Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.M., 2025 ONCJ 292

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: May 23, 2025
COURT FILE No.: CFO-19-15621-003

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant,

— AND —

G.M.
Respondent

-AND-

A.B.
Respondent

Before Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on May 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on May 23, 2025

Lucia Spampinato..................................................................... counsel for the applicant society
G.M........................................................................... self-represented party on her own behalf
Bradley F. Berns..................................................................... counsel for the respondent, A.B.

JUSTICE W. KAPURURA:

Part One – Introduction

[1] This protection was heard from May 5 to 9, 2025. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the subject children, K (five years old) and G (four years old) [1], to be children in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, SO 2017, c14, Sch 1 (the Act). It placed the children in the care of their maternal aunt, C.P. [2], for 6 months, subject to supervision by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society).

[2] The court ordered that the respondent parents’ access with the children occur at a minimum of once every week, with the society having discretion with respect to location, duration, frequency, and supervision of the access visits.

[3] The court informed the parties that written reasons would follow. These are those reasons.

[4] The children were brought to a place of safety on April 15, 2024, in Toronto, Province of Ontario. They remained in the care of the society as of the date of the trial.

[5] The family consists of the following members:
i. G.M. is the children’s mother (the mother).
ii. A.B. is the children’s father (the father).

[6] The mother has a 15-year-old child, C, from a different relationship, who is not in her care and is not the subject of this protection application.

[7] The mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The main protection concerns arose out of her mental health challenges, intimate partner violence between the parents, and the parents’ ability to meet the children’s needs on an ongoing basis.

[8] The society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the Act. Initially, the society sought an order for extended society care of the children. It changed its position five days before trial following approval of a kinship plan. At trial, it sought a 6-month supervision order placing both children in the care of maternal aunt, with terms of access for the parents.

[9] The father supported the society’s plan to place the children with the maternal aunt. He did not seek placement with him. He sought an order for access with the children.

[10] The mother sought a dismissal of the society’s protection application. She argued that the children were not in need of protection.

[11] Counsel, Denise Badley, previously represented the mother. Three days before trial, the mother decided to represent herself. She agreed to have Ms. Badley attend the trial with her and assist with presenting her evidence, including the cross-examination of witnesses.

[12] The father had legal representation.

[13] At the commencement of the trial, the society brought an oral motion seeking to add the maternal aunt as a witness, given its change in planning for the children. It also sought to file an updated plan of care. The respondent parents consented to the requests, and an order was granted accordingly.

[14] The order of Justice M. Pawagi dated March 19, 2025, provided directions for trial. The society filed five trial affidavits from its social workers for their examination-in-chief. The maternal aunt testified orally. The social workers and the maternal aunt were cross-examined at trial. The father filed a trial affidavit for his examination-in-chief. He was cross-examined at trial. The mother did not file an affidavit for her examination-in-chief as ordered by Justice Pawagi on March 19, 2025. The court allowed her to provide her examination-in-chief orally. The society cross-examined her. Counsel for the father decided not to cross-examine her.

[15] The court had to determine the following issues:
i. Whether G and K were children in need of protection?
ii. If so, was intervention through a court order necessary to protect G in the future?
iii. Was intervention through a court order necessary to protect K in the future?
iv. If so, what dispositional orders were in each child’s best interests?
v. If an order was made to place the children in the mother’s care, what terms of supervision were in the children’s best interests?
vi. If an order was made placing the children in the care of the maternal aunt, what terms of supervision were in the children’s best interests?
vii. What terms of access were in the best interests of the children?

Part Two – Background facts and litigation history

2.1 – General

[16] The parents met around 2017.

[17] It was unclear from the evidence whether the parents were in a relationship as of the trial date. Each parent resides in their separate home.

[18] The mother disclosed at trial that she was pregnant.

2.2 – 2019 to 2023

[19] Both children were previously removed from the mother’s care around the time they were born.

[20] K was born in June 2019. He was placed in the temporary care and custody of the father on June 7, 2019. On August 1, 2019, a temporary order was made placing K in the care of kin caregiver, Ms. M.

[21] G was taken to a place of safety in August 2020 when she was two days old and placed in the care of the maternal aunt. However, the maternal aunt was unable to care for her long-term.

[22] On August 28, 2020, G was placed in the care of kin, Ms. N.

[23] G remained in Ms. N’s care until December 15, 2020, when both children were placed in the mother’s care temporarily, subject to terms of supervision.

[24] In April 2021, both parents and the society executed separate statements of agreed facts regarding each child, agreeing to a 9-month supervision order placing each child in the mother’s care. [3] The parents agreed to findings that G and K were children in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

[25] In the statement of agreed facts regarding K, the parties agreed to the following facts:
a. On March 2, 2019, the mother was hospitalized due to mental health challenges. The attending psychiatrist stated that the mother was experiencing psychosis and would remain in the hospital for several days. The mother’s health nurse reported significant concerns about her mental health.
b. On June 2, 2019, St. Michael’s hospital contacted the society to report concerns about the mother’s mental health while she was in hospital for K’s birth.
c. On June 3, 2019, a hospital nurse reported concerns to the society about the mother’s decision-making regarding medical treatment for herself and K. She reportedly wanted to remove the baby’s feeding tube despite information that K had low birth weight and was not feeding well.
d. On June 3, 2019, K was brought to a place of safety.
e. On June 6, 2019, the mother told the society that she had been hospitalized again due to mental health challenges. She was discharged on July 4, 2019.
f. On October 17, 2019, the mother’s psychiatrist, Dr. S, told the society that the mother was following through with treatment recommendations as she was taking her medication.
g. The mother’s family doctor, Dr. Turner, told the society on August 24, 2020, that the mother had been tapering her medication since June 2020 and stopped taking her medication at the end of June 2020. Dr. S stated he was not aware that the mother was off her medication.

[26] In the statements of agreed facts regarding G (executed in April 2021), the parties agreed to the following additional facts:
a. The society’s concerns related to the mother’s management of her diagnosis of schizophrenia, conflict between the parents, inconsistent caregiving, and a lack of stable housing.
b. Following G’s birth in August 2020, St. Michael’s Hospital staff contacted the society to report concerns about the mother’s presentation and mental health. They reported concerns about the mother’s anxiety, hypervigilance, delusional thinking, and failure to allow medical interventions with the baby.
c. The mother was reported to have been self-tapering her medication against medical advice.
d. The mother confirmed that she had not been taking her medication for her schizophrenia and that her psychiatrist was not aware. She later took responsibility for not taking her medications.
e. The mother’s doctor reported that the mother’s thinking was chaotic.
f. Dr. S, the mother’s psychiatrist, stated he was not aware that the mother was off her medication, and it would take one to two months before the medication would have a therapeutic effect after restarting.
g. On October 20, 2020, Dr. S provided a positive letter about the mother’s progress with her mental health. He reported that she was greatly benefiting from the mental health stabilization effects of her medication since she had restarted taking it. She was meeting with him consistently.

[27] On May 5, 2021, Justice Pawagi made two separate 9-month supervision orders placing each child in the mother’s care pursuant to the statements of agreed facts signed in April 2021.

[28] Around December 2022, the mother and the society signed a statement of agreed facts regarding both children, agreeing to the following facts: [4]
a. The children continued to do well in their mother’s care, attending daycare daily.
b. During monthly home visits by the family service workers, the children consistently appeared to be well, and their needs were being met.
c. There were challenges associated with arranging access for the father, including his housing instability.
d. In January 2022, the parents developed their access plan, which involved the father attending the mother’s home several times a week. The parents discontinued this plan due to differences in their parenting plan.
e. The mother was working with the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). There were no reported concerns about her mental well-being.
f. The maternal aunt had agreed to support the mother as needed.
g. The mother had expressed a longstanding desire to stop taking her schizophrenia medication. A further psychiatric assessment conducted in July 2021 maintained her diagnosis, and she was recommended to remain on medication.
h. On May 27, 2022, the society found out that the mother had decided to discontinue her medication.
i. Dr. S, the mother’s psychiatrist, was aware that the mother had been off her medication since May 2022.
j. On September 20, 2022, Dr. S provided a letter to the society (in response to its questions regarding the mother’s medications), stating that:
i. He disapproved of the mother coming off her medication.
ii. The mother had her own autonomy and agency, and if she was resolute about coming off her medication, there was not much he could do in the absence of a court order, and/or a community treatment order.
k. The mother’s mental health appeared to be stable. There had been no reported concerns noted or reported regarding her care of the children since she discontinued her medication in May 2022.
l. Dr. S would continue to monitor her mental health by way of appointments every six weeks.

[29] On May 31, 2023, a final order was made placing both children in the mother’s care pursuant to section 102 of the Act. The father was granted access with the children at a minimum of once per month, with the level of supervision and location to be determined by the mother.

2.3 – The society’s involvement from September to December 2023

[30] On September 18, 2023, the society received a referral from the Toronto Police Service regarding adult conflict between the parents.

[31] On October 4, 2023, Toronto Police Service contacted the society, reporting that the father had been arrested and charged with assault against the mother. The mother accused the father of choking, strangling, and hitting her with a folding table, and threatening to kill her. The police also raised concerns about the mother’s mental health and well-being.

[32] The mother had sustained injuries to her hand and required medical care.

[33] The father was released on bail, with a condition not to contact the mother.

[34] The society did not commence application following the above allegations.

[35] The father’s criminal charges were subsequently resolved by way of a peace bond. It was not clear from the evidence as to when the peace bond was signed, and its duration. [5]

2.4 – The current involvement and protection application

[36] On March 3, 2024, the society received a referral from the Toronto Police Service after officers attended the mother’s home due to an alleged assault between the mother and a neighbour. No criminal charges were laid.

[37] On April 11, 2024, the society received a referral from the Toronto Police Service after officers attended the father’s home. The mother was at his residence. There was a no-contact order between the parents at the time due to domestic violence charges against the father. The police reported that the mother was unable to manage caring for the two children. She had left G in the father’s care and took K to her home.

[38] On April 15, 2024, Toronto Police Service contacted the society to report that they were at the father’s home and met with the mother. She was exhibiting serious mental health challenges. K was in school, and G was in the father’s care. The society’s family service worker, Geraldine Kulazikulabe, attended the father’s home. Ms. Kulazikulabe observed G wearing socks and pants, with visible scratches all over her body.

[39] Ms. Kulazikulabe removed G to a place of safety. K was also taken to a place of safety from school. The maternal aunt’s home was deemed a place of safety. The society then commenced this protection application.

[40] On April 19, 2024, temporary without prejudice orders were made placing K in the care of the maternal aunt, and G was placed in the care of kin, Ms. N. Subsequently, the society was advised that the caregivers preferred to have both children in the same home, and neither could care for both. Both caregivers also expressed having a challenging relationship with the society at the time. Each caregiver agreed to keep the child in their care until the end of June 2024, to give the society time to find a placement for both. The maternal aunt expressed that she did not want the children to travel a long distance for access, as was the case at the time.

[41] On May 13 and 29, 2024, the mother’s psychiatrist, Dr. S, notified the society that the mother had stopped taking all medications against his advice.

[42] On June 18, 2024, Justice S. Sullivan made a temporary without prejudice order placing the children in the care of the society. The parents were granted supervised access, with location, duration, and frequency of the visits at the society’s discretion. This was the operative temporary order at the time of trial.

Part Three – Parties’ positions and evidence at trial

3.1 – The society

[43] The society’s intake family service worker, Ms. Kulazikulabe, initially worked with the family from September 2023 until December 2023. Recently, she worked with the family from March 4, 2024, until May 23, 2024.

[44] Ms. Kulazikulabe attended the father’s home on April 15, 2024. She saw G in the home wearing socks and pants, without upper body clothing. Ms. Kulazikulabe deposed that she observed scratches all over G’s body, including on her arms, chest and back. Some of the scratches were bleeding.

[45] The father told Ms. Kulazikulabe that the mother had brought G to his home with the scratches. There was no food in the home as the father stated that he had cleared everything and discarded all food. There was a pineapple on the table surrounded by flies. The child disclosed to the worker that she had eaten a pineapple that day.

[46] Ms. Kulazikulabe stated that there was no furniture in the home. She observed a tent, a small mattress, and a comforter in the bedroom. The father told Ms. Kulazikulabe that G slept with him in the tent. The door to the bathroom was broken and leaning against a wall. The bathroom door almost fell on the worker. The father had urine in a bottle that he put by the door “to break the bad energy coming from outside”. During the meeting, G was observed to be playing with buttons on an electrical box. Ms. Kulazikulabe removed G to a place of safety the same day.

[47] Ms. Adamopoulos, the society’s family service worker, worked with the family from May 23, 2024, until October 31, 2024. She met with the father on May 23, 2024. The father disclosed the following:
a. He saw the children regularly, as the mother would bring them to his house.
b. He kept getting charged with assault against the mother, even though she was the aggressor. He reported smelling crystal meth under his door when the mother walked into his home.
c. G came to his home covered in bruises. G did not want to bathe and still needed support with potty training.

[48] On June 24, 2024, the mother showed Ms. Adamopoulos a photograph of her hand, which was swollen, and a picture of her right eye swollen. She reported that this was a result of the conflict between her and the father.

[49] On July 15, 2024, the mother told Ms. Adamopoulos that she:
a. Had dropped off the children at the father’s home many times before without issue. She would leave them at the front door and then go to the hallway’s end.
b. Spoke about the challenging side effects while on medication. She stated she did not need to take medication.
c. Stated that “medication” was becoming a trigger word for her.

[50] Ms. Scott, the society’s family service worker, took over the file from Ms. Adamopoulos on October 31, 2024. She was the family’s family service worker as of the trial date. Ms. Scott deposed that starting in or about January 2025, the mother’s emails to Ms. Scott indicated that the mother did not want Ms. Scott to contact her and threatened not to attend visits if this continued. Ms. Scott provided copies of the emails. In one email, the mother reminded Ms. Scott not to fill her (the mother’s) email with spam. In another email, she wrote, “Any attempted communication beyond the already prearranged scheduled arrangement is the reason I display mental issues.”

[51] The maternal aunt is the mother’s older sister. She testified on behalf of the society. She has known both children since birth. When K was taken to a place of safety following birth, he was placed in her home. When G was taken to a place of safety following birth in August 2020, she was initially placed in the maternal aunt’s home.

[52] The maternal aunt described her communication with the mother as not positive. She stated that she once spent two years without communicating with her. However, the maternal aunt was an emergency contact at the children’s daycare. She testified that she once attended the daycare a few times when the daycare staff could not reach the mother.

[53] The maternal aunt testified that she was disappointed in the mother's failure to follow the society’s recommendations. She described her communication with the father as positive, adding that he was grateful for her presenting a plan for the children. She was also in contact with the father’s parents.

[54] The maternal aunt asserted that her entire family was willing to help with the children. She has three sons aged 6, 15 and 20. The two younger ones reside with her. The 20-year-old son lives independently. She also has two daughters aged 21 and 27 who live with her. She works full-time, and her days and hours of work vary.

[55] The maternal aunt’s plan for the children included the following:
a. She would integrate them into her family.
b. She would register them at the same school as her children. K attended the same school before, and the teachers knew him.
c. A daycare spot was available for both children through the school, provided she obtained their custody before the end of May 2025.
d. She would take them to a pediatrician in Toronto.
e. She has four bedrooms in her home. The children would have their bedroom upstairs.
f. Her children’s father was always visiting her home, providing additional support. He offered to complete a vulnerable sector check.

[56] The maternal aunt expressed frustrations concerning her previous working relationship with the society. She identified the following concerns:
a. Lack of communication by the family service workers. She had not been promptly receiving updates regarding court dates.
b. Society workers did not inform her in advance regarding changes to access arrangements.
c. She did not want the access arrangements to dictate how she ran her household.
d. She did not want the children to drive a long distance for their access, or to be removed from school to attend access.
e. She did not want to be responsible for facilitating access visits.

3.2 – The father

[57] The father described himself as “a broken child” and asserted that he did not want to see that in his children. He supported the society’s plan to place the children in the care of the maternal aunt, subject to terms of supervision.

[58] The father disclosed that he was on a probation order that restricts his contact or communication with the mother. He stated that the probation order expires in September or October 2025. [6]

[59] The father deposed that when the mother was pregnant with their second child, she called the police twice on him. Around that time, he was charged twice with assault against her. Both charges were withdrawn in favour of two separate peace bonds. When G was born, he was unable to attend the hospital with the mother due to a no-contact order. [7]

[60] The father testified that the parents had always maintained separate residences. He stated that a year after the expiration of one of his peace bonds, they started seeing each other again. They would visit each other, and he would spend time with the children.

[61] The father maintained that the mother was not properly caring for the children. When the children visited his home, he noticed their gums bleeding when he brushed their teeth. He accused her of not feeding them properly when they were in her home. He noticed that the children were uncomfortable bathing and wondered whether they were bathing at the mother’s home. He also noticed several bruises on their bodies.

[62] The father testified that he was worried about the mother’s mental health for the following reasons:
a. He stated that she disclosed to him a few times that she had a condition called ‘pica’, which she described to him as an addiction to household products. She would sniff household products like laundry detergent.
b. He became aware that she was taking more than the recommended dosage of pain medication, such as Advil, while in a caregiving role.
c. On several occasions, he witnessed her screaming, swearing, and acting aggressively towards her neighbours in her building. He described her behaviour as extremely aggressive.
d. She told him that if he got angry with her or tried to intervene, she would take it out on the children. He became worried about the children’s safety in her care.
e. He begged her to take her medication for schizophrenia, but she refused.

[63] The father deposed that on April 11, 2024, the mother attended his home with the children and dropped off G. She told him she wanted G to live with him as she could no longer care for her. G remained with him, while she took K back to her home. He testified that he was living in a one-bedroom apartment. He stated that after G was left in his care, he tried his best to make the home proper for the child. There was a cockroach infestation in the building around that time.

[64] The father testified that after the children came into the care of the society, he had been attending most of his visits. He stated that the visits were positive. He had a strong and loving bond with them.

[65] The father told the court that even though he cared deeply about the mother, placing the children in her care would put them at risk of harm. He testified that it was tough for him even to imagine that the children could be placed with her. He believed the maternal aunt was able to meet the children’s needs. He stated that the maternal aunt prioritized the children and had a loving and caring relationship with them. He described his communication with the maternal aunt as positive.

3.3 – The mother

[66] The mother testified about her childhood experience. When she was young, she spent some time in foster care. She spent much time doing music when her parents were alive. She spent a few years with an emotional support dog following the death of her parents. She no longer had the dog.

[67] The mother’s position was that the children were not in need of protection and should be returned to her care. If the court did not place the children with her, she sought an order for her access visits to occur in her home.

[68] The mother described G as the loveliest child who likes to elevate her voice, is outspoken, and is not shy to speak when bothered. She described K as smart.

[69] The mother testified that supervised visits at the access centre were initially difficult for her. She was unhappy about the society’s lack of consistency, as it frequently changed its society workers. However, she was happy with her current worker, Ms. Scott, who shared the same cultural background as her.

[70] The mother described the father as ‘complex’ and ‘intuitive’. She described their relationship as having ups and downs, and “a little difficult.” She stated that her father raised her and would not want to exclude her children’s father from their lives.

[71] The mother testified that she had followed through with the society’s recommendation to connect with Taibu and Tropicana [8] for couples’ counselling. She called the organization and left a message. When Tropicana and Taibu called her back, they told her the service she was seeking was no longer available.

[72] The mother stated that she is fortunate to be connected to her psychiatrist, Dr. S. She saw Dr. S virtually every six weeks. She testified she started her medications on a low dose and was weaned off them. When she was weaned off, she began to look at life positively and was able to learn different communication strategies.

[73] The mother testified that she had been working with a worker from CMHA. There was a recent change in her CMHA workers. She stated that her previous CMHA worker, Ms. Sevilla, had made several recommendations for her, but she refused to follow through as she was prioritizing her children.

[74] The mother provided the following evidence about her medications:
a. She was not taking any medications. She stated that even though she stopped taking her medications about two years ago, she was functioning well, and was able to care for her children.
b. She was allergic to psychotropic medications.
c. If her psychiatrist prescribed medications, she would contest it.
d. She only took medications when she experienced postpartum issues following K’s birth.

[75] The mother stated that she was sacrificing a lot and was willing to cooperate with the society. She told the court that she had struggled with substance misuse in the past but had since recovered.

[76] The mother planned to enrol the children in school once they were placed with her. She planned to take them to church and promised to be patient with them. Her dream was to one day homeschool them.

[77] The mother called her psychiatrist, Dr. S, to testify. He works as a general psychiatrist at Scarborough Health Network in Toronto. He has been a psychiatrist for seven years. The mother has been his patient since 2020. He meets with her virtually (on Zoom) every six weeks. The meetings last about ten to fifteen minutes.

[78] Dr. S stated that the mother joined the meetings on time, but always appeared to be in a hurry. He goes through a list of questions with her to assess her mental health state. Sometimes, the mother’s CMHA worker participates in the sessions.

[79] Dr. S provided the following details about the mother’s diagnosis:
a. On July 4, 2019, she was diagnosed with schizophrenia by Dr. S.
b. On July 18, 2019, she was diagnosed with psychosis in stable remission.
c. In April 2024, she was admitted to Centenary Hospital. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and schizophrenia. He testified that adjustment disorder, in some cases, means a patient experiencing major stressors such as the death of a family member or the ending of a relationship. The patient becomes very anxious and depressed.

[80] Dr. S testified that the CMHA worker’s role was to provide comprehensive assistance to the mother, including assessing her general well-being and the well-being of her children. The CMHA worker had not expressed to him any concerns about the mother’s ability to take care of herself and how she was presenting.

[81] Dr. S told the court that the mother had not been taking her medications for about two years. He testified that he had always encouraged her to take her medications to prevent a relapse and avoid hospitalization. He admitted that he was unaware of any alarming behaviours by the mother. The mother was prescribed risperidone. He provided the following side effects of the medication:
a. Prolactinemia, which includes irregular breast milk production.
b. Extrapyramidal (EPS) symptoms, which he described as symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease.
c. NMS syndrome, which he described as a severe condition that would require hospitalization.

Part Four – Credibility and reliability

[82] The court found the society workers’ evidence to be both credible and reliable.

[83] The society workers provided their evidence in a balanced manner. They set out the parents’ strengths regarding their visits with and their love for the children.

[84] The society workers all provided their evidence in a straightforward manner. They answered questions directly. They kept contemporaneous notes of events.

[85] The father was not credible regarding his domestic violence against the mother. He did not admit it and minimized it. His evidence around family violence was largely unreliable. He acknowledged that he had been charged with assault several times and had been on no-contact conditions several times. When he was questioned about the period and the dates of some of the incidents, he could not remember.

[86] The father was credible about his concerns about the mother’s current inability to care for the children due to her mental health challenges. The society’s evidence supported his concerns. He was also credible about the maternal aunt’s commitment to the children.

[87] The mother was neither credible nor reliable. Her evidence was frequently contradicted by statements of agreed facts that she had previously signed. She denied that Dr. S had ever recommended that she remain on medications. In December 2022, she signed a statement of agreed facts admitting that she had been recommended to stay on medications. At trial, Dr. S testified that he had recommended that she stay on medication.

[88] The evidence established that the parents had frequently lied to the society and the police about their contact during periods when there were existing no-contact orders. The father testified that the mother had been to his home several times. The mother’s evidence was that she would attend the father’s home to drop off the children but would not enter his apartment.

[89] Where the parents’ evidence conflicted with the evidence of the society workers, the court preferred the evidence presented by the society workers.

[90] The maternal aunt was credible. Her evidence was balanced. She expressed her concerns about the parents in a respectful manner. She testified that she was disappointed that the parents were not following through with the society’s recommendations. She was also clear about her challenging relationship with the society when she previously had the children in her care, including poor communication by society workers, and not being kept apprised of any changes to access arrangements.

[91] Dr. S, the mother’s psychiatrist, was credible about his involvement with the mother. He kept records of his interactions with her. He was able to refer to dates of certain events and what was discussed during meetings. He confirmed the mother’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and the dates of diagnosis. The mother did not dispute his evidence about the diagnosis.

[92] Dr. S’s assessment of his concerns about the mother’s ability to parent the children was not entirely consistent. On August 2, 2024, he wrote to the society that he did not have concerns about the children being returned to the mother’s care. He stated that she appeared to be doing well. At trial, he said that he was not aware that the children had not been in the mother’s care for the past year. He also stated that, given the evidence presented at trial, he was concerned about her ability to care for the children independently.

Part Five – Findings of facts

[93] The evidence showed the following strengths about the mother as observed during her access visits.
a. When she was in a good mood, the children enjoyed their visits with her.
b. She arrived on time and looked happy when greeting the children.
c. She called in advance if unable to attend a visit.
d. She loves the children. She was observed to be attentive, engaging the children in appropriate activities such as reading. She once brought their older sibling to a visit. The children were happy to see him.
e. Sometimes she took responsibility for her actions. She apologized when she used inappropriate language towards Ms. Taylor, an access worker.
f. When she had virtual visits, she brought an age-appropriate book and read it to the children.

[94] The evidence showed the following strengths of the father. During visits, the father:
a. Was engaged with the children.
b. Demonstrated affection.
c. Brought food to the visits.

[95] The evidence supported the society’s concerns that sometimes, the father’s communication with the children was not child focused. He sometimes used abrupt and harsh language to redirect them.

[96] The evidence supported the society’s position that the mother has experienced poor mental health and lacks consistent community support that would help her in meeting the day-to-day needs of the children on a consistent basis, for the following reasons:
a. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
b. She appeared to have challenges with self-regulation in some of her interactions with society workers.
c. She had exhibited inconsistent moods during visits, and sometimes responded to the children harshly or ignored their questions.
d. Sometimes, she was visibly upset and resistant to feedback during visits. For example, she once brought a large dog to a visit. When she was told that she could not bring it into the building due to safety concerns, she told Ms. Taylor to “go suck yourself.”
e. She had exhibited concerning behaviours to the society workers. On August 22, 2024, she told Ms. Adamopoulos that she identified as non-verbal, and she was silent as they drove to the society’s office. On September 12, 2024, she said again that she was non-verbal during an access visit.
f. On September 14, 2024, Ms. Adamopoulos sent her a text message asking her to confirm if she was attending her visit that day. She replied, stating that Ms. Adamopoulos was bothering her, and she would block her.
g. On September 24, 2024, she got angry during an access visit and started yelling, “security, give me another worker.” She then threatened to hurt an access worker with a plastic knife.
h. Around October 2024, she refused to leave the society’s access building at the end of her access visit, before the father’s visit. Ms. Adamopoulos deposed that it worried the workers when the mother refused to leave the site, as the society workers would not predict how she would respond if ordered to leave. It was also a concern to the society workers because her presence would affect the children, as they needed to focus on their father.
i. She struggled to adapt to changes in her society workers.
j. The mother’s challenging relationship with the society was impacting her ability to appreciate and address the protection concerns.
k. Her mental health struggles were apparent at this trial. She exhibited disorganized behaviour and disorganized thoughts in her presentation during the trial. Her psychiatrist described some of the behaviours as concerning. Her moods and behaviour quickly shifted at times, without warning or any suspected triggers.
l. She had not followed through with recommendations from her CMHA worker, stating that she wanted to prioritize her children.
m. She did not seek additional counselling services after she was told by Tropicana and Taibu that they did not offer the services she was seeking.
n. Her decision to represent herself on the eve of this trial was concerning.

[97] The mother lacked insight into:
a. How her decision not to follow her psychiatrist’s treatment plan was impacting her ability to function and care for the children.
b. How her emotional dysregulation during her access visits was negatively impacting her children.
c. The protection concerns and the impact of family violence on the children. On October 31, 2025, she told Ms. Scott that the children were removed from her care due to a ‘misunderstanding’. The father was charged with assault in October 2023. The mother minimized this incident of domestic violence by stating that she and the father were just wrestling and playing basketball.

[98] The evidence showed the following challenges about both parents. They:
a. Provided inconsistent and vague information about the status of their relationship and their planning:
i. The father raised several concerns about the mother, stating that he did not think she should be parenting. In his Answer and Plan of Care, he said that he planned to reconcile with her. At trial, he testified that the parents could not get along, which was why they maintained different residences.
ii. In June 2024, the mother identified the father as her boyfriend, stating they were "love birds." She reported spending most of her time with him and referred to him as her "common-law partner."
iii. In October 2024, when the mother was asked if she was residing with the father, she replied that she did not know how to answer the question. On June 24, 2024, she told Ms. Adamopoulos that she wanted to have joint visits with the father because she was “tired of doing the single mom things”.
iv. At trial, the parents’ conflictual relationship was on full display during the father’s cross-examination by the mother. At one point, the father threatened to leave the witness box during his cross-examination. The mother appeared angry and frustrated with him.
b. Breached no-contact court orders. On April 11, 2024, the mother attended the father’s home, despite being aware that he was subject to a no-contact order due to domestic violence charges against her. The father also testified that he had attended her home several times while under a no-contact order. It is trite to say that an order is not a suggestion and that compliance is not optional. Further, non-compliance must have consequences. Protection of the integrity of the administration of justice is at stake if a litigant wilfully disobeys a court order (see Hughes v. Hughes para 19, Dumont v. Lucescu, 2015 ONSC 494, para 43).
c. Lacked insight into how their domestic conflict was impacting their children. They often minimized its effects.
d. Lacked insight into how their presentation during access visits was impacting the children’s emotional health and well-being.
e. Were not clear about the role played by each parent in their parenting relationship.
f. Accused each other of substance misuse (the substance of choice being non-prescribed drugs).
g. Accused each other of family violence.

[99] The court finds that the father perpetrated significant family violence against the mother. He testified that he had been criminally charged several times and had signed two peace bonds.

[100] The evidence supported the society’s position that the father was unable to meet G’s needs in his home when she was taken to a place of safety in April 2024. He did not have proper sleeping arrangements for the child. There was no food in the home, and there were safety concerns around exposed electricals and a door that was off its hinges that almost fell on a society worker.

Part Six – Risk of physical harm

6.1 – General legal considerations

[101] The Society has the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the child is in need of protection. See Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251, para. 19.

[102] If the court finds that the child is not in need of protection, then that is the end of the society’s protection application. See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.N., 2019 ONCJ 8, para 116.

[103] Clause 74(2)(b) of the Act provides as follows:

74(2) A child is in need of protection where,
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;

[104] The risk of harm under paragraph 74(2)(b) of the Act must be real and likely, not speculative. The harm must be demonstrated by a serious form of one of the listed conditions or behaviours. See: Children’s Aid Society of Rainy River v. B. (C.), 2006 ONCJ 458; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carlton v. T. and T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).

[105] Harm caused by neglect or error in judgment comes within the finding. See: Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. T.P., [2003] O.J. No. 412 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).

[106] A child may be at risk even if the conduct is not directed specifically towards that child. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. O. (L.M.); Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251.

[107] Clause 74(2)(b) involves a risk of physical harm to the child. The risk is that the child is likely to suffer physical harm. “Likely” to suffer has the implied connotation of “more probable than not”. There are three separate circumstances which may qualify for a finding on (b) grounds. The risk may be a likelihood that:
i. the physical harm is inflicted by the person having charge of the child; or
ii. the physical harm is as a result of the failure of the person having charge in adequately caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child; or
iii. the physical harm is a result of a pattern of neglect by the person having charge in caring for, providing for, supervising, or protecting the child.

See: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.B., 2019 ONCJ 6, paragraphs 17 and 18.

[108] Subsection 93(1) of the Act provides as follows:

93 (1) Despite anything in the Evidence Act, in any proceeding under this Part,
(a) the court may consider the past conduct of a person toward any child if that person is caring for or has access to or may care for or have access to a child who is the subject of the proceeding; and
(b) any oral or written statement or report that the court considers relevant to the proceeding, including a transcript, exhibit or finding or the reasons for a decision in an earlier civil or criminal proceeding, is admissible into evidence.

6.2 – Mental health (legal considerations)

[109] People with mental illness are entitled to become irritated, upset, impatient and angry without their conduct being pathologized as symptomatic. See: Re: Sim, 2020 ONCA 563.

[110] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866, the court stated as follows:

[113] It does not automatically follow that a child will be in need of protection just because a parent has mental health challenges. Many parents with mental health issues parent their children well – others can’t. There is a wide range of mental illnesses that affect parents differently and, by extension, affect their children differently.
[114] The court needs to assess several factors to determine if a parent’s mental illness places a child at risk of harm and if so, whether a child can still be placed in the parent’s care. These factors include:
a) The type of mental illness the parent has.
b) The severity of the mental illness.
c) The frequency of the parent’s mental illness symptoms – whether they are situational or chronic.
d) The impact of the mental illness on the parent’s functioning.
e) The impact of the mental illness on the parent’s parenting.
f) Other risk factors impacting on the mental illness, including substance abuse, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, domestic violence and other stressors such as unstable housing and financial problems.
g) The impact of the mental illness on the children.
h) The insight of the parent into their mental illness.
i) The ability of the parent to meaningfully engage with supports to address the mental health issues.
j) Whether the parent is compliant with treatment recommendations.
k) The strength of the parent’s support system, the insight of those support persons into the parent’s mental health issues and the ability of those persons to prioritize a child’s needs to those of the parent’s and to protect the child.
l) Whether the children have any needs that make them more vulnerable to compromised parenting.

6.3 – Family violence

[111] A parent’s repeated pattern of partnering with physically abusive partners, which has exposed a child to domestic violence, is a ground for a protection order. See: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.B., 2019 ONCJ 6; Children’s Aid Society of Niagara v. M.B. and D.J., 2023 ONSC 592.

[112] Exposure to a pattern of domestic violence has been accepted as creating a risk of emotional harm. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.C., 2005 ONCJ 274, [2005] O.J. No. 2154 (O.C.J.), aff’d 2005 43289 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 4718 (S.C.), aff’d 2007 ONCA 474, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 462; Jewish Family and Child Service v. K.(R.), 2008 ONCJ 774, affirmed at Jewish Family and Child Service v. R.K., 2009 ONCA 903.

[113] In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. I.B., 2020 ONSC 5498, Justice L. Bale wrote the following about domestic violence:

Domestic Violence
162 The Ontario Legislature has recognized that domestic violence is a significant factor in determining the best interests of children, as reflected in paragraph 24(4) of the Children’s Law Reform Act. While the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, specifically references violence against a child or spouse only in relation to the supervision of access, it is abundantly clear that consideration of whether a person has at any time committed violence or abuse against their spouse is a relevant consideration in child protection proceedings: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. L.J., 2014 ONSC 1675 at para. 17.
163 Children of parents in abusive relationships have been found to be in need of protection by many courts, and the negative impact of children’s exposure to domestic violence is well-documented, including for example: insecure attachments, aggressive and antisocial behavior, poor academic performance, propensity for delinquency, peer violence, conflict and suicidality: Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. C.G. and S.B. 2013 ONSC 4972 at para. 157.
164 Domestic violence is not limited to physical assault: it embraces a range of behavior which includes mental and emotional abuse, with implications that spill-over to children. The environment in such households is frequently chaotic, volatile, escalating, charged and degrading and the exposure of children to such an environment on a pattern basis is devastating to their development: Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin v. T.S., 2009 ONCJ 70 at para. 75.
165 In order to militate against such a finding the court may require evidence demonstrating that the abused parent understands the cycle of abuse and has broken the pattern, for example by seeking counselling, leaving the relationship and moving to a safe location. An abused parent’s continuing failure to leave an abusive relationship may well be a reason for placing the children in extended society care: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.C., 2005 ONCJ 274, [2005] O.J. No. 2154 at para. 100, Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. E.L., 2019 ONSC 3724 at para. 94. The child’s opportunities for a permanent and stable placement should not await the time that might be required to establish that the risk to the child has been satisfactorily addressed: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.C., supra.

[114] The Supreme Court of Canada in Barendregt v. Grebliunis, 2022 SCC 22 made the following comments:

1. The recent amendments to the Divorce Act recognize that findings of family violence are a critical consideration in the best interests analysis (par. 146).
2. The suggestion that domestic abuse or family violence has no impact on the children and has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s parenting ability is untenable. Research indicates that children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives: Department of Justice, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context of Separation and Divorce (February 2014), at p. 12. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflicts, for example, by observing the incident, experiencing its aftermath, or hearing about it: S. Artz et al., “A Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence for Children and Youth” (2014), 5 I.J.C.Y.F.S. 493, at p. 497. (par. 145).
3. Domestic violence allegations are notoriously difficult to prove. Family violence often takes place behind closed doors and may lack corroborating evidence. Thus, proof of even one incident may raise safety concerns for the victim or may overlap with and enhance the significance of other factors, such as the need for limited contact or support (par. 145).

[115] Justice Deborah Chappel wrote about the importance of family violence as a best interests factor in paragraph 86 of McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, as follows:

The broad definition of family violence and the specific inclusion of this factor as a mandatory consideration in determining the best interests of children recognize the profound effects that all forms of family violence can have on children. These consequences can be both direct, if a child is exposed to the family violence, or indirect, if the victimized parent’s physical, emotional and psychological well-being are compromised, since these consequences in turn often negatively impact their ability to meet the child’s physical and emotional needs.

6.4 – Analysis

[116] The society had the onus to prove the risk of harm on a balance of probabilities.

[117] The children, aged five and four, had experienced significant instability since birth.

[118] The court found that the society had, on a balance of probabilities, established the risk of physical harm to the children if they were to be placed in the care and custody of the mother, for the following reasons:
a. She continued to struggle with her mental health challenges.
b. She was not compliant with her treatment plan. She was not taking her medications.
c. She had no insight into how her decision to stop taking her medications was affecting her ability to function and to parent.
d. Her mental health challenges continued to impact her ability to parent her children independently and consistently.
e. Her visits with the children remained fully supervised at the society’s office.
f. She lacked a support system.
g. She exhibited poor judgment when it came to protecting her children. She left G in the father’s care in April 2024. The father did not have food in his home and did not have appropriate sleeping arrangements for the child. His building was infested with cockroaches. The father testified that, at one point, he found a stranger in his bed. The child was not safe in his home.
h. Her message to the society about her plan for the children was confusing. At times, she had expressed frustration towards the father, while at other times, she had expressed a desire to involve him in her planning.

[119] The parents exposed the children to family violence. They minimized it. They had not adequately addressed the incidents of family violence. They continued to place the children at further risk of exposure to adult conflict and emotional harm.

[120] Even though the father had counsel assisting him at trial, he mainly attended half days at trial and was absent from court on the final day of trial. The court was also concerned about his mental health.

[121] The evidence of risk of harm to the children was overwhelming.

[122] The paramount purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children.

[123] The court found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

[124] For the reasons above, the court found that a protection order was necessary to protect the children in the future.

[125] The facts of this case would have also justified a protection finding under clause 74(2)(h) of the Act, that is, risk of emotional harm. However, since the society did not seek that finding, and the society established a risk of physical harm, the court would not make that order.

Part Seven – Disposition

7.1 – Legal considerations

[126] In any analysis, first and foremost, there must be a consideration of the paramount purpose of the Act, as set out in subsection 1(1), which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. As long as it is consistent with the paramount purpose, other purposes of the Act as set out in subsection 1(2) are also designed to support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and to utilize the least disruptive course of action available. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.F., 2020 ONCJ 526, per Justice Roselyn Zisman.

[127] Subsection 101(1) of the Act provides that where a court finds that a child is in need of protection it must first satisfy itself that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future.

[128] Subsection 101(8) of the Act provides that where a court order is not necessary to protect a child in the future, the child shall remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under the Act.

[129] In determining if a court order is necessary to protect a child in the future, the court can consider protection concerns other than those that resulted in the child coming into care. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 3482.

[130] If a court order is determined to be necessary to protect a child in the future, the court shall make one of the orders set out in subsection 101(1) or section 102 of the Act in the child’s best interests. These read as follows:

Order where child in need of protection

101(1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:

Supervision order

1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.

Interim society care
2. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.

Extended society care
3. That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision
4. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.

102(1) Subject to subsection (6), if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 101(1) would be in a child’s best interests, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.

[131] Subsection 101(2) of the Act requires the court to determine what efforts the society or another agency or person made to assist the children before intervention under Part V of the Act.

[132] Subsection 101(3) of the Act requires that the court look at less disruptive alternatives than removing a child from the care of the persons who had charge of the child immediately before intervention unless it determines that these alternatives would be inadequate to protect the child. Paragraph 2 of subsection 1(2) of the Act also requires the court to consider the secondary purpose of recognizing the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, provided that it is consistent with the best interests, protection and well-being of the child.

[133] Subsection 101(4) of the Act requires the court to look at community placements, including family members, before deciding to place a child in care.

[134] In determining the appropriate disposition, the court must decide what is in the children’s best interests. The court considered the criteria set out in subsection 74(3) of the Act in making this determination. This subsection reads as follows:

Best interests of child

74(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.

[135] Consideration should be given as to whether the Society has given the parent an opportunity to parent. Where the Society frustrates contact with the parent and offers no services, this consideration must come into the equation. See: Children and Family Services for York Region v. A.W. and M.M. [2003] O.J. No. 996 (Sup. Ct.); CCAS v. P.A.M., [1998] O.J. No. 3766 (OCJ); CAS of the United Counties of Stormount, Dundas and Glengarry v. C.K. [2001] O.J. No. 128 (Sup. Ct.); CAS v. H.Z., 2023 ONSC 2030.

[136] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.B., 2014 ONCJ 518, Justice S.B. Sherr stated the following:

[112] The major protection issue is the mother’s ability to be able to provide the child with a safe, secure and stable home. This is a critical aspect of being a parent. Children need stable housing. They need their parents to have a stable plan for them. Children need their parents to be consistent and reliable and to exercise good judgment. They need to be protected from conflict and crisis. The mother has just started to take some steps to be able to address these protection concerns, but she is still not close, at this time, to establishing that she can provide these basic needs for the child. The mother has had difficulty looking after herself, let alone the needs of a vulnerable child. Terms of supervision would be inadequate to protect the child.

7.2 – The children

[137] The children came into the care of the society on June 18, 2024. They remained in care as of the date of trial.

[138] Mary Highstead, the society’s services worker, provided the following updates about the children. She testified that the children:
a. Had remained in the same foster home since being brought into care.
b. Attended school regularly and were doing well academically. G was in junior kindergarten, and K was in senior kindergarten.
c. Were accustomed to their routines.
d. Attended church with the foster parents and were involved in a children’s Sunday school program at church.
e. Were engaged in extra-curricular activities, including karate.
f. Did not have significant medical needs. Each had experienced eczema, which was being treated with a topical cream.
g. Had attended eye and dental medical examination.
h. Continued to have regular overnight visits with the maternal aunt every weekend, from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 4:00 p.m.

7.3 – Services provided to the family

[139] The society took the following steps to assist the family:
a. On June 10, 2024, it provided the mother with a letter of expectations. The letter laid out the mother’s strengths and the society’s expectations in terms of addressing her mental health and protection concerns.
b. It provided the parents with information for programs and services that address family violence and relationship issues. The court noted that the society should have taken a step further by connecting the parents with service providers. The parents were only provided with the names and contact information of service providers.
c. The mother identifies as Black and requested a Black family service worker. The society assigned Ms. Scott, a cultural match for the mother.
d. The mother requested a Black access worker. The society responded by having Ms. Scott supervise her visits.
e. Around September 2024, the society tried to work with the mother towards having visits in her home. This plan was suspended on September 24, 2024, after she threatened an access worker with a plastic knife during an access visit.
f. Around July 2024, the society attempted to arrange a family group conference to build the family’s support network and safety planning. The family group conference did not proceed as only the mother and the maternal aunt confirmed. The expectation was for more family members and community supports to attend.
g. The society workers were in contact with the mother’s psychiatrist regarding her treatment plan.
h. Ms. Scott met with the mother’s CMHA worker, Ms. Sevilla.
i. The society workers met with the mother several times and expressed its concerns about her decision to stop taking medications.
j. The society workers explained to the parents on many occasions and explained that the parents had to address its concerns around family violence.
k. On January 20, 2025, Ms. Scott contacted service providers who had been involved with the father regarding domestic violence issues. She contacted the Salvation Army domestic violence program, Partner Assault Response Support (PARS) program. Ms. Scott confirmed that he had attended the Salvation Army's six-week program around September 2024.

[140] The court was satisfied that the society had taken reasonable steps to assist the family.

7.4 – Analysis

[141] Supervision orders should not be made if the parent is ungovernable. [9]

[142] The court considered the society’s updated plan of care for each child pursuant to section 100 of the Act. The society’s plan was consistent with the position it took in this case.

[143] The court considered the mother’s Answer and plan of care dated July 12, 2024. In her Answer and Plan of Care, she presented a joint plan that would involve the father. In the Answer, she stated that she was willing to work with the society pursuant to terms of supervision. She listed her CMHA worker, the maternal aunt and her cousin, Ms. N, as her supports. Her Answer and Plan of Care also stated that she would take the children out for activities during summer months and would involve them in other activities when school was in session. At trial, she sought an order placing both children in her sole care.

[144] In court, the mother appeared as an intelligent and articulate parent who was struggling to manage her mental health.

[145] The court found that the least disruptive alternative, consistent with the best interests of G and K, was to place them with the maternal aunt for the following reasons:
a) The risks of the children suffering physical or emotional harm if placed with the mother remained too high.
b) Previous placements with the mother alone failed.
c) The mother showed a lack of insight into why the society was involved.
d) The mother was not cooperating with her treatment plan, and she remained unreliable in terms of entrusting her with caregiving responsibilities. It has been held that for a supervision order to be a meaningful and effective instrument of risk management, the parent subject to the supervision order must meet a minimum threshold of co-operation and reliability. [10]
e) The mother’s access remained fully supervised. She would need to first show successful unsupervised access before the children can be placed with her.
f) The children had endured considerable disruption in their lives since birth due to the mother’s ongoing mental health challenges and the parents’ domestic conflict.
g) The society’s plan to place the children with the maternal aunt would best meet their physical, mental, and emotional needs. The children would be surrounded by their extended family members.
h) The society’s plan would best meet their physical, mental and emotional level of development.

Part Eight – Access

[146] Section 104 of the Act sets out the court’s powers in relation to access. It reads as follows:

Access order

104 (1) 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.

[147] As of the trial date, each parent’s access occurred once weekly for one hour.

[148] In his trial affidavit, the father sought unsupervised access.

[149] The mother testified that she would want home visits if the children were not placed in her care and custody.

[150] The consistent message from the society workers was that when either parent was in a good mood, their visit went very well. The society workers admitted that there were a lot of positives about each parent’s visit. However, when the children were exposed to parental dysregulation, sometimes G exhibited distress by screaming and crying, and K became quiet and withdrawn. Following such visits, both children were observed to be dysregulated, hyperactive, and inattentive.

[151] Ms. Scott testified that she had discussed her concerns with the mother, but sometimes the mother got upset when given feedback.

[152] It was undisputed that the mother loves the children.

[153] The following were some of the challenges from the mother’s visits:
a. The quality of the visit depended on her mood on the day of access. The children had been observed to experience a wide range of emotions during visits, ranging from sadness and crying to happiness and laughter. Ms. Scott observed the children monitoring their mother’s facial expressions at the beginning of her visit to assess how they should behave during the visit.
b. When the mother was experiencing poor mental health, she responded inappropriately to the children and sometimes lacked affection in her interactions.

[154] Around September 2024, the society suspended its plan to arrange home visits for the mother after she threatened an access worker with a plastic knife during an access visit.

[155] At the conclusion of the trial, the court dismissed the mother’s request for home visits. The risk to the children remained high.

[156] It was also undisputed that the father loves the children. However, his harsh tone towards them during visits was a concern.

[157] The court dismissed the father’s request for unsupervised visits. The risk to the children also remained high concerning him.

[158] The court ordered that each parent have a minimum of one visit per week, with the society having discretion with respect to duration, location, and supervision of the visits. This will allow flexibility such that if the parents work on their challenges, the society will adjust the visits if risk is mitigated.

Part Nine – Next steps

[159] One major issue that arose at trial was that there were notable deficiencies in the mother’s treatment plan. For example, Dr. S, her psychiatrist, was unaware of a lot of information regarding her. Dr. S:
a. Did not know she was pregnant. This information was critical because he (Dr. S) testified that some of the medications prescribed for mental health issues have teratogenic side effects, that is, they interfere with fetal development. However, he stated that the mother’s current medication, risperidone, is considered safe.
b. Did not know the mother’s children had been in the care of the society for the past year. He testified that he would expect a patient to disclose. He stated that the removal of children from a patient’s care could be very distressing to a patient. He stated that in other cases, he would have to consider whether to prescribe additional medications to address anxiety issues associated with the removal of children from a patient’s care.
c. Was unaware of the children’s father or the father’s involvement in the children’s lives.
d. Was unaware of the domestic violence charges against the father from October 2023, or any other charges. The father was arrested and charged with assault against the mother in October 2023. The father also testified that he had been arrested and charged several times against the mother and had signed two peace bonds. Dr. S described an incident of family violence as a significant event that he had to know about, as he would have to provide advice on safety planning and how to report.
e. Was unaware of some of the behaviours exhibited by the mother in the courtroom at trial. He found some of the behaviours to be very concerning regarding the status of her mental health.

[160] It is essential that Dr. S, or any psychiatrist treating the mother, considers the following:
a. Having some in-person meetings with the mother. The current sessions are held virtually through video. The mother was not aware that she had the option to attend in person.
b. Increasing the duration of the current meetings. The meetings are currently for ten to fifteen minutes. Dr. S testified that the mother was booked for an hour. The mother’s position was that she did not know Dr. S was booking her for one-hour sessions. During cross-examination by Mr. Berns, Dr. S acknowledged that it was challenging to diagnose a patient in ten to fifteen minutes.
c. Ensuring that the mother has sufficient advance notice about the meetings, including the meeting duration, topics to be discussed, and who can attend.
d. Connecting with her collaterals to obtain updated information about her well-being. Dr. S admitted that his meetings with the mother involved self-reporting. If she did not disclose any concerning behaviours, there is no way he would know. It was shocking that he did not know that the mother’s children had not been in her care since April 2024, yet he had had several email exchanges with society workers for several months.
e. Ensure that the mother’s records are up to date. When Dr. S was asked if the mother has a family doctor, his response was that “the one listed on our file is Dr. Cox, but I don’t know how recent this is”.
f. Ensuring that the mother is aware that non-disclosure of important information about her life may significantly impact her treatment plan.
g. Encouraging the mother to bring her CMHA worker to the meetings. Alternatively, encouraging the mother’s CMHA worker to attend the meetings. Dr. S testified that the CMHA worker used to attend his meetings with the mother, providing important updates about her physical and mental condition. However, lately, the CMHA worker has not been attending the virtual meetings.
h. Obtaining updated information from the mother’s family doctor. Dr. S stated that his office faxed his notes from the sessions with the mother to the family doctor, but Dr. S himself had not had any direct conversation with the family doctor. Dr. Turner, the mother’s previous family doctor, informed the society on August 24, 2020, that the mother had been tapering her medication since June 2020 and stopped taking it at the end of June 2020. Dr. S acknowledged at the time that he was not aware that she had stopped taking her medication.
i. Ensuring that the mother is fully informed about other treatment options. Dr. S testified that for patients who are unwilling to take their medications, he would consider monthly injections. He stated that in the absence of a patient’s consent, that would require a court order or a community treatment order.
j. Prompt and effective information sharing amongst all psychiatrists and mental health professionals working with the mother. Dr. S stated that he was aware the mother had received mental health treatment at a different hospital in January 2025. When he was asked whether he would be notified if she got admitted to a different hospital, his response was, “Not necessarily”.

[161] The court understands that the mother wants the children back in her care. The court must provide clear expectations to the mother of what needs to be done to have her children returned to her care. It is also essential for the mother to understand the long-term consequences if she does not address the protection concerns.

[162] The court will follow the approach in Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto v. Z.Y., 2023 ONCJ 13 (paragraphs 64 to 71 of the decision) and Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.M., 2024 ONCJ 235 (para 97 to 102) when the court provided a roadmap to a parent regarding steps to be taken to have their child returned to their care.

[163] There are several steps that the mother will have to take to have her children returned to her care. She will need to do the following:
i. Meet with her psychiatrist and discuss her treatment regimen and treatment options.
ii. Discuss the issues and concerns raised in this decision with her psychiatrist.
iii. Follow through with the treatment recommendations of her psychiatrist, including taking medications as prescribed.
iv. Discuss with her psychiatrist any side effects of her current medications.
v. Demonstrate sustained improvement in her mental health.
vi. Demonstrate an ability to maintain and manage her mental health in a manner that is safe for the children.
vii. Seek professional help regarding any trauma associated with past experiences.
viii. Demonstrate insight into the potential risks to herself and the children due to exposure to family violence and/or adult conflict and demonstrate an ability to safety plan around adult conflict.
ix. Follow through with reasonable recommendations made by her CMHA worker regarding her mental health and well-being.
x. Follow through with reasonable recommendations made by the society to address the protection concerns.
xi. Develop a reliable and consistent safety support network that includes childcare support, mental health intervention and access to community resources.

[164] The mother is also being encouraged to engage in prenatal services as she is currently pregnant. In a statement of agreed facts signed in April 2021, she admitted that she had not been receiving consistent prenatal care before K’s birth. At trial, she testified that she previously experienced postpartum issues following K’s birth.

[165] The following are steps that the father will need to take to improve his relationship with the mother and the children:
a. Attend couples counselling to address his relationship with the mother.
b. The father previously attended the PARS program when he had a criminal matter in court. It appears that he has not implemented the lessons learned from the program. He should consider attending a different program that addresses family violence and its impact on children.
c. Implement the lessons learned from the programs he attends.
d. Demonstrate insight into the impact of family violence on parents and children.
e. Demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively with children during interactions with them. He should learn to interact with children in a way that promotes a positive relationship with them.
f. Address his mental health and any past trauma.

[166] The society needs to try to be consistent in the workers serving the mother. It appears that the mother struggles with changes to her workers.

[167] The society should also maintain its policy of having culturally matched workers assist the mother. The approach has been working for her.

[168] It is hoped that the mother will consider taking the above steps, even if she does not believe they are necessary. It is also hoped that other service providers will consider the above comments in their work with the mother.

Part Ten – Orders

[169] For the reasons above, the court made a final order as follows:

1. Pursuant to subsection 90(2) of the Act, statutory findings are made as set out at the top of page 3 of the society’s amended protection application issued on February 18, 2025 (located at Tab 1 of the trial record).
2. G and K are found to be children in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017.
3. G and K are placed in the care and custody of the maternal aunt subject to the supervision of the society for a period of six months with the following terms and conditions:
   a. The maternal aunt shall:
   i. Allow for the Society worker to make announced or unannounced home visits and to meet privately with one or both children.
   ii. Ensure that the children attend school as required and inform the school of the reasons for any absences including illness or appointments.
   iii. Ensure the children’s medical needs are met, and she shall follow through with any referrals or recommendations made by their physician.
   iv. Sign consents for information with collaterals involved with the children at school or in the community, as requested by the society (after having obtained an opportunity to consult with a lawyer, if requested).
   v. Work cooperatively with the society and update the society worker about any concerns or issues with the children as soon as she is able to.
   vi. Notify the society in advance before allowing any other additional adult to reside in her home.
   vii. Advise the society worker of any changes to her home address, personal email, or phone number within 24 hours.
   viii. Not allow the parents any access with the children in her home, at any time.
   b. The society shall promptly:
   i. Respond to any inquiries by the maternal aunt.
   ii. Notify the maternal aunt of any changes to access arrangements.
4. The parents shall have access with the children at a minimum of once per week. The society shall have discretion with respect to location, duration, frequency, and supervision of the access visits.

[170] The court thanks counsel for their professional presentation of this trial.

Released: May 23, 2025
Signed: Justice Wiri Kapurura

Footnotes

[1] Referred to as “the children” in this decision.
[2] C.P. will be referred to as the ‘maternal aunt’ throughout this decision.
[3] Each child had a separate protection application before the court.
[4] The family service worker signed on November 24, 2022. The mother signed on December 1, 2022. The father did not sign.
[5] The father testified that he signed ‘many’ peace bonds involving the mother as the complainant and had been criminally charged ‘so many times’ that he could not remember. The society did not provide copies of the peace bonds or materials from his related criminal cases. No specific details regarding his criminal charges, bail and peace bond terms were provided at trial. It would have been helpful to the court if these materials had been provided.
[6] The father provided no exact date. It was also not clear whether he was on probation or a peace bond, as he testified that he had never been convicted of a crime.
[7] The father did not provide dates and timelines, stating that he had been charged several times and had signed many peace bonds.
[8] The mother stated that Taibu and Tropicana were the same organization.
[9] See Jewish Family and Child Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227 (Justice S.B. Sherr) – para 59
[10] See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. P.N.S., 2016 ONCJ 164 (Justice C.Curtis) – para 122