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: June 24, 2025
Toronto Court File No.: FO-24-00000193-00001
BETWEEN:
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant
-and-
C.A.L. and P-G D.
Respondents
Heard on: June 4, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on: June 24, 2025
Counsel:
- Ksienski, K. – Counsel for the Applicant
- Cooper, P. – Counsel for the Respondent Father
- Kasper, I. – Counsel for the child, Office of the Children’s Lawyer
MEYRICK, J.:
Part I – Position of Parties
[1] This is a focused hearing arising from a Protection Application dated May 21, 2024, and Amended Protection Application dated February 24, 2025 concerning the 15-year-old, male, NRL.
[2] CCAST seeks two Orders. The first order, which is on consent, concerns the statutory findings, found at paragraph 1, Statement of Agreed Facts[^1] dated May 12, 2025.
[3] CCAST also seeks a protection finding. The protection finding is disputed and is in fact, the issue before the Court today.
[4] The Respondent Mother is not involved in this proceeding and has no contact with the youth.
[5] CCAST seeks an order that the youth be found in need of protection pursuant to sections 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii), the risk of physical harm and, 74(2)(f), where the youth has suffered serious emotional harm.
[6] CCAST asserts that the Respondent Father, as the pre-intervention caregiver, placed the youth at risk in that the Respondent Father was/is unable to care for the youth.
[7] The youth has very high and complex needs and as a result, the youth’s behaviour is very challenging to manage. The youth has been diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, a severe learning disability (primarily due to lack of school attendance), ADHD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and autism spectrum disorder.
[8] The Respondent Father and the OCL take the position that a protection finding has not been made out by the evidence.
[9] The Respondent Father and the OCL argue that the Respondent Father has at all times taken all necessary steps, in the youth’s best interests, to support and manage the youth.
[10] The Respondent Father and the OCL take the position that the youth has such high needs that there is no parent who could manage his behaviour. Further, the Respondent Father and the OCL argue that the child is not in a better situation while in Society care and in fact has exhibited similar behaviours while in care. In other words, the Respondent Father and the OCL argue that there is no causal connection between the Respondent Father’s parenting and the risk of harm to the youth.
[11] The child wishes to reside in the care and home of the Respondent Father. The Respondent Father wishes the child to be returned to his care and home.
Part II: Background
[12] The chronology of CCAST involvement with this family is thoroughly set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts, repeated in the affidavit of Stella Grange,[^2] and will not be recited here. CCAST has been involved with this family on and off since 2008. The current involvement of CCAST began in October 2021 and concerned the older daughter of the Respondent Father, VCL, born 2008. In April 2023, CCAST was alerted to concerns around the subject youth from the principal of the youth’s school. The concerns largely centred around the youth’s weight loss and possible anorexia.
[13] The youth was hospitalized on May 16, 2023, due to a low heart rate. On May 25, 2023, the youth was diagnosed with Anorexia Nervosa, weighing 93 lbs.[^3]
[14] The youth has had no fewer than 8 hospitalizations since April 2023. Many of the hospitalizations are a consequence of an eating disorder, which at the time of the focused hearing, has stabilized. However, the youth has, as previously mentioned, numerous concerning diagnoses which manifest in extremely aggressive and defiant, including sexualized, behaviour.
[15] By Order of Justice Pawagi, dated May 21, 2024, the youth has been placed in the temporary care and custody of CCAST. This hearing arises from that Order.
[16] Several hospitalizations occurred since May 21, 2024, while the youth was in the care of CCAST. The youth was in hospital on the date of the focused hearing.
Part III: Evidence
CCAST
[17] CCAST relies on the affidavit of Stella Grange, in support of their position. Ms. Grange has been a Family Services Worker with CCAST since 2006. Ms. Grange has been working with the youth since April 3, 2023.
[18] Ms. Grange testified that the Respondent Father has been unwilling or unable to manage the youth, in part, because of his cognitive capacity.[^4] She testified to her concerns that the Respondent Father does not fully understand the complexity of the youth’s needs. CCAST has asked for a cognitive assessment of the Respondent Father, and the Respondent Father has agreed. The assessment has not been done yet.
[19] Ms. Grange testified that the Respondent Father lives in the past thinking of them as young children. He is unwilling or unable to address his children’s aging needs, more particularly their very complex diagnoses.
[20] Ms. Grange stated that the Respondent Father is in denial of the situation. The Respondent Father feels sorry for himself having done everything in his power for his children and he is being made to look like a failure.
[21] Ms. Grange testified that at various times the Respondent Father has been overwhelmed sufficiently to request that CCAST remove the youth from the home and place him in care.
[22] Ms. Grange recounts numerous situations where the Respondent Father has blamed others for the youth’s behaviour and shows little insight into the youth’s mental health challenges. Ms. Grange reports that the Respondent Father has consistently blamed his daughter VCL for the youth’s challenges and has asked CCAST to take VCL into care rather than the youth. The Respondent Father has blamed changes to the children since moving to their current home. He has blamed the school for the youth’s outburst. He has blamed CCAST and the involvement of the child and youth workers (“CYC’s”) for the trouble that the youth has caused. He has blamed hospital staff for the youth’s aggression, as well the medication that the child is taking, including Concerta for ADHD.
[23] The Respondent Father also believes at times that the challenges his children, VCL and NRL face, are the result of his failure to spend adequate time with them.
[24] Ms. Grange testified that the Respondent Father requires considerable direction and support in parenting the youth. Ms. Grange reports that the Respondent Father has only started setting boundaries for the youth since CCAST involvement and even then, only with considerable guidance and support from CCAST. Ms. Grange states that the Respondent Father can follow direction and will often, not always, take the necessary steps recommended by CCAST once told by CCAST to take such measures.
[25] Ms. Grange reports that the Respondent Father has been inconsistent with his consent for treatment and for medication for the youth. The Respondent Father has generally consented to medication after some support from CCAST and the medical profession.
[26] Ms. Grange testified that hospital staff from the Hospital for Sick Children have raised concerns about the Respondent Father’s ability to care for the VCL and NRL.
[27] Ultimately the Respondent Father has not wanted to lose “custody” of the youth and therefore has been unwilling to consider residential treatment.
[28] The Court has found the testimony of Ms. Grange to be balanced and straightforward. Ms. Grange clearly likes the Respondent Father and can appreciate the positives of the Respondent Father’s parenting. She acknowledged that the Respondent Father loves his children very much. Ms. Grange also commended the Respondent Father on his parenting efforts, stating that the Respondent Father is frustrated with the youth’s behaviour and tries to encourage the youth to follow the rules and take care of himself.
[29] The Court finds that CCAST has been very involved with this family since 2023 and has made numerous efforts to connect the Respondent Father and youth with services.
[30] At the urging of both the youth and the Respondent Father, CCAST placed the youth in the Respondent’s home on an extended visit for 30 days. The extended visit commenced on January 31, 2025, and ended on February 27, 2025. The extended visit was intended as a trial, to observe whether the youth could return to the Respondent Father’s home. The extended visit was exhausting for the Respondent Father who told Ms. Grange that the visit pushed him to his limit.
[31] The youth returned to the care of CCAST after the visit ended.
The Respondent Father and OCL
[32] Counsel for the OCL spoke for both the Respondent Father and the child.
[33] Mr. Kasper asks the Court to make two findings:
i. NRL’s behaviour is a challenge for anyone. It is a product of his mental health challenges and not the Respondent Father’s parenting.
ii. The Respondent Father is acting reasonably to obtain treatment for NRL. The Respondent Father has not done or neglected to do anything that has caused or contributed to any risk of harm.
[34] Mr. Kasper has alerted the Court to several log entries where Ms. Grange reports very positive parenting by the Respondent Father:
i. January 29, 2024:
“It was agreed that he [NRL] has a mental health disorder and father is being appropriate in his response. And so bringing him into care may not be necessary given that staff or foster parents will face the same challenge and NRL [sic] may experience multiple restraints, and this would not be ideal”
j. February 7, 2024:
“I told him his parenting is not in question”
[35] Mr. Kasper has raised the contents of correspondence between CCAST and Sick Kids Hospital:
May 6, 2024, Letter from CCAST to Sick Kids[^5]:
Dear Marian Coret and Service Team at Sick Kids:
Thank you for your letter. We understand your worries about NRL [sic]. We agree with many of your worries regarding NRL’s [sic] physical and mental health struggles and have been working with the Respondent Father [sic] in doing his best to meet those needs.
We heard your worries about your thoughts regarding the Respondent Father’s [sic] ability to meet NRL’s [sic] needs. As we have explained, we look at what is reasonable for any parent to manage when assessing protection concerns. As such, we have been paying for 2 to 1 staffing to support the Respondent Father [sic]. Even with this high level of intervention, NRL [sic] lost weight while being in the community. As such, it is our assessment that NRL’s [sic] needs surpass what can be reasonably expected by any caregiver and that this isn’t due to the Respondent Father’s [sic] inability to meet his needs due to any possible limitations he may have himself….
I hear your request for CCAS to admit NRL [sic] into the Society’s care and that you recommend a structed [sic] and high-level treatment facility for him….
I will assure you that should a bed be secured, and the Respondent Father [sic] is unwilling or unable to consent to accessing the bed, we will consider a court application to assist with accessing that support, however, a decision to do so will have to be assessed at the time.
I understand that you feel that the Respondent Father [sic] may be an obstacle to NRL’s treatment and believe that he does not see the risks to NRL. We have a different view of the Respondent Father [sic]. We find that the Respondent Father is worried about his son’s health, although it’s uncomfortable has been willing to have 2 to 1 staff in his home on a daily basis and understands that his son’s needs are complex. Again, should father disagree with a placement in a treatment facility when a bed becomes available, we will most likely proceed to court on an urgent basis,
[36] Ms. Grange has testified that her log entries refer to her efforts to encourage the Respondent Father and to support his parenting. She credits the Respondent Father for his efforts. She agrees that the youth will be a challenge for anyone attempting to parent him.
[37] CCAST reports that the letter, in part set out above, was in relation to a secure treatment application that CCAST was urging Sick Kids to bring and not in the context of a protection application. CCAST asserts that this letter was drafted as a response to a request by Sick Kids to bring the youth into care. CCAST emphasizes that in this context a distinction must be drawn between the Society’s efforts to maintain the child in the home (disposition) and a finding that the youth is in need of protection.
[38] The OCL asserts that, given the diagnoses and consequent behaviour of the youth, he is at risk of harm and he will be a challenge to anyone who attempts to parent him including CCAST.
[39] The OCL asserts that the Respondent Father has done everything expected of him and more to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the youth.
The Law
[40] A finding that a child is in need of protection is significant and generally implies that there is a causal connection between the action/or lack of action of a pre-intervention caregiver and the risk/harm.[^6] Such a finding justifies an intrusion by the State into the lives of a family.
[41] CCAST must prove causation by act, omission or pattern. Physical harm may be caused by neglect or error in judgment.[^7]
[42] Limited capacity of a parent may lead to harm or risk of harm if there is an inability to sufficiently acquire or improve parenting skills.[^8]
[43] Section 74(2)(b) of the CYFSA[^9] reads:
74(2)(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
[44] Section 74(2)(b)(f) provides that a child is in need of protection if they have suffered emotional harm that results from a parent’s action or inaction.
Section 74(2)(b)(f) reads:
(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious
(i) anxiety,
(ii) depression,
(iii) withdrawal
(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
(v) delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child;
[45] The circumstances upon which a finding may be made are fluid. The youth may be found in need of protection at the time of the apprehension, at the hearing date or at any other date.[^10]
[46] At the end of the day the primary purpose of the legislation still remains the best interests of the youth.
[47] The parties agree that the youth is at risk of physical harm. Where the parties diverge is the causal connection between this risk and the Respondent Father as the pre-intervention caregiver.
Analysis and Decision
[48] The Statutory findings in this matter are not in dispute:
[49] On the consent of the parties and based on the evidence at the focused hearing, the Order below contains the following statutory findings:
a. The children’s names are:
i. V.C.L, born 2008
ii. NRL, born 2010
b. The Respondent Parents are:
i. P-G D.
ii. CAL
[50] The Court finds that the youth is in need of protection pursuant to section 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CYFSA, 2017.
[51] The Court finds that NRL’s behaviour is a challenge for anyone. It is a product of his mental health challenges.
[52] Contrary however to the argument of the Respondent Father and the OCL, the Court finds that there is a causal connection between the risk that NRL has or may suffer physical harm and the inability of the Respondent Father to fully understand and manage those risks.
[53] The fact that the youth is a challenge for anyone responsible for his care is not the test before the Court. The youth may, in fact, be at risk of physical harm in the care of someone other than the Respondent Father. The legislation requires that the Court find that there is a causal connection between the pre-intervention caregiver and the risk posed to the youth.
[54] NRL has significant special behavioural needs. He requires a caregiver who has insight into his needs, does not minimize them and is proactive in taking the steps necessary to address them. The evidence informs the Court that the Respondent Father does not have these parenting qualities.
[55] The Court is unequivocal in its finding that such a connection exists. Despite the Respondent Father’s loving and good intentions, he is simply unable to manage the risks that this youth poses to himself. CCAST asserts that this difficulty arises because of the Respondent Father’s lack of understanding or cognitive ability. This concern has been raised by doctors and other professionals caring for the youth. The Respondent Father himself, after spending time with the youth, recognizes that he is not able to manage the risks that the youth poses for himself.
[56] The Society has injected significant supports into this family structure to assist the Respondent Father with NRL, including NRL’s food and water intake, getting NRL to school, ensuring NRL’s hygiene and providing supervision for NRL.
[57] The Respondent Father’s inability to fully understand and acknowledge his son’s challenges has led to serious safety concerns. The following are examples of such concerns:
i. The Respondent Father did not reach out for help for NRL initially, rather the principal of NRL’s school contacted the Society about NRL’s very low weight and lethargy;[^11]
ii. On May 15, 2023, Ms. Grange and Ms. Ferri attended at the home of NRL to find him quite ill, yellow in colour, slowed speech, tired and lethargic – Ms. Grange and Ms. Ferri advised the Respondent Father to take NRL to the hospital. The Respondent Father was unable to identify such significant concern himself. NRL was admitted to hospital the next day. His hospital stay exceeded 2 months;[^12]
iii. NRL was discharged from hospital on July 26, 2023, with a detailed discharge plan, including a meal and snack plan. NRL repeatedly failed to follow that plan and the Respondent Father was unable to take measures to ensure that NRL did so;
iv. On May 6, 2024, the Respondent Father advised Ms. Grange that NRL was not looking well. Ms. Grange advised the Respondent Father to take NRL to the hospital. The Respondent Father did not do so. Rather, on May 12, 2025, NRL was seen on hospital property twice, found with a needle, likely picked up on hospital grounds. The Respondent Father insisted that he could not supervise NRL adequately. NRL was admitted to hospital on May 14, 2024, and brought to a place of safety from hospital thereafter.
[58] The Respondent Father is reactionary rather than pro-active. He requires considerable support and direction to take necessary steps, including direction to take the youth to his doctor when the youth is obviously unwell. The Respondent Father omits to take necessary steps without instruction or support from the Society.
[59] The Court finds that the Respondent Father is heavily persuaded and influenced by the youth. The Respondent Father is not able to set boundaries for the youth and then adhere to his boundaries.
[60] The Court commends Mr. Kasper on his very able and interesting submissions. The Court however finds that this youth is in need of protection pursuant to subclauses 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
Madam Justice Sandra J. Meyrick
[^1]: Statement of Agreed Facts, executed marked as Exhibit 1 to these proceedings
[^2]: Affidavit of Stella Grange, affirmed on May 13, 2025
[^3]: The ideal developmental weight for the youth’s height and age is 167 lbs. Statement of Agreed Facts, par 3 d. and e
[^4]: The Respondent Father’s self-reported undiagnosed developmental delay is described briefly in the Affidavit of Stella Grange, par. 67.
[^5]: Letter from Jennifer Maryk, Child Protection supervisor, to Marian Coret, Hospital for Sick Children, dated May 6, 2024, Exhibit 3 Hearing Record
[^6]: Children’s Aid Society of Sudbury and Manitoulin v. C.G., 2015 ONCJ 747 (OCJ) at para. 35
[^7]: Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.), 2008 ONCJ 774 (OCJ) at para. 28, affirmed at Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.), 2009 ONCA 903 (OCA); Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. P. (T.), 2003 ONSC 2397
[^8]: Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. O.(E), 2009 ONSC 72087
[^9]: Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c. 14 Sched 1, s. 74(2)(b)
[^10]: Algonquins of Pikwakanagan v. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Renfrew, 2014 ONCA 646; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.(J.), [2001] O.J. No. 3295; N.V.C. v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
[^11]: Affidavit of Stella Grange, at par. 11
[^12]: Ibid, par. 16
Incisive Summary
This decision addresses a protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, involving a 15-year-old youth with complex medical and behavioural needs. The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CCAST) sought a finding that the youth was in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm linked to the Respondent Father’s inability to adequately care for him. The Court found a causal connection between the Respondent Father’s cognitive limitations and his inability to manage the youth’s risks, despite the Respondent Father’s good intentions and efforts. The Court emphasized the necessity of a caregiver with insight and proactive management skills for the youth’s complex needs and concluded that the youth is in need of protection pursuant to sections 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CYFSA.
Interesting Citations Summary
This case is notable for its detailed analysis of the causal connection required between a pre-intervention caregiver’s actions or omissions and the risk of harm to a child under the CYFSA. It highlights the Court’s approach to complex cases involving children with significant behavioural and medical challenges, and the role of cognitive capacity in parenting assessments. The decision also clarifies the distinction between efforts to maintain a child in the home and findings of protection need, referencing key Ontario case law on causation and parental capacity.
Keywords
- Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
- C.A.L.
- P-G D.
- Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017
- Protection Application
- Anorexia Nervosa
- Cognitive capacity
- Risk of physical harm
- Emotional harm
- Parenting capacity
- Office of the Children’s Lawyer
- Hospital for Sick Children
- Section 74(2)(b) CYFSA
- Section 74(2)(f) CYFSA
- Ontario Court of Justice
Areas of Law
- Child Protection Law