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: 2025-05-13
COURT FILE No.: 20125/17
Between:
Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Applicant
— AND —
K.B. and B.B.
Respondents
Before Justice A.D. Baker
Heard on April 23, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on May 13, 2025
Manjit Pannu — counsel for the applicant Society
Supriya Joshi — counsel for the respondents K.B. and B.B.
Nav Rai — counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the children, D.B. and J.B.
Arifa Chanda — counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child, H.B.
Introduction
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region have brought a summary judgment motion regarding the children D.B. born […], 2007, J.B. born […], 2010 and H.B. born […], 2013. The respondent mother is K.B. and the respondent father is B.B.
[2] The relief sought by the Society is set out in the Notice of Motion dated January 16th, 2025 seeking a final dispositional order placing all three children in the Extended Care of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel with all three children having rights of access to their parents in the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the children’s wishes, with a minimum access visit of once per month provided the parents confirm their attendance two days prior and further an order that the children have a right of access to one another in the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the children’s wishes and in consultation with the children’s caregivers with a minimum of once per month.
[3] The Society relies upon the Affidavit of Meeta Patel sworn January 15th, 2025, Affidavit of Priya David sworn January 15th, 2025, Affidavit of Gilmore Samuels sworn January 10th, 2025, and a Reply Affidavit of Mohaned Hurani sworn March 17th, 2025.
[4] The Society also relies upon five Statement of Agreed Facts which were dated March 28th, 2018, November 10th, 2020, July 12th, 2021, November 1st, 2022, and December 6th, 2023.
[5] The motion material was served on the mother, the father and OCL counsels, Nav Rai (representing the children D.B. and J.B.) and Arifa Chanda (representing the child H.B.) on January 17th, 2025.
[6] The parents filed responding Affidavits of the mother sworn March 4th, 2025, and the father sworn March 4th, 2025.
[7] The court heard submissions from counsel for the Society, the parents’ counsel and OCL counsel.
[8] Neither OCL counsel opposes the Society position on this summary judgment motion. The parents request that this motion be dismissed. The parents want the children returned to their care.
Issue
[9] Whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine if all three children should be placed in the Extended Care of the Society with access to the parents and each other?
[10] The child protection court proceedings concerning this family date back approximately 8 years.
[11] On March 28th, 2018, a Statement of Agreed Facts was executed. The parties consented to statutory and protection findings for all three children. The protection findings agreed to pursuant to the prior Child and Family Services Act legislation at s. 37(2)(b)(i)(ii) states as follows:
There is a risk that the child(ren) D.B., J.B. and H.B. are likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child(ren) or caused by that person's failure to care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child(ren) adequately [subclause 37(2)(b)(i)]
Pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child(ren) [subclause 37(2)(b)(ii)]
[12] According to this Statement of Agreed Facts, the child welfare family history dates to 2011 with concerns of domestic violence, father’s criminal charges arising from domestic violence with mother as victim, the children being witness to domestic violence, father’s alcoholism, mother’s mental health, the children exhibiting violent behaviors toward others, defiance toward parents on issues of safety and lack of follow through in accessing services.
[13] On January 6th, 2018, the Society was informed by counselor Dr. Nita David that she was closing the file for marital counselling. She noted that the relationship between the parents was much improved. Father advised the Society worker that he was taking an alcohol suppressant and had completed a Sahara’s Men’s addiction program as well as the Partner Assault Program. The parents were to be attending relationship counselling through Indus Community Centre and taking parenting classes through Punjabi Parenting Services.
[14] A final order was made March 28th, 2018, on statutory findings, protection findings and a disposition placing the children in the care of their parents subject to terms of supervision for a period of 4 months.
[15] The matter returned for a first Status Review which culminated in a further Statement of Agreed Facts dated November 20th, 2020, and turned into an order on November 26th, 2020.
[16] According to this Statement of Agreed Facts, the parents were to follow through on addressing concerns with father attending a program for alcoholism, mother was to continue to address her mental health, meet with her psychiatrist and follow recommendations. Parents were not to use negative comments about the other in front of the children.
[17] In September 2019, father was charged with assaulting mother. She fled with the children to Vancouver where she lived with extended family. Father threatened to harm the mother if she did not return. Mother initially resisted and then subsequently returned to father with the children on the basis that she missed him and understood he was not drinking anymore.
[18] Concerns were noted through 2020 of D.B.’s aggressive behavior toward his mother and siblings, the parents struggle to manage D.B.’s behavior, mother’s pattern of breaking items in the home when she was upset, verbal disputes between the parents in the presence of the children and father’s ongoing consumption of alcohol. Father was described as verbally abusive while under the influence.
[19] At that time father was employed and financially providing for the family. Mother was meeting with her psychiatrist; however, she was not taking medication that had been prescribed to her.
[20] The children were placed in the care of their parents subject to terms of supervision for a period of 6 months.
[21] The matter returned for a second Status Review which culminated in a further Statement of Agreed Facts dated July 20th, 2021.
[22] Concerns continued to be noted regarding father’s use of alcohol as connected to domestic violence and his ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system. He was attending a Partner Assault Response program (“PAR”) and addiction treatment services. He acknowledged a connection between alcohol usage and violent behavior. He was noted as trying to control consumption of alcohol.
[23] The mother displayed erratic behavior in relation to her mental health. She continued to meet with her psychiatrist. She was placed on new medication.
[24] The family continued to access counselling services through Indus Community Services.
[25] The views of the children as expressed were that they wished to continue living in the family home.
[26] The children were placed in the care of their parents for a further period of 6 months.
[27] The matter returned for a third Status Review which culminated in a further order dated May 16th, 2022, placing the children in the care of the parents subject to terms of supervision for a period of 6 months.
[28] The matter returned for a fourth Status Review which culminated in a further Statement of Agreed Facts dated November 2, 2022.
[29] It was noted in this Statement of Agreed Facts that the children, and D.B. in particular, were defiant. In September 2022, the parents began attending couple counselling with Dr. Nita David through South Asian Welcome Centre.
[30] Father continued to consume alcohol and received no treatment or therapy to manage alcohol use.
[31] On September 27th, 2022, the Society was informed that father was charged with assaulting mother.
[32] Father was incarcerated. The children’s views and wishes were to continue residing in the family home. An order was made placing the children in the care of their mother subject to terms of supervision for a period of 6 months.
[33] The mother’s mental health was noted as being stable.
[34] A further Statement of Agreed Facts was executed December 6th, 2023.
[35] According to this Statement of Agreed Facts, in November 2022 there was an incident between D.B. and his mother whereby the youth could not have contact with her. On January 11, 2023, D.B. was placed in the temporary care of the Society while the younger two children were placed in the care of the mother subject to terms of supervision.
[36] On March 29th, 2023, father notified the Society he had given up use of alcohol and had signed up for counselling to address his alcoholism.
[37] On May 29th, 2023, Shalini Kapil counsellor for Indus Community Centre contacted the Society and advised she had been working with the family over the past year regarding parenting and intimate partner violence. There had been no change in the family dynamic as the family did not implement any safety plan, tools or strategies provided through counselling.
[38] On June 6th, 2023, Mahnoor Sheikh, therapist at Catholic Family Services noted difficulty working with mother, that she had trouble comprehending information provided and that there may be a cognitive capacity concern. She stated that mother was unable to implement strategies to improve parenting.
[39] On August 31, 2023, it was confirmed that the parents had attended parenting classes through Brampton Multicultural Centre however their attendance was described as minimal. D.B. was noted as doing well in foster care and had visits with his parents as he chose.
[40] A final order was made placing D.B. in Society care for a period of 6 months with access to his parents and siblings in the Society’s discretion considering the youth’s wishes. A final order was also made placing H.B. and J.B. in the care of the mother subject to terms of supervision for a period of 4 months.
[41] On January 9th, 2024, J.B. and H.B. were placed in Society care on a temporary without prejudice basis with access to the parents in the Society’s discretion at a minimum frequency of once per week considering the views and wishes of the children. Sibling access was to take place at a minimum once weekly. The Society brought an Early Status Review Application seeking Interim Care of the two younger children. The Society brought a Status Review Application in May 2024 seeking an Extended Care order for D.B.
[42] The Society subsequently amended the Status Review Application in July 2024 seeking an Extended Care order for J.B. and H.B.
Peel Children’s Aid Society evidence
Affidavit of Priya David sworn January 15th, 2025
[43] Ms. David has been the family finding worker and kinship worker employed through Peel Children’s Aid Society. She has been involved with family since January 2024.
[44] In her role, she assists children and youth gather information about their family and non-relatives and explore the possibility of the adults participating in, planning for or being a support to the child/youth.
[45] Ms. David connected with 8 separate individuals on both the maternal and paternal side. Ms. David encountered some reticence from the parents in cooperating with the kin process. Efforts were made to contact extended maternal family and paternal aunt as possible kin placements without success.
Affidavit of Meeta Patel sworn January 15th, 2025
[46] Ms. Patel is a child and youth worker employed by Peel CAS. Following the making of the December 6th, 2023 order, she reported that circumstances for J.B. and H.B. deteriorated as follows:
(a) On December 21, 2023 mother contacted worker to report she had been physically and verbally assaulted by father all night. The children were present at the time. Father was charged with assault.
(b) On the same date both children and mother admitted misleading the Society by saying there had been no abuse or alcohol consumption by father; that in fact there had been weekly abuse and father had in fact consumed alcohol everyday.
(c) J.B. and H.B. told the worker their parents instructed them to lie to the Society about what had been happening.
(d) On December 28th, 2023 Ms. Patel was informed by mother that she had reconciled with father.
(e) H.B. expressed that she wanted to be taken away from the family home, that she could no longer take care of her mother. Upon hearing this, mother became physically aggressive toward her.
(f) Mother stated she would harm herself if the children were taken from the home. She wanted father back in the home as he loved her and the family.
(g) Upon the worker arriving to have the children placed in care, J.B. and H.B. pushed their mother away when she tried to embrace them.
(h) During the drive to foster home, both children reported they had not eaten in over a week, that their father continued to drink and there continued to be abuse in the home. Both children expressed that father had dependence on alcohol and that mother is often sad and depressed.
(i) On February 27th, 2024, mother called Ms. Patel to say she could not live without the father and that she needed him more than she needed the children.
(j) On June 5th, 2024, mother told Ms. Patel that she was the reason father went to jail. She claimed that father no longer drank alcohol and only consumed beer.
(k) On November 13th, 2024, mother blamed Ms. Patel for all her problems, asserting that she and the father do not fight.
(l) On November 14th, 2024, mother informed Ms. Patel that she was happy with her husband, but that stress and anxiety caused her to say things she did not mean such as “my husband is a bad man.” Mother reiterated she did not want to leave her husband and insisted she had not made such comments in a long time, although she acknowledged making such remarks during an access visit with D.B. two or three weeks ago.
(m) Mother stated she wanted the children returned to her care and claimed she was trying to change.
(n) The Society received negative feedback from father’s probation officer, counsellors from Catholic Family Services, Indus Community Services, Punjabi Community Health Centre and Family Services of Peel between March 2024 and November 2024 as to the parents’ progress in addressing concerns regarding their relationship and father’s alcohol addiction.
[47] Ms. Patel stated that while in Society care, D.B. was referred to assessment for learning disabilities, ADHD and conduct disorder. He had now formed social connections and was involved in extracurricular activities. D.B. was noted as attending school and excelling academically.
[48] All three children expressed reluctance on reintegration back to the family home. They were not inclined to attend access visits with their parents.
[49] J.B. and H.B. both expressed feeling unsafe with their parents as there was fighting in the home every day. They both expressed feeling safe in the foster home.
[50] Ms. Patel has supervised approximately 16 visits between the parents and at least one of the children.
[51] On December 7th, 2023, Ms. Patel observed the parents spending an entire access visit talking in the presence of the children about their interpretation of the court proceedings while making accusations toward Ms. Patel and the Society.
[52] On March 21st, 2024, the parents were noted as being unable to parent the children when they were misbehaving or being disrespectful.
[53] On June 6th, 2024, the parents were observed repeatedly talking about the court proceedings at the access visit.
[54] On July 23rd, 2024 after the parents were told not to provide H.B. with pop as per medical advice given concerns with bedwetting, H.B. was still provided with pop which she drank on return to the foster home.
[55] According to Ms. Patel, on October 30th, 2024, she supervised an access visit between mother and D.B where mother expressed that father is a “bad man” who has only stopped drinking but continues to swear and disrespect her. She also mentioned feeling suicidal due to her situation with her husband and the removal of her children.
Affidavit of Gilmore Samuels sworn January 10th, 2025
[56] Mr. Samuels is a child and youth worker employed by Peel CAS.
[57] Mr. Samuels received a referral from Society worker, Ms. Patel. He has been working with D.B. on anger management, self regulation, and social skills.
[58] Since April 2024, Mr. Samuels has supervised approximately 6 access visits between the children and their parents as well as one visit between the siblings.
[59] The children were observed generally having limited interaction with the parents at access visits.
Affidavit of Mohaned Hurani sworn March 17th, 2025
[60] Mr. Hurani is a child protection worker employed by Peel CAS.
[61] Mr. Hurani notes the children have continued to express a disinclination to having access with their parents, although D.B. is open to some virtual contact. He notes the Society continue to encourage the children to re-engage with parents at visits.
Mother’s evidence
Affidavit of K.B. sworn March 4th, 2025
[62] The mother’s position is that her life circumstances have changed significantly since December 2023; that the evidence relied on by the Society does not reflect her recent stability, wellbeing, and ability to care for her children.
[63] The mother does not dispute the Society concerns at the time that the children were brought into care around January 2024.
[64] The mother recognizes that when the Society became involved her mental health was struggling and she was facing domestic violence from her husband. She accepted that the children required protection and support, she was unable to provide.
[65] The mother’s evidence is that the past year has been transformative for her; that now she is able to provide the children with a safe, loving, and stable home.
[66] Mother says she and the father are attending counselling together; that they have worked on communication trust and conflict resolution. She states that their relationship is much healthier. The mother acknowledges that the children may be disappointed in her decision to forgive father however she wants to work on repairing their relationship.
[67] Following intensive counselling, mother claims things have changed. Mother attests that she and father have made genuine progress. She believes the family deserves an opportunity to heal and move forward together.
[68] Mother states she has been followed by psychiatrist Dr. Dhaliwal since April 14th, 2014, has consistently followed medical advice, and ensured her mental health has remained stable.
[69] Mother states that the period from November 2023 to January 2024 was an especially acute period of crisis for her. She states she was experiencing emotional distress, heightened anxiety, and depression due to domestic violence, and financial instability.
[70] Mother references notes of her psychiatrist that she was not suicidal, not psychotic and posed no risk to the children although she was suffering from intense anxiety, sleep disturbance and feelings of helplessness.
[71] Mother relies on the recent reports of her psychiatrist that she is much healthier, more stable, and now fully capable of parenting her children. Her prior difficulties were explained as situationally driven by trauma rather than an inability to parent.
[72] The mother relies on the report from her psychiatrist based on a recent appointment on January 8th, 2025, which noted that her mental health has dramatically improved and that having the children returned to care would contribute to stability.
[73] Mother describes herself as mentally sound, emotionally stable, and fully engaged in maintaining a healthy environment.
[74] Mother states she has continued to receive counselling from Peel Family Services who have provided her with ongoing support for maintaining her emotional well-being.
[75] Mother says her financial circumstances have improved since December 2023; that the family’s financial expenses have reduced to the point where she and the father have sufficient flexibility to support children needs and ensure financial stability.
[76] Mother notes that she, the father and the paternal grandmother moved to a new home following father’s release. They are now residing at [address removed] in Milton, Ontario. It is a three-bedroom home.
[77] Mother says she has had steady employment since September 2024 and has attained financial independence.
[78] Mother believes visits between her, and H.B. have deteriorated due to a lack of consistent interactions between them.
[79] Mother acknowledges that a year after being taken into Society care, J.B. has become more distant and closed off.
[80] Mother believes there is hope that the relationship with children will recover.
[81] Mother requests increased access and a more balanced assessment of her parenting abilities.
Father’s evidence
Affidavit of B.B. sworn March 4th, 2025
[82] Father acknowledges that his alcohol use and instances of domestic violence created an unhealthy home environment for the children. He states the police have been in their household on multiple occasions. Father says he is now taking responsibility for his actions and is deeply regretful.
[83] Father states that since his release in March 2024 he has made significant efforts to change such as completing counselling/anger management programs, stopped alcohol use, engaged in biweekly counselling to rebuild his relationship with the mother in a healthy/respectful manner, volunteering and maintaining stable employment.
[84] Father describes the past year as a “wake up call” and understands that prior actions put his family at risk that he is working hard to correct mistakes made.
[85] Father states that things have changed; that his relationship with the mother has improved through engagement in counselling and therapy.
[86] Father understands children have grown more distant which he accepts has been a consequence of his past behavior. Despite this, he continues to try to reach out, attend visits and be present in their lives. Father expresses a commitment to change.
Law on Summary Judgment Motions
[87] Summary judgment motions are governed by Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.
[88] The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment. Pursuant to subrule 16(4), the party moving for summary judgment shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
[89] Pursuant to subrule 16(4.1) the responding party to the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. The responding party must put their best foot forward on the motion. The judge is entitled to assume that the parties have put before her or him all of the evidence that they would be able to adduce at trial. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.T., Sweda v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200.
[90] Although subrule 16(4.1) sets out the obligation of the respondent to the motion to provide “in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence does not establish a genuine issue for trial, the court must still be satisfied on the evidence before it that the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. See: Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, paragraph 2 of paragraph 80.
[91] Subrule 16(6) provides that if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defense, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
[92] Subrule 16(6.1) provides that in determining if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties, and the court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be only exercised at trial:
- Weighing the evidence
- Evaluating the credibility of a deponent
- Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence
[93] In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, the Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step process for determining whether summary judgment should be granted.
[94] Hryniak sets out that the judge must first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence without using the additional fact-finding powers set out in subrule 16(6.1). If, after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge may resort to the additional fact-finding powers to decide if a trial is required.
[95] There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (Hryniak - paragraph 49). As the Supreme Court stated, at para. 50 of Hryniak, “the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the judge confidence that she can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute.” (Kawartha, paragraph 63).
[96] As applied to child protection proceedings, a fair and just determination on the merits must recognize that such proceedings engage Charter rights for a vulnerable segment of our society. Consequently, courts have stressed the need to take a cautious approach to granting summary judgment in child protection proceedings. This cautious approach promotes Hryniak’s principle of reaching a fair and just determination on the merits (Kawartha, paragraph 76).
[97] Hryniak’s fairness principles for summary judgment must be applied recognizing the distinctive features of a child protection proceeding. In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial the court must exercise exceptional caution and apply the objectives of the Child and Youth Family Services Act (“CYFSA”) including the best interests of the child. (Kawartha, paragraph 1 of paragraph 80 and paragraph 64).
[98] The court must conduct a careful screening of the evidence to eliminate inadmissible evidence. The court should not give weight to evidence on a summary judgment motion that would be inadmissible at trial. (Kawartha, paragraph 3 of paragraph 80).
[99] The child protection jurisprudence has crafted an approach to the fair and just determination of issues using summary judgment motions by recognizing that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants. The jurisprudence reflects an approach to the genuine issue “for trial” or “requiring trial” analysis that incorporates these considerations. The test of “no genuine issue for trial” has been referred to in a number of ways. It has been equated with “no chance of success” or that it is “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed”. The test has also been enunciated as being when the “outcome is a foregone conclusion” or where there is “no realistic possibility of an outcome other than that sought by the applicant”. (Kawartha, paragraph 72).
[100] The length of time a child is in care is at all times a relevant consideration in determining placement when a child is found to be in need of protection. Time is considered from a child’s needs and perspective. The time consideration, like all considerations in child protection matters, should be child-focused. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.S..
[101] A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent’s desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernable from the parent’s evidence that she faces some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society’s removal of the child from her care and has developed some new ability as a parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.).
[102] An order placing a child in the extended society care of the society (formerly crown wardship) is the most profound order that a court can make. To take someone’s children from them is a power that a judge must exercise only with the highest degree of caution, and only on the basis of compelling evidence, and only after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. G. (J) (1997) 23 R.F.L. 4th 79 (SCJ-Family Branch); Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.O., 2014 ONCJ 523.
[103] The disposition as sought by the Society is determined in accordance with the best interests of the children.
[104] In adjudicating this issue, I am guided by s. 74(3) of the CYFSA which states as follows:
(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. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, s. 74(3).
[105] Section 104 of the CYFSA sets out the court’s powers in relation to access. It reads as follows:
104 (1) – Access order
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.
[106] Section 105 deals with access when a child has been removed from a person who had charge of the child.
[107] Subsection 105(4) states that where the court makes an order that a child be in extended society care, any order for access is terminated.
[108] Subsection 105(5) sets out that in considering the issue of access to a child in extended society care, the best interests of the child is the test. The court may not order access to such a child unless it is satisfied that the order would be in the child’s best interests.
[109] The best interests considerations are set out in subsection 74(3). The court is mandated to consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be reasonably ascertained.
Analysis
[110] The fundamental focus for the court on this motion is to determine if there is a genuine issue which requires a trial for adjudication.
[111] Neither parent contests any aspect of the Society evidence before the court. The core salient facts are as follows:
(a) The Society has had chronic child protection concerns for domestic violence between the parents, exposure of the children to such domestic violence, mental health difficulties of mother and alcohol abuse for father dating back nearly 15 years.
(b) The parents have conceded these protection concerns by way of a protection finding dating back to 2018 and have conceded that the children have continued to be in need of protection requiring further court intervention through successive Status Review Applications.
(c) Father repeatedly has been involved with the criminal justice system. He has incurred criminal charges for assault on the mother. The parents have separated and reconciled on multiple occasions.
(d) Father has attended programming for alcohol dependence on multiple occasions. He has taken the PAR program on multiple occasions. The parents have attended relationship counselling on multiple occasions. Mother has continued to meet with her psychiatrist since 2014.
(e) The family has acknowledged deceiving the Society to believe that the family circumstances was stable in December 2023 when it was not. Domestic violence between the parents, alcohol consumption by father and exposure of children to same had continued. Mother’s mental health was impacted to the point where she was unable to tend to the children’s needs. Food was not being made readily available to the children.
(f) A final court order was made in December 2023 premised on false information from the family that there was stability, and that the protection concerns were being suitably addressed through a supervision order for H.B. and J.B.
(g) Notwithstanding 8 years of court intervention; society support and referrals to multiple agencies have not resulted in any improvement to the family circumstance. There has in fact been a regression whereby all three children have had to be placed in Society care.
(h) There have been at least 16 access visits over the past year. The description of the access visits is not disputed by the parents. The visits have generally not gone well. Aside from moments of modest positive interaction notably with H.B. and D.B. toward mother, family engagement is limited. There is some open hostility toward the parents and at times the visits have ended early. The children’s disinclination to attend access visits is not disputed by the parents. The Society evidence references several instances of the parents behaving inappropriately or ineffectively parenting the children at the access visits in the past year.
(i) There is no other extended family or community plan for the children.
[112] Although the Society bear the ultimate onus on a summary judgment motion, the parents have an obligation to put their best foot forward and not rely on mere allegations or denials.
[113] The central theme of the parents’ response to the summary judgment motion is an acknowledgement of the Society ongoing protection concerns, regret for the harm they have caused the children and an expression that the past year has been transformative for them both in the following ways:
(a) Mother states that she and the father have engaged in relationship counselling, that their relationship is now “much stronger and healthier”. The parents profess that they are “committed” to ensuring the children are raised in a peaceful, safe, and loving home.
(b) Mother states that she has accessed therapy and professional help.
(c) That after having engaged in intensive counselling and realizing what is at stake with potential of losing their children, mother attests she and her husband have now “truly changed.”
(d) Father states he has stopped drinking alcohol and has further completed counselling and anger management programming.
(e) Father states he now has stable employment and is doing volunteer work.
(f) Father states he attends bi-weekly counseling through Family Services of Peel.
[114] Neither parent gives any detail of counselling such as number of sessions attended, who the counsellors are and their credentials, substance of counselling programming nor any report or Affidavit from the counsellor providing any independent input of progress made.
[115] Although not contested by the parents, the collateral information from professional services providers as presented in Ms. Patel’s affidavit is hearsay. At trial, these professional services providers would have to be called as witnesses to provide direct evidence under oath. On a summary judgment motion, the court is to consider trial worthy evidence. The Society are seeking the most significant interventionist order that a court can make under the CYFSA. The court must take a very cautious approach. I place no weight on the statements made by such service providers.
[116] The mother relies heavily on source progress reports from her psychiatrist Dr. Jagtaran Singh Dhaliwal. The first report dated December 20th, 2023 authored one day prior to father’s arrest for assault, notes mother reporting of her bad marriage. Dr. Dhaliwal’s impression is that mother was not able to work because of her “general functioning decreased with the depression, anxiety and her coping skills are very very poor.” She was noted as having developed symptoms of anxiety, insomnia and depression.
[117] The general theme of the psychiatrist reports following the removal of the younger two children from her care, through to January 2025 is that mother’s mental health appears to have stabilized. Her functioning was noted as improved compared to the psychiatric impression in December 2023. My difficulty with the reports are that they present as limited to opining on the current state of mother’s mental health in the absence of any long-term prognosis.
[118] I place no weight on the psychiatrist opinion that the children should be returned to the mother’s care. Such an opinion is beyond the scope of psychiatrist’s expertise.
[119] Even accepting the psychiatric impressions of mother that her mental health is stable, it does not address mental health within the context of the long-standing toxic relationship between the parents, domestic violence and the father’s alcohol addiction which is the central feature of the Society protection concerns.
[120] A sizable part of mother’s Affidavit with exhibits addresses financial stability within the family, that financial expenses are manageable, and that mother has a job. While that appears to be a positive development, financial wellness was never identified historically nor recently as a central protection concern. The court’s decision will not turn on the financial resources of the parents.
[121] A prime consideration for the court are the views and wishes of the children. None of the children are young. D.B., the eldest at nearly 18 years old is on the verge of aging out of the process, J.B. is nearly 15 years old and H.B. is on the cusp of adolescence at age 12.
[122] S. 74(3)(a) of the CYFSA requires the court to consider views and wishes in accordance with the child’s age and maturity unless they cannot be ascertained.
[123] In the circumstances of this case, views and wishes can certainly be ascertained and have in fact been articulated. There is no evidence that the maturity level of the children is not age appropriate. All three children have counsel and are of an age where their voice is a significant factor in determination of their best interests.
[124] It is not in dispute that in their short lives, all three children have experienced trauma. They have been exposed to chronic domestic violence between their parents, alcoholism of their father and mental health challenges of their mother.
[125] The long-standing nature of these concerns communicates to the court that the degree of risk that has justified a finding that the children are in need of protection is very high.
[126] It is not in dispute that all three children have reported feeling unsafe around their parents and further that they have expressed a desire for little to no access with either parent. None of the children wish to return to the care of their parents. J.B. and H.B. do not desire contact currently.
[127] The parents’ evidence communicates that they accept and understand why their children are disinclined to spend time with them. Their proposed remedy appears to be that the children be forced to see them and that with increased access, the relationship will improve.
[128] Even if the court accepts mother’s mental health is stable, accepts at face value that they have made progress in relationship therapy and that father has resolved his battle with alcoholism, the undisputed evidence in the form of observation of access visits over the past year demonstrates that neither parent has been able to earn the trust of their children. There is no evidence that the parents have been able to demonstrate having “truly changed” in their interactions with the children. There was no sustained trajectory of improvement in the quality of the access visits despite encouragement by the Society. It is undisputed that the relationship between the children and the parents has been greatly impaired by the parents’ past actions.
[129] Additionally, there are profound credibility issues with the parents’ statements of having changed. The protection concerns back date many years. The parents have admitted to misleading the Society and coaching the children to lie about stability in the home. As recently as October 30th, 2024, Ms. Patel noted that mother made comments that father continues to be disrespectful toward her. This cannot be ignored.
[130] The court must consider the effects on the children of delay in disposition of this case.
[131] As noted earlier in this decision, the child welfare court process has been continuous for more than 8 years. This current proceeding has been before the court more than one year.
[132] D.B. has been in Society care for more than 26 months. The court cannot make another final interim care order. D.B. will almost certainly attain age of 18 prior to an adjudication of this matter if it were to proceed to trial.
[133] J.B. and H.B. have been in Society care more than 15 months.
[134] The court has also considered that the parents have only had supervised access with the children. It would be improper for a court to return the children to them until they could demonstrate that they could adequately parent the children without supervision for extended periods. This would be a lengthy process. Even in the best-case scenario, the court could not place the children with them without first testing whether they could adequately parent the children, first, on a fully unsupervised basis, second for full days, and third, for overnight visits. This process would need to take place for at least 6 to 9 months if not more, for the court to effectively evaluate whether reunification was viable.
[135] As noted at paragraph 128 above there has been no indication from observations at the supervised access visits that meaningful positivity and trust has been built back between the children and parents to the point where expansion of access could be contemplated at this time.
[136] The challenge for the parents is that the protection concerns are so long standing. The parents have repeatedly acknowledged these concerns and have previously engaged in couple counselling/domestic violence counselling/alcohol abstinence treatment without demonstrating any permanent change. When taken alongside the family’s actions in deceiving the Society and the court prior to the making of the most recent supervision order in December 2023, it would take a considerable period for the court to attain any measure of confidence that recent efforts at change are different than the past.
[137] This matter has been before the court for far too long. It is not fair for J.B. or H.B. to have to wait on realistically a year or more for their parents to prove themselves. D.B. will age out within that time frame. This is a child focused court, not a parent focused court. All three children need and deserve closure to this litigation.
[138] On the issue of access, the same best factors apply as set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA. The views and wishes of the children must be the driving factor. While H.B. and J.B. are not inclined toward having parenting time with their parents currently, the court does note evidence of some positive albeit brief interactions with their parents at some past access visits.
[139] In the court’s view it is appropriate to scale back access to once per month in recognition of the children’s concern while at the same providing some structure of minimum monthly visitation. Maintaining some access will ensure a connection to the children’s religious, cultural and linguistic heritage. The family follows the Sikh religion and speaks Punjabi.
[140] Whether there is progression in access between the children and their parents in the future may ultimately rest on the parents’ ability to demonstrate long lasting change.
[141] On the evidence taken as a whole, I am satisfied that a trial is not required for a final adjudication of this proceeding. The evidence supports final orders being made as sought by the Peel Children’s Aid Society. I do not see that there is a realistic prospect of any outcome other than what has been claimed by the Society.
[142] I have no doubt the mother and father love their children very much and that they will be extremely disappointed by the decision made of this court. The court commends the parents for taking ownership of past poor decisions made which have adversely impacted their children. That is a very good start, however there is a long road ahead of them. The positives are that the court is making an access order. The children are older and will always know their mother and father. Now that the court proceeding is over, they should focus their energies of continuing along a positive path of clinical intervention they have begun and aim toward rebuilding trust of their children.
[143] A final goal of the parents should be that hopefully they can attain a permanent positive and long-lasting loving relationship with their children for the rest of their lives.
[144] I make the following order:
The children, J.B., born […], 2010, H.B., born […], 2013, and D.B., born […], 2007, shall be placed in Extended Society care of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel.
The right of access of the children, J.B., born […], 2010, H.B., born […], 2013, and D.B., born […], 2007, to the father, B.B., shall be at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, as to location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision, taking the children’s wishes into consideration, with a minimum of once (1) per month, provided the father confirms his attendance two (2) days before the visit.
The right of access of the children, J.B., born […], 2010, H.B., born […], 2013, and D.B., born […], 2007, to the mother, K.B., shall be at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, as to location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision, taking the children’s wishes into consideration, with a minimum of once (1) per month, provided the mother confirms her attendance two (2) days before the visit.
The right of access of the children, J.B., born […], 2010, H.B., born […], 2013, and D.B., born […], 2007, to each other, shall be at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, as to location, duration, frequency, and level of supervision, taking the children’s wishes into consideration, and in consultation with the children’s caregivers, with a minimum of once (1) per month.
Released: May 13, 2025
Signed: Justice A.D. Baker