at trial.

Evidence about Disposition

Conduct of the Trial and the Father’s Presentation at Trial

[13] It is important for the father to know that most of the court’s concerns about him are based on his own conduct, the tone and content of his evidence and his presentation at trial. His behaviour at the trial was very concerning and very telling.

[14] To describe the trial as chaotic is an understatement. It was chaotic both in terms of procedure, and because of the father’s behaviour.

[15] The father’s behaviour during the trial was extreme. He was deeply angry, hostile, aggressive, sobbing, crying, broke down completely many times (unable to talk or continue), insistent on talking directly to the other parties (not to the court, although repeatedly directed to do so), was frequently out of control, and had to repeatedly be reminded that court and the trial were places of business. He interrupted everyone, including the court, repeatedly, although he was told not to many times. He could not be contained, controlled or directed.

[16] The father wouldn’t back down from any point, even when faced with documents that obviously contradicted his evidence (e.g., the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health medical records regarding his admission there).

[17] The tone of the father’s evidence at trial was consistently harsh, angry and insulting to anyone he perceived as opposing him. The father was relentless in his attacks against those who oppose him. He spent an inordinate amount of time in his evidence at trial insulting and criticizing the previous agency lawyer Karen Freed.

[18] The father’s questions and questioning of witnesses were rambling, confused, often hostile, and during his questioning he was often shouting. During cross-examination of other witnesses, he was mostly making long and convoluted statements with no question. The court had to repeatedly remind him to ask the witness a question, and had to assist him and help him to rephrase his questions.

[19] The father’s cross-examination of the grandmother (his own mother) was particularly disturbing. He yelled aggressively and angrily at his mother while cross-examining her, and had to be admonished by the court. He was in a physically threatening posture to her. He was very angry at her and blaming her for the child not being in his care. He saw the trial as a forum for airing grievances from many years ago regarding his mother. He had to be stopped and admonished by the court repeatedly about the purpose of cross-examination.

[20] There was evidence of conflict between the father and his own mother, the father and the grandfather (his mother’s partner), and the father and social workers. And indeed, the father’s behaviour at trial demonstrated this.

[21] As well, society witnesses had to be recalled [^8], as the father asked questions of witness who did not have the answers, in circumstances where there were other society witnesses who could have answered those questions (but were not initially asked those questions). In addition, he was repeatedly permitted to take the witness stand after he concluded both his evidence in chief and cross-examination, as he wanted to tell the court more, and he was permitted to do so. The court repeatedly bent over backwards to ensure that he was given every opportunity to tell his story, in detail, and in his own words.

[22] The father had to be reminded repeatedly that the trial was a place of business, with a formal structure, that everyone was expected to comply with the structure and format, that no-one should interrupt anyone. These reminders by the court were useless: he conducted himself with no concern for the trial structure, the expectations of the judge, or anything or anyone else.

[23] The evidence established that the father is disdainful of court orders that he does not agree with. He knew he was ordered to not attend at his mother’s residence, yet continued to complain to the CAST workers about this clause, and continued to attend there, including attending there during the trial.

Disposition

[24] The evidence established that the father lacks any insight into his conduct and instead, externalizes blame. His commentary throughout the trial about the CAST, their previous lawyer, the various workers, and particularly about his own mother was highly charged, angry, and at times, vicious. He blames all of them for his present circumstances. He took no responsibility for his actions, or for his decisions.

[25] If this was the way the father acts in a formal and structured court setting, while being observed by the judge, in a very important decision-making forum regarding his daughter’s future, the court is left to wonder what he was like outside of the courtroom.

[26] The father lacks the ability to control himself and his emotions. He showed no insight into his conduct, or the impact of exposing the child to it. There is no evidence of his ability to parent, or that he understands the child’s needs. He is chaotic. The risk of exposing the child to this is an unacceptable risk.

[27] The evidence is overwhelming that the disposition in the best interests of this child is to be placed with the grandparents subject to a supervision order. She would not be safe in the care of her father.

Access

[28] Throughout the case the father was focused on his rights and how he was mistreated. He gave little thought to how his conduct has affected the child.

[29] The father’s access to the child has been challenging for him. The evidence is that he was unable to focus on the child during access, but dwelt on the system and the wrongs done to him. He was unable to get past his feelings about the system and put the child’s needs first during visits. He was unable to have age-appropriate conversations with the child. At the trial, he had not seen the child for seven months (since 23 April 2023).

[30] The court heard from the father that he loves the child, and the court believes that. However, the evidence established that he is unable to put his child’s needs ahead of his own, and appears unable to even understand his child’s needs. He chose not to see the child after 22 April 2023. No explanation was offered for this. He appeared to give little thought to how his refusal to see the child could emotionally affect her.

[31] The child is three years old, and living with the grandparents, who appear to be in their 60’s. The father disagrees with this placement, and is not interested in preserving it or making it work. It is clear he will behave in ways which will undermine, and even sabotage and destabilize this placement. He did so even during the trial.

[32] An order for no access by a parent is an extreme remedy. In rare cases the court orders no access where a parent’s conduct puts a child at significant risk of harm. There are cases where no access is appropriate, and this is one of those cases.

[33] At trial, the father had not seen the child for seven months. Continuing access to the father under these circumstances is not in the child’s best interests. There will be an order for no access.

Restraining Order

[34] CAST did not claim a restraining order under s. 137 CYFSA. They should have.

[35] The father unilaterally removed the child from the grandparents care on 9 November 2022 under circumstances which resulted in an Amber Alert. The child was found by the police, safe, at the father’s home.

[36] The original protection application issued 14 November 2022 claimed a term of supervision prohibiting the father from attending at the home of the grandparents, and a further term requiring the grandparents to notify the police and the agency if the father attends or indicates he plans to attend their home.

[37] On 14 November 2022 Jones, J. made a temporary order placing the child with the grandparents, subject to agency supervision, with (among others) both of these terms. The evidence of the agency workers was that the father repeatedly asked that this term of supervision be lifted or terminated. It was not lifted or changed, and continued to be a valid term of supervision at the trial.

[38] The father has repeatedly shown, even during the trial, that he will not comply with court orders that he is not to attend at the residence of the grandparents. He attended at their home during the trial, over the week-end between trial dates.

[39] The father has been on notice that this restrictive term was sought against him since he was served with the protection application on 8 December 2022. He has been given a chance to show the court that he would comply with this term, and he did not. This term, as a term of a supervision order, will not be an effective tool to protect the child and the grandparents, to preserve the stability of the placement, and to keep the father away from their home. A supervision order term did not work. A stronger tool is required. A restraining order is needed.

Orders

[40] These are the statutory findings about the child under CYFSA s. 90(2):

(a) A.E.C., born […], 2020, now three years old;

(b) The child is not a First Nations, Inuk or Metis child; and,

(c) The child was not brought to a place of safety before the hearing.

[41] The child is found to be in need of protection under ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CYFSA.

[42] The child will be placed in the care of the grandparents, subject to agency supervision, for 12 months, with these terms and conditions:

(a) The father and the mother will not attend the home of the grandparents, unless approved by the agency in advance;

(b) The grandparents will not allow either the father or the mother to attend their home or visits with the child;

(c) The grandparents will notify the agency (and the police, if appropriate) if the father or the mother attend their home, or if either indicate that they plan to attend their home.

(d) The father and the mother will allow agency workers to make scheduled and unscheduled visits to their homes;

(e) The father and the mother will make themselves available for meetings with agency workers, as requested;

(f) The father and the mother will advise of any changes to their addresses, phone numbers, or family constellations, within 24 hours of such change occurring;

(g) The father and the mother will participate in services to address their mental health, substance misuse, and conflict within their relationship, and will follow the recommendations made;

(h) The father and the mother will sign consents for the release of information between the agency and service providers with whom they are involved; and,

(i) the father shall not record any of the court case, shall not post or publish any video or audio recordings about the court case, shall delete any such recordings in his possession, and shall remove and delete any recordings or documents he had posted on the Internet.

[43] There will be no access to the mother.

[44] There will be no access to the father.

[45] The father is restrained under s. 137 CYFSA from contacting the child, and either of the grandparents, directly or indirectly, and is restrained from coming within 500 metres of their home, or work, or the child’s home, school or day-care, or any other place he thinks any of them are at. The order continues in force for so long as the supervision order under s. 101(1) continues.

Released: 14 December 2023 Justice Carole Curtis

Footnotes

[^1]: “The agency”, or “CAST”. [^2]: These sections deal with a child who is at risk of suffering physical harm from a caregiver for: (a) failure to adequately care for the child; or, (b) a pattern of neglect in caring for the child. [^3]: S.O. 2017, c. 14, as amended. Referred to as CYFSA. [^4]: “the grandparents” [^5]: There was no evidence at trial about the mother. [^6]: There were also protection concerns about the mother, but it is not necessary to outline them for the purposes of this endorsement. [^7]: CAMH. [^8]: The family services worker took the stand three times.