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.
DATE: February 25, 2025
COURT FILE NO. C45873/25
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto
Haley Gaber-Katz, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
- and -
M.R. and G.R.
Barry Nussbaum, for the RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS
HEARD: FEBRUARY 24, 2025
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
REASONS FOR DECISION
Part One – Introduction
[1] The applicant, Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto (the society), brought a motion, within its protection application, seeking to place the respondents’ (the parents’) eight children (the children), in the temporary care and custody of the parents, subject to the following terms of society supervision:
a) The parents shall cooperate with the society to complete its current child protection application, including responding to phone calls, permitting home visits, and attending at the society offices so that all family members, including all children, can be interviewed privately.
b) The parents shall not permit contact between the children and Y.R. and N.R. (the paternal grandparents) until permitted by the society or further court order.
[2] The society sought these orders because:
a) Two of the paternal grandparents’ adult children reported to it that the paternal grandfather sexually abused them during their childhood.
b) The parents are permitting the children to have unsupervised access with the paternal grandfather. The parents do not believe the sexual abuse allegations.
c) The parents did not cooperate with the society’s investigation into these protection concerns. They refused to provide the society with the names of four of their children, none of the children’s dates of birth, and denied the society’s request to meet privately with the children.
[3] At the hearing of the motion on February 24, 2025, the parents advised the court that they agreed to the supervision term in paragraph 1 (b) above. They said they were willing to speak to the society about the protection concerns. They did not agree to a supervision term that the society could interview the children.
[4] A temporary care and custody motion was conducted. The court relied on the affidavit of Chandra Hagon, sworn on February 19, 2025. The respondent, M.R. (the father) was permitted to provide oral evidence and he was briefly cross-examined by the society’s counsel. Both parties made submissions.
[5] At the hearing, the court asked the father to provide the court with the names and dates of birth of the children. He did this. The parents have five boys and three girls. The children are 14, 11, 10, 9, 7, 6, 3 and 1 years old.
[6] The court provided brief oral reasons at the conclusion of the motion and made the temporary orders sought by the society. It indicated that more detailed written reasons would follow. These are those reasons.
Part Three – Legal considerations on a temporary care and custody hearing
[7] The legal test for the court to apply on a temporary care and custody motion where a supervision order is sought is set out in subsections 94 (2) and (6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) that read as follows:
94 (2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
Terms and conditions in order
94 (6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2) (b) or (c) may impose,
(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision;
(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child’s parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and
(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.
[8] Subsection 94 (6) of the Act applies to an order being made in accordance with clause 94 (2) (b) for a temporary supervision order. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. P. (C.R.), 2011 ONSC 2056; Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. C.O., 2020 ONCJ 400.
[9] The onus of proof or criteria are the same when the society is requesting a non-removal order pursuant to clause 94 (2) (b) of the Act or a removal order pursuant to clauses 94 (2) (c) and (d) of the Act - the issue to be determined in making the non-removal order under clause 94 (2) (b) is whether or not the society has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a probable risk that the child will suffer harm if reasonable terms and conditions of a supervision order are not imposed. See: Children's Aid Society of Halton Region v. Z. (T.A.), 2012 ONCJ 231, par. 20; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.I., 2014 ONCJ 62; Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. C.O., supra.
[10] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child (subsection 1 (2) of the Act). See: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.I., supra.
[11] The degree of intrusiveness of the society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. See: CCAS of Toronto v. J.O., 2012 ONCJ 269.
[12] The Ontario Divisional Court has held that a children’s aid society seeking an order for temporary society care at this early stage of a case has only to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention. See: L.D. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., [2005] O.J. No. 5050 (Ont. Div. Ct.). The burden on the society at this stage does not go as high as showing that on the balance of probabilities there is an actual risk to the child in the parent’s care. See: CCAS of Toronto v. M.L.R., 2011 ONCJ 652; The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.G., 2021 ONSC 2260.
[13] Subsection 94 (10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. See: Jewish Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227, par. 18; CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. S.S.H., 2019 ONSC 5365.
Part Four – Does the society have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a probable risk that the children will suffer harm if reasonable terms and conditions of a supervision order are not imposed?
[14] The answer to this question is yes.
[15] The society has received information from two of the paternal grandparents’ children that the paternal grandfather sexually abused them. The father is aware of these allegations and has permitted some of the children to have unsupervised access with the paternal grandfather. The father does not believe these allegations. He has obstructed the society’s investigation into these protection concerns. The evidence is set out in the following paragraphs.
[16] On July 3, 2024, a registered social worker and psychotherapist called the society to report an abuse disclosure. R., the paternal grandparents’ daughter had sought play therapy for her 5-year-old daughter. During the intake, R. alleged sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather towards her and her brother Y. throughout their childhood and into adulthood. She said that the paternal grandfather raped her when she was 8 years old. R. expressed concerns that her daughter had also been sexually abused by the paternal grandfather.
[17] R. told a society worker that the paternal grandfather threatened to put her hand in fire to do the sexual acts. She also expressed concern to the worker that the paternal grandfather had exposed his private parts to her daughter and her daughter had exposed her private parts to the paternal grandfather. R. advised the society that she had cut off all contact with the paternal grandparents.
[18] The society’s investigation was discontinued as R. would not allow the society to speak to her daughter and she would not lay criminal charges against the paternal grandfather.
[19] On September 25, 2024, the society received a referral from a York Regional police officer. The officer reported that R. attended at the police station to file a report about sexual abuse by the paternal grandfather against her and to express concerns for her daughter. The society’s file was again closed, as R. was connected to community resources, was not permitting the child to have contact with the paternal grandparents, and she did not want the society to interview the child. No criminal charges were laid.
[20] On December 4, 2024, the society received a referral from a doctor who reported that R. had asked to bring her daughter for therapy due to allegations that, a few years prior, the paternal grandfather may have exposed himself to her. The society indicated it would not reopen its investigation unless the child could be interviewed.
[21] The society received an anonymous referral on February 7, 2025, reporting that Y. is receiving therapy due to allegedly being sexually abused by the paternal grandfather.
[22] The society’s Child Welfare Director spoke to Y. who disclosed that the paternal grandfather had touched and raped him several times during his childhood. Y. now lives in the United States and has no contact with the paternal grandparents. He also reported that R. had been sexually abused by the paternal grandfather during her childhood.
[23] Y. told the Child Welfare Director that he and R. disclosed the abuse to the paternal grandmother who did not believe them.
[24] Y. told the Child Welfare Director that he told his brother (the father) about the abuse in April 2024. He said that the father planned on confronting the paternal grandfather but never did so. He said the matter is complicated because the father works for the paternal grandfather. He reported he was concerned about the children as they see the paternal grandfather weekly.
[25] Y. subsequently told another society worker that the children often visit the paternal grandparents unsupervised.
[26] The court recognizes the evidence about the abuse allegations is hearsay, and in some instances double hearsay. However, the allegations taken together are sufficiently credible and trustworthy to support a serious protection concern at this time.
[27] The society made multiple attempts to contact the father. He avoided the society and when he finally responded, he accused it of harassing him and said the allegations about the paternal grandfather were untrue. The society worker asked to meet with him and the children about the allegations. He asked the society to make the request by mail. The society sent him an email requesting the meeting. He declined and said he had no further interest or willingness to speak with the society. He said any further attempt by the society to contact him or any of his family members would be treated as harassment.
[28] At this motion, the father testified that he had not understood the society’s role. He said he believed he was being contacted by an outreach organization. The court did not find his evidence credible. Multiple attempts were made to contact him. He insisted on email communication. He knew serious allegations had been made and child protection concerns had been raised. The father chose to be obstructive.
[29] The father testified that he will now be cooperative with the society’s investigation. However, this cooperation does not extend to the children being interviewed to ensure they have been safe and can be kept safe.
[30] The father also testified that he does not believe the paternal grandfather sexually abused his two siblings. He said he has “absolutely no concerns” about the paternal grandfather.
[31] The court finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children will suffer harm if reasonable terms and conditions of a supervision order are not imposed.
Part Five – Are the supervision terms sought by the society reasonably required to protect the children from harm?
[32] The answer to this question is yes.
[33] The parents consented to the supervision term that they not permit the paternal grandparents to have contact with the children until permitted by the society or further court order.
[34] The parents also consented to a supervision term that they meet with the society to discuss the protection concerns.
[35] The parents do not consent to a supervision term permitting the society to meet with the children privately for the purpose of conducting its child protection investigation. They do not want the children to know about the allegations against the paternal grandfather. They feel this term is disproportional and intrusive. They believe the children can be adequately protected by the first two supervision terms.
[36] The court disagrees with the parents. The protection concerns raised are very serious. They have been made by two of the father’s siblings. There is a concern that R.’s daughter might have been sexually abused. Several of the children have unsupervised access with the paternal grandfather. The father does not believe the allegations, which increases the risk that he will not protect the children.
[37] The society has an obligation to properly investigate these allegations to ensure that the children have not been sexually abused and to ensure that they are adequately protected from the risk of sexual abuse. It cannot ascertain this without speaking to the children privately.
[38] Section 35 of the Act sets out the functions of a society as follows:
Functions
35 (1) The functions of a children’s aid society are to,
(a) investigate allegations or evidence that children may be in need of protection;
(b) protect children where necessary;
(c) provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or for the prevention of circumstances requiring the protection of children;
(d) provide care for children assigned or committed to its care under this Act;
(e) supervise children assigned to its supervision under this Act;
(f) place children for adoption under Part VIII (Adoption and Adoption Licensing); and
(g) perform any other duties given to it by this Act or the regulations or any other Act.
Prescribed standards, etc.
(2) A society shall,
(a) provide the prescribed standard of services in its performance of its functions; and
(b) follow the prescribed procedures and practices.
[39] Section 31 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 (the regulation) sets out the requirements for a child protection investigation. This section reads as follows:
Society’s procedure, investigation
- When conducting a child protection investigation, a society shall ensure that the following procedures are carried out in accordance with the Child Protection Standards:
- The child protection worker conducts a thorough review of all current and historical information known about the child and family.
- The child protection worker carries out the investigative steps.
- The child protection worker records the investigative steps.
- When the child protection worker first meets with the child and family who are the subject of the investigation, the worker conducts a safety assessment and takes the actions that are immediately necessary to protect the child.
- As soon as possible but no later than five days after the first meeting referred to in paragraph 4, the child protection worker records the safety assessment conducted under paragraph 4 and the safety plan, if any, the worker has implemented under paragraph 4 to protect the child.
- The child protection worker carries out a risk assessment before the completion of the investigation.
[40] Paragraph 4 of section 31 of the regulation sets out that the child protection worker is to meet with the child and family who are the subject of the investigation, conduct a safety assessment and take actions that are immediately necessary to protect the child.
[41] Section 31 of the regulation sets out that the society shall ensure that its investigation is carried out in accordance with the Child Protection Standards.
[42] The Child Protection Standards are published by the Ministry of Child and Youth Services.
[43] Standard Number 2 in the Child Protection Standards sets out guidelines for child protection investigations. It sets out two forms of child protection investigations. The traditional approach is reserved for the most serious cases. The customized approach is used whenever possible in less severe cases, to facilitate client engagement and a worker-client relationship that will result in improved child safety. The society may move from one approach to the other depending on how the investigation evolves.
[44] In both the traditional and customized approaches, the society is required to meet individually with the children who may have been the victims of abuse. This makes sense in this case. Otherwise, the children would be vulnerable to pressure from the parents.
[45] To summarize, the court finds the supervision term sought by the society permitting it to privately interview the children is reasonably required to protect the children from harm for the following reasons:
a) The protection concerns are serious. Two of the paternal grandfather’s children have accused him of sexual abuse.
b) Many of the children have had unsupervised access with the paternal grandfather.
c) The preliminary evidence indicates there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children have been and continue to be at risk of sexual harm. The hard reality is that some of the children may have been victims of sexual abuse.
d) The parents reject the possibility that the sexual abuse allegations can be true. This exacerbates the risk to the children.
e) The parents have not cooperated with the society’s investigation. The father demonstrated little insight into the protection concerns and the duty of the society to investigate them at the hearing. This also increases the risk of harm to the children.
[46] In these circumstances, it would be irresponsible not to permit the society to privately interview the children as part of its investigation.
[47] It is important for the court to receive the results of the society’s investigation. It will inform the court as to whether more, or less intrusive orders are dictated by the evidence to adequately protect the children.
[48] The court found that the supervision terms sought by the society were reasonable and proportionate. They were ordered.
Part Six – Conclusion
[49] The court recognizes that the parents want to protect the children from these uncomfortable discussions. However, the society and the court are required by the Act to ensure the safety and protection of the children.
[50] The parents told the court that they will respect the court’s order and cooperate with the society’s investigation. The court views that as a positive development and a step to ensuring the children are protected.
[51] The matter will return for a case conference before the case management judge, Justice Melanie Sager, on March 27, 2025 at 10:45 a.m. The appearance is to be in person.
[52] The court thanks counsel for their helpful submissions.
Released: February 25, 2025
Justice Stanley B. Sherr