Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.M., 2025 ONCJ 364

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 3, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto FO-23-44053

BETWEEN:

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Applicant,

— AND —

J.M. and MH
Respondents

Before Justice Debra Paulseth
Heard on May 5, 6, 7, and 8, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released June 3, 2025

Marshall Matias — counsel for the applicant society
David P. Miller — counsel for the respondents

Paulseth, J.:

A.1 Overview:

[1] The respondents are the parents of the three children who are before the court in this proceeding: B, born April [xx], 2021; C, born August [xx], 2022; and D, born December [xx], 2023.[1]

[2] JM is the mother. She was born May [xx], 2000 and has just turned 25 years old. MH is the father, born August [xx], 1973. He is 51 years old. Father has 5 older children who are not part of this proceeding.

[3] The original protection application was issued June 20, 2023 and amended in December 2023 to add D.

[4] A fourth child, A, born July [xx], 2015 was part of these proceedings. He shares the same biological father as the other three children. He was removed from the care of father and JM and placed with his biological mother, KB, pursuant to a supervision order on August 15, 2023. This order was later terminated.

[5] On June 28, 2023, the court made a temporary order placing B and C in the parents’ care and custody under supervision by the applicant society (society or CCAS) with a number of conditions attached.

[6] On November 16, 2023, the court varied the temporary order and placed B and C in the care and custody of the CCAS. On December 12, 2023, D was also placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

[7] On April 10, 2024, based on a Statement of Agreed Facts (SAF), B and C were found to be in need of protection, pursuant to subsections 74(2)(a) (physical harm) and (b) (risk of physical harm) of the Child Youth and Family Service Act (CYFSA or Act).

[8] Also on April 10, 2024, based on a separate Statement of Agreed Facts, D was found to be in need of protection pursuant to subsection 74(2)(b) of the Act.

[9] On April 10, 2024, the court made a disposition order of interim society care for 6 months for all three children.

[10] A new child, E, was born to these parents on February [xx], 2025. He is the subject of a separate Protection Application and is not part of this proceeding.

[11] The society filed a Status Review Application on September 23, 2024, seeking an order of extended society care for all three children with no access to the parents. The parents are opposed and have each filed an Answer/Plan of Care seeking a return of the children with no protection order or, in the alternative a custody order or a supervision order. At trial, their position was a supervision order with specific conditions dealing with cooperation, resources, and treatment.

A.2 Possible Court orders:

[12] B and C have been in the care of the society since November 16, 2023 and D since December 12, 2023.

[13] The CYFSA provides that children under the age of 6 cannot be in the interim or temporary care of the society for more than one year. A final order of extended society care or a return to the parents with or without supervision are the only possible orders.[2]

[14] If an extended society care order is made, then the court must determine what, if any, access is in the children’s best interests.

B. Legal Framework:

B.1 Disposition – continuing need for protection:

[15] The case of Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 3482 confirmed that the court, when determining disposition, must first determine if a protection order is necessary to protect the child in the future (subsection 101 (1) of the Act). The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order for protection or from circumstances which have arisen since that time.

[16] Determining that a protection order is necessary to protect a child in the future is not the same thing as finding the child in need of protection under clause 74 (2) of the Act.

[17] In this case, the parties agree that the children continue to be in need of a protection order.

[18] It is very clear that there is a continuing need for a protection order because:

1. The parents have only recently obtained housing in a one bedroom apartment.
2. Only in the past two months have the parents been able to attend visits on time.

B.2 The Paramount Objective:

[19] The CYFSA requires a careful balancing of the paramount objective to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children, with the value of maintaining the family unit. The legislation does not emphasize parental rights but rather recognizes the importance of maintaining the family unit as a means of fostering the best interests of children. The values and purposes outlined under section 1(2) must always be evaluated in contemplation of what is best for the child. A child-centred focus must not be lost at any stage of a protection hearing, see Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 SCC 83, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165.

[20] There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that the parents are able to parent the child without endangering his or her safety. Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., 2001 CarswellOnt 1504.

[21] An order for extended society care is probably the most profound order that a court can make. The judge must exercise this option only with the highest degree of caution, based on compelling evidence and after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies. CAS Hamilton v. M., 2003 O.J. No. 1274 (UFC).

B.3 Best Interests

[22] Once it has been determined that the children are in continuing need of a protection order, the court must make an order that is in their best interests. Best interests is defined in the Act in subsection 74(3) with a non-exhaustive list of considerations.

[23] The court must consider the least restrictive alternative consistent with the child’s best interests. CAS Peel v. W., 1995 ONCA 593.

[24] In determining what order is required to meet the child’s best interests, the court must consider the degree to which the risk concerns that prompted the original order still exist. This must be examined from the child's perspective. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 SCC 83, 2 S.C.R. 165.

[25] Subsection 122(1) of the Act sets out certain time limitations for children in the care of the society. Children under the age of 6 cannot be in the temporary custody of the society for more than 12 months. Children aged 6 and over cannot be in temporary care for more than 24 months. This is consistent with the paramount purposes of the Act to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children and to make plans that secure permanency and enduring relationships for them. M. (C.) v. CAS of Waterloo, 2015 ONCA 612; CAS of Ottawa v. B.H., 2017 ONSC 4799.

[26] 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.

[27] Subsection 101(4) of the Act requires the court to consider alternative placement with a relative, neighbor, or other member of the child’s community or extended family, with their consent, before considering society care and custody.

[28] The significance of the child-centered approach is that good intentions are not enough. The test is not whether the parents have seen the light and intend to change, but whether they have in fact changed and are now able to give the child the care that is in his or her best interests. There is not to be experimentation with a child’s life with the result that in giving the parents another chance, the child would have one less chance: Children’s Aid Society of Winnipeg (City) v. R., 1980 MBCA 3654, 19 R.F.L. (2d) 232. There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that the parents are able to parent the child without endangering his or her safety. Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., 2001 CarswellOnt 1504.

C. Evidence

C.1 Society

Statements of Agreed Facts

[29] In the course of proceedings under this Act, there have been 3 orders made with the consent of the participating parties, based on agreed facts.

August 15, 2023: Statement of Agreed Facts regarding A, born July [xx], 2015

[30] This proceeding involved father and JH as stepmother, who were the caregivers to A. On August 15, 2023, the court made a finding that A was in need of protection under subsection 74(2)(a)(i)(ii) and (b)(i)(ii) of the Act (harm and risk of physical harm).

[31] The court then placed A with his biological mother, KB, under supervision for 6 months. Access to the father, MH, was ordered to be in the discretion of the society. The statement of agreed facts was signed by the society and KB/the biological mother of A. Both father and JH were noted in default, having been personally served on July 7, 2023.

[32] A summary of the facts relied upon by the court include:

1. MH and KB have a history of involvement with Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and Native Child and Family Services from 2015 to 2019. The child protection concerns were about alcohol use, adult conflict, physical discipline and school attendance.
2. JM and MH (the parents in this proceeding) have extensive involvement with this society, Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (KHCAS), and Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (HSCAS). JM was in the extended care of this society receiving services until 2022.
3. There have been ongoing concerns about JM’s mental health, JM being involved in the sex trade and her drug use.
4. In 2021, the KHCAS brought a protection application due to concerns of inadequate care and attention to the medical needs of B, father’s substance abuse, physical discipline in the home and the risk of emotional and physical harm due to partner conflict. In 2021, the parents (JM and MH) were arrested for drug trafficking in cocaine.
5. In March 2022, the order was terminated. The family had moved back to Toronto.
6. The society sought a finding in need of protection and a supervision order placing A with his mother, KB. A was moved from his father and stepmother’s home to his mother’s home on May 29, 2023. The concerns indicated were:
   • conflict and domestic violence between adults in front of the children,
   • use of physical discipline on the child A,
   • A missed over 90 days of school,
   • suspected alcohol and drug misuse,
   • inconsistency of information from the parents,
   • JM’s and MH’s involvement with police in terms of outstanding warrants, and
   • the state of JM’s and MH’s home.
7. “A has expressed a number of different concerns with respect to his mother, father, and stepmother. He most recently disclosed that his stepmother had assaulted him and said he is fearful of her” (para 3(2)). “On May 15, 2023, KB contacted NCFS … KB reported that A shared with her the following:
   • Stepmother grabbed him on the back of the neck
   • He saw stepmother hit his two year old sibling B
   • His father and stepmother fight.
   • He has seen his stepmother smash a phone and throw a soup can at father” (para 3(3))
8. A was happy living with mother.[3]
9. Stepmother was charged with assaulting father and a no contact order was in place.[4]

April 10, 2024 Statement of Agreed Facts regarding B and C

[33] On April 10, 2024, the court made findings that B and C were in need of protection pursuant to subsections 74(2)(a)(i)(ii) and (b)(i)(ii) of the Act (physical harm and risk of physical harm) and a disposition of 6 months’ interim society care. Access to the parents was ordered to be at the discretion of the society, a minimum of twice a week supervised by the society.

[34] The society and father signed the statement of agreed facts. Mother/JM was noted in default. Her counsel was present but did not oppose the orders sought.

[35] A summary of the facts relied upon by the court included:

1. Many of the facts as noted in the first Statement above, including:
   • a statement that A “disclosed a number of concerns about his mother, father and stepmother. (JM) He said that his stepmother assaulted him and he was fearful of her”;
   • the extensive involvement of JM and MH with KHCAS and HSCAS;
   • mother aging out of extended society care with this society;
   • ongoing concerns about mother’s mental health, being involved in the sex trade, and drug use; and
   • the Protection Application brought by KHCAS in 2021 due to concerns about inadequate care and attention to the medical needs of B, who was a baby at the time. There were concerns also about father’s substance abuse, physical discipline in the home, and the risk of emotional and physical harm due to partner conflict.
2. Mother and father demonstrated a pattern of being unwilling or unable to address the situation.
3. Mother and father continued to engage in conflict between themselves.
4. Mother and father were in breach of the supervision order by not complying with its terms.
5. On July 8, 2023, Mother was charged with assault on father. She and the children moved in with her mother in Norland Ontario. Mother is under a no contact condition and cannot return to the family home.
6. From July 12, 2023 until November 7, 2023, several attempts were made, unsuccessfully, to contact, meet, and engage mother and father.
7. Business records were obtained by court order from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and the Toronto Police Services (TPS). The following is a summary of the records:
   • On April 1, 2019, father was charged with assault. He was sentenced to an absolute discharge and weapons prohibition for 5 years.
   • On May 28, 2020, mother was charged with trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000. These charges were later withdrawn on May 11, 2022.
   • On August 1, 2020, father was charged with 3 counts of threatening death (victim unknown).
   • On November 4, 2021, mother was charged with two counts of threatening death. These were withdrawn on April 28, 2023.
   • On February 9, 2023, mother was charged with failure to attend court. This charge was also withdrawn on April 28, 2023.
   • On April 27, 2021, the police were called to a domestic dispute between mother and father in the presence of A. No charges were laid.
   • On May 12, 2021, the OPP attended at father’s home regarding a disturbance. No charges were laid.
   • On May 20, 2021, the OPP attended the home and spoke to mother regarding a domestic dispute. A was present during this incident.
   • On July 4, 2021, the OPP attended about a domestic dispute and spoke to mother. The police noted that three young children were present.
   • On July 8, 10, and 14, 2021, the OPP received calls regarding domestic disputes between the mother and father.
   • In 2021, mother and father were charged with drug trafficking in cocaine.
   • On October 1, 2022, father was wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant. He turned himself in on May 6, 2023.
   • On June 25, 2023, mother was charged with break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime under $5000.
   • On July 8, 2023 mother and father were involved in a domestic dispute and mother was charged with assault.
8. On November 16, 2023, the court made an order placing the children B and C in the temporary care of the society.
9. B and C were placed in the same foster home. The society was concerned about the children’s lack of immunizations, except for one vaccination for C the evening before her admission into care.
10. There were concerns about B’s development: he has no distinguishable speech and minimal vocalization. His hearing tested normal. He was referred for a developmental assessment. He does not respond to verbal redirection and will at times run back and forth. He shows signs of food aversion. He requires constant supervision to ensure his own and his sister’s safety.
11. The parents do not present as acknowledging and/or understanding these concerns. They provide conflicting information about their observations and his needs. They minimize and explain away the concerns.
12. The parents were unable to provide birth certificates, health cards, or complete immunization cards for B or C. They did provide B’s Statement of Live Birth and his health card.
13. On December [xx], 2023, D was born.
14. Access visits were described as chaotic. From December 4, 2023, until April 2024, the parents have been late, including on two occasions being close to an hour and a half late. This was addressed in a Plan of Care meeting on January 8, 2024, but they continued to be late. Father is often directive in visits. Mother attempts to read and do crafts even when the children are not responsive. C greets her parents and shows affection.

April 10, 2024, Statement of Agreed Facts regarding D

[36] The father and the society signed and filed with the court a Statement of Agreed Facts for D. Based on this document, the court found D to be in need of protection pursuant to subsection 74(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the Act (risk of harm) and made a disposition order of 6 months interim society care with access in the discretion of the society but a minimum of twice a week, supervised by the society. Mother was served but noted in default after extensions of time were granted. Her counsel was present and did not oppose the order.

[37] A summary of the statements included in this document include:

1. The society has concerns about the mother’s lack of prenatal care, her failure to follow medical professionals’ recommendations, attending to the children’s medical needs, suspected drug and alcohol use, suspected mental health issues, both parents’ failure to cooperate with the society by providing contradictory or inaccurate information, and not allowing the society workers into the home, domestic violence, and criminal activity.
2. On April 28, 2023, the OPP arrested mother in Coboconk, Ontario. The police noted that the mother was in a manic state and appeared to be under the influence of drugs. Police left the children with the maternal grandmother in Cochrane Ontario and advised the KHCAS.
3. A Protection Application was commenced June 28, 2023, and a temporary supervision order was made, placing the children with the parents under supervision by the society and with conditions attached.
4. On August 15, 2023, the court found A to be in need of protection and a final order of supervision for 6 months was made, placing him with his mother.
5. On July 7, 2023, the society attended the parents’ home with the police for a wellness check. Mother was asked how her pregnancy was going and she stated that she might not be pregnant.
6. On July 8, 2023, mother was arrested for assault on father. She was placed under a “no contact” release condition and was not allowed back in the home. She and the children moved to Cochrane with her mother.
7. From July 12, 2023, until November 7, 2023, several attempts were made to contact, meet, and engage with the parents, unsuccessfully; such as:
   • KHCAS were contacted for help in locating mother;
   • Text messages were sent from the society to father, attempting to schedule a meeting: July 17, October 6, and November 6, 2023;
   • Attendances by this worker at the home: July 20, August 1, September 25, October 4 and 17, 2023;
   • Further attendances by another worker August 2 and 18, 2023;
   • Further attendance by an after-hours’ worker on November 4, 2023; and
   • An email letter on November 7, 2023, to both parents.
8. On November 15, 2023, the worker reached the mother by phone. Mother said she had an ultrasound for the new baby and was staying at a hotel. Mother said that the new baby was due in a few weeks or months. She said the children were not with her. The clinic named by mother could not confirm her information.
9. Many efforts were made to engage the parents cooperatively in bringing the children into care. Mother said she was at criminal court and would come to the society office later. Criminal court was actually by zoom. She never came. Twice after 5 pm a worker attended the home; the second time with police. No answer. Mother then answered her phone and agreed to meet. After 9 pm, the parents finally came out of the home with the children.
10. Repeated efforts were made to obtain the children’s identifying information; such as, birth certificates, immunization cards, and prenatal information. Mother kept promising to bring the documents but then would not.
11. The children’s service worker for B asked the parents about his hearing and possible speech delay. The mother said B chooses to ignore people as he may be uncomfortable with his caregivers. Mother thought he may have a slight speech delay, but she had heard him say several words. The parents agreed to have B’s hearing tested and for him to be assessed.
12. For the scheduled visit on December 7, 2023, the parents were almost an hour late and then arrived with the new baby, D.
13. Efforts by the society to visit the baby in the home were unsuccessful. Information from the clinic named by mother indicated more concerns: C was missing immunizations; B was referred for a hearing test but no follow up was done. Mother said B was seen in Haliburton and his hearing was normal.
14. The parents never allowed the society workers into the home to see the baby. The parents told the hospital staff that there was no current CAS involvement.
15. The hospital was concerned about the baby and wanted additional bloodwork done. The parents were resistant and combative with each other. They wanted to leave the hospital with the baby without any interventions, particularly the mother. Father got upset when CAS was mentioned and said the CAS would want to take the baby. The parents told the hospital social worker that family and friends were caring for their other children.

Witnesses

[38] The intake worker for the society gave evidence. A summary follows:

1. When mother was released from police custody on April 28, 2023, the police advised the local CAS. The whereabouts of the mother and children were unknown from April 28 until May 8, 2023, despite efforts by three CAS’s, local police and the OPP to find them. Finally, after-hours workers’ found the children had left the former foster mother’s home in Haliburton and were with the parents in Toronto.
2. This worker was involved from May 1, 2023 until the end of June, 2023.
3. On May 11, 2023, this worker met in the home with the parents and A, B, and C. The home had clothes and toys on the floor throughout the one bedroom and the hall, kitchen and living room. There were boxes throughout the apartment and the parents explained they were just unpacking after the apartment was fumigated for bedbugs (the parents clarified it was for cockroaches). Mother said she had been up north when she was arrested for outstanding warrants. Father, too, had outstanding warrants and turned himself in to police on May 6th. He was released the next day.
4. This worker interviewed A in the presence of the father in the living room. A said he was 7 years old and in grade 2. He took the school bus to school. He said that his parents argue with each other[5] as recently as “yesterday or the day before.”
5. On May 17, 2023, this worker went to A’s school and reviewed his attendance record: he was absent 90 days between September of 2022 and May of 2023, while in the care of the parents. She interviewed A at the school and he indicated: His mother brought him to the home of father and stepmother. Before entering the apartment, they heard the parents arguing and listened at the door. His mother called the police.
6. On May 18, 2023, this worker met with the parents at home to discuss the A’s absences from school.
7. On May 25, 2023, this worker went to the home and found all the children there. Again, she stressed the importance of A attending school and father agreed.
8. On May 28, 2023, mother contacted the police which led to A being taken to the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) and interviewed at the Suspected Child and Abuse and Neglect unit (SCAN) and by the police. He remained with his mother.
9. On June 1, 2023, this worker met with the parents to discuss the bruise found on A’s leg and his disclosures that stepmother grabbed him and hit him. The parents admitted to arguing but denied stepmother ever hit the child. They said the bruise may have been caused from rough-housing or playing.
10. On June 6, 2023, this worker interviewed A at school. A said:
    • He was not good. He did not like the father and stepmother arguing. They would also punch and choke each other. His dad told him not to tell. He did not want to go back to dad’s.
    • Stepmother would grab him by the neck. It hurt. I asked if this happened often and he said yes. He was outside when stepmother grabbed him by the front of his jacket and dragged him into the house. He fell on the floor and the jacket ripped.
    • Stepmother punches him on the leg. When asked if he play fights with stepmother, he said no.
    • He said his father drinks every day and night and then fights with stepmother.
    • He wants to live with his mom or anyplace but the father’s.
    • He began to cry and said he was afraid of the fighting and that he would get into trouble. Stepmother would hit him. Dad would not hit him.
11. On June 7, 2023, father said that mother had taken B and C up north and he wants A to come home to him.
12. From June 9 to 29, 2023 this worker made attempts to meet with both parents unsuccessfully by calling, sending text messages, and attending the home. Other workers also attended the home unannounced.

[39] Although this witness had attended at least two one week long training programs on interviewing children, she became confused in cross examination and mixed up the difference between leading and open questions.

[40] An officer with Toronto Police Service (TPS) gave evidence about the incident on March 13, 2024:

1. He attended in uniform at the foot of Brimley Road where the bluffs fall into Lake Ontario. He observed the mother to be only wearing her underwear and no top. She was rambling and refused to identify herself. She swore at the officer a lot and made no sense. She was angry. He apprehended her under the Mental Health Act and took her to Scarborough Centenary Hospital.
2. Mother was seen by the crisis team. She calmed down and became more lucid. The doctor made the decision she could be released.

[41] The society family service worker gave evidence; a summary of which follows:

1. She has been the family service worker since early July 2023 until the present.
2. On June 28, 2023, the court made temporary supervision orders for B and C placed with the parents and A placed with his mother, KB.
3. This worker had concerns about the parents’ transiency and there is no dispute that in the last four and a half years they have lived in 8 different locations and were homeless for a period of time.
4. In August 2020, father was evicted from his Toronto apartment for non-payment of rent. He and the mother then moved to Haliburton from September of 2020 until February of 2022.
5. Mother was evicted from that residence following a finding by the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal that she had been charged with drug trafficking.[6] These charges were eventually withdrawn as against the mother. Both A and B lived with the parents in this home.
6. The apartment on Littleborough in Toronto was seen by this worker on July 7, 2023. She observed: unclean conditions, bugs on the walls and on the ceiling, flies in the bedroom, living room, and kitchen, couch cluttered with clothes and other items; mattresses with no sheets and the bed sagging to one side. There was marijuana on a book by the main door. In March 2024, the parents were evicted from this apartment for two years’ non-payment of rent.
7. In March 2024, father refused to tell the worker where he was living. Eventually he said he was with his mother.
8. From March until the end of May 2024, this worker could not find mother and when she spoke to her on May 30, 2024, mother was vague about where she had been living.
9. On June 25, 2024, the parents admitted they were homeless for a period and now residing in a hotel. They were still intending to fight the eviction.
10. When this worker received the mother’s new plan of care, she noted the new address. On a home visit on January 10, 2025, the new apartment appeared to be in the basement of a rooming house. The parents had their own bedroom, but the living room and kitchen were shared with three other bedrooms for other residents.
11. On February 6, 2025, the parents advised the worker of their new apartment. She made a home visit and described it as a one-bedroom basement apartment.
12. The parents were unable to comply with the terms of the temporary supervision order made by the court on June 28, 2023:
    • The parents were not cooperative with the society and did not allow the workers to have access to their home. July 7, 2023 was the last home visit where the worker observed the children.
    • The society documented attempted in person visits on 9 occasions between July 12 and November 4, 2023. Written notes were left on 4 occasions. Phone calls and text messages were sent on 8 occasions. On November 8, 2023 an email and ordinary mail letter requested contact as soon as possible and advised of the next court date on November 16, 2023.
    • The parents did not sign consents for releases of information from health care providers for the children and themselves nor from school staff. On July 7, 2023, mother said she would obtain the information from the children’s medical clinic and sign releases on the following visit. That visit did not happen.
    • The parents were to complete a parenting program to assist them with skills and alternate forms of discipline. They did not and the society could not recommend or refer them to a program as they refused to be in touch with the worker.
    • The children were to be enrolled in a community program and/or daycare. This did not happen.
    • The parents were to attend medical appointments for the children and follow the recommendations made. This did not happen.
    • The parents were to refrain from any form of adult conflict in the home and in the presence of the children. They were to participate in counselling or an anger management program to address this conflict in their relationship. On July 8, 2023, mother was arrested for assault on father.
    • The parents were not to use alcohol or marijuana while caring for the children.
13. Records from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and Toronto Police Service (TPS) indicate numerous contacts between the parents and police from 2019 until 2024.
14. This worker had the following reasons to be concerned about the mother’s mental health:
    • When mother was arrested by the OPP on April 28, 2023, the police noted she appeared to be in a manic state and under the influence of drugs.
    • In March of 2024, when this worker did not know where the mother was for several months, she asked the father. He said he had done his best but he wasn’t a doctor. He said she had a physical illness but was stressed because her children were not with her. He also said he did not want to invade her private space. He said he went to the store on March 10, 2024 and when he came back she had disappeared.
    • In May of 2024, mother denied any police contact during the months she was missing. She denied the bluffs incident entirely.
    • When asked by the society to obtain a psychiatric assessment, mother said she went to the walk-in clinic on Golden Mile but they thought she was fine.
    • Mother said her probation officer was going to arrange for her to meet with their psychiatrist.
    • This worker reviewed the medical notes from the Golden Mile clinic. She noted that the mother did not disclose her police and hospitalization contacts and was not accurate in her description of her family situation.
15. This worker provided, on more than one occasion, a list of possible resources for the parents.
16. On more than one occasion, the mother denied her contacts with the police following community phone calls to the police.
17. In reviewing the police records, this witness noted that the father has had multiple relationships and multiple domestic disputes related to these partners.
18. Mother was charged with assault on the father in July 2023 and pled guilty. Both mother and father denied any conflict in their relationship.
19. In March 2024, father denied any past contact with the police or record of convictions.
20. This worker continued to be concerned about the parents’ alcohol and drug use. In July 2023, she noted that the home smelled of marijuana and she observed marijuana on a book by the door. In subsequent visits to that apartment, she could smell marijuana as she approached the door. The ash tray had both cigarette and marijuana buts.
21. On November 23, 2023, mother denied any cigarette, marijuana, or alcohol use. Father also denies cigarette use although he had been observed with cigarettes. The parents were both talking at the same time and over each other during this meeting. Mother then admitted occasional vape and marijuana use.
22. On June 25, 2024, both parents denied any alcohol misuse. Mother referred to an incident with the police which the worker later learned was the altercation with the TTC officers. At the time mother was agitated and presented as being anxious.
23. Father said that he did follow through with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) program as well as the Metro Addiction Assessment referral service but neither he nor the mother qualified because they are not admitting to having a problem.
24. On July 30, 2024, father asked about an update in regard to the addiction assessment. This worker suggested that he contact his local hospital and request to meet with an addiction counsellor.
25. On January 10, 2025, this worker provided the parents with a list of possible resources for support with substance use and mental health issues.
26. The hospital records indicate that mother admitted to cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use while pregnant.
27. On July 7, 2023, this worker asked the parents whether the children had seen a doctor. Mother said it was not the Golden Mile Clinic, which is what she had told the intake worker, but couldn’t remember the name of the clinic.
28. From July 8 until November 16, 2023, this worker was unable to see the children.
29. When the children were brought into the care of the society on November 16, 2023, B had a health card but C did not. They had immunization cards which indicated they were vaccinated the day before - November 15, 2023. The children were two and one year old at this time. They had missed 6 immunizations.
30. Neither child had a birth certificate. The society applied for them.
31. D was born on December [xx], 2023. This was a complete surprise to the society. Neither parent had mentioned this. Mother said she was taking the baby to a doctor’s appointment the following day but couldn’t remember the doctor’s name or the appointment details. Mother had no prenatal care.
32. When this worker and the health specialist arrived at the parents’ home on December 8, 2023 for a scheduled appointment, the parents were not home. When this worker called them they said they were at the hospital and asked if the worker wanted to speak to their doctor. The worker said yes but the call was terminated.
33. On December 12, 2023, this worker enquired whether the parents had sufficient diapers and formula and supplies for the baby. From their shopping bag, the parents produced two hospital mini formula bottles, a bottle with just a bit of formula left with the nipple uncovered. There was nothing to separate their items from the baby’s.
34. On February 17, 2025, mother gave birth to E. Again, this was a surprise to the society. Mother had no pre-natal care. This child received additional screening, antibiotics, and hepatitis medication for medical issues as a precaution.
35. On November 23, 2023, this worker spoke to the mother about B, as she had not heard him say any words. Mother said the doctor they saw on November 15, 2023 also talked about B’s speech.
36. In January 2024, B was diagnosed with autism. The doctor recommended applied behaviour analysis therapy (ABA), speech therapy and occupational therapy.
37. On June 25, 2024, the parents complained that B was not talking since coming into the care of the society.
38. Information from the parents is often inconsistent, according to this witness:
    • On July 7, 2023, mother says she is not sure if she is pregnant; on November 23, 2023, she said she knew she was pregnant since May or June of 2023;
    • Mother’s reports of medical care at the Golden Mile Clinic and the Morningside Clinic are often inconsistent and mixed up. In the end no clinic could be identified that has an ultrasound image nor blood work from the mother.
    • On November 16, 2023, mother said she was attending criminal court but could bring the children to the office after this appearance. This worker offered to send a cab for her. At 2:30 pm, mother sent a message that they were on their way to the office. They never arrived at the office and the worker learned later that the criminal appearance was by zoom. The children were eventually taken into care about 9:30 pm.
    • From March until May 30, 2024, mother was missing. Father said she was ill but then said that he went to the store on March 10, 2024 and when he returned she was gone. When this worker spoke to her at the May 30th visit, mother said she had been sick with the flu. She said she had been staying with friends and later said she had been at her mother’s home. She denied any contact with police during this time.
    • After missing her June 18th, 2024 visit, mother advised this worker on June 19, 2024 that she had been sick. Later, this worker learned she had been arrested on June 16, 2024.
    • Father advised this worker on June 25, 2024, and September 9, 2024 that he had found employment. The worker said she could be flexible about the access schedule if he could confirm his work hours. He never did.
    • On October 22, 2024, both parents denied that mother was pregnant. She had a new baby, E, on February 17, 2025.
39. In October 2024, the parents moved to a room in a house at 19 Fairwood in Toronto. In December, they moved to a room downstairs in the same house. In February 2025, they moved to the current one-bedroom basement apartment that this worker visited in early May 2025. There are three toddler beds in the bedroom and a crib in the living room for E. There is also a futon in the living room for the parents.
40. The parents did not attend court regularly - both missed six court dates and mother missed an additional two court dates.
41. This worker supervised 33 access visits from November 2023 until March 11, 2025. The parents see B, C, and D twice a week for 90 minutes and an additional visit with D once a week for two hours. Her observations were as follows:
    • About one half the time the parents were late.
    • At first, the visits were very unstructured but staff have added routines.
    • From March 7 to May 16, 2024, mother did not attend.
    • Concerns about B’s safety were noted as he puts things in his mouth, runs back and forth repeatedly, jumps climbs and has tantrums. He is also a risk to the other children.
    • Father tries to redirect B but there is limited supervision. B can endanger baby D, by rocking her chair.
    • Because the children are so young, the caregiver must intervene rather than simply direct the child. Both mother and father will direct B and C to no avail.
    • For many months, the parents insisted on bringing Timbits for the children.
    • Mother appeared to not know how to feed a baby, neither breastfeeding nor bottle feeding.
    • Neither parent knows how to read the children’s cues - for feeding and for safety.
    • Since April 10, 2025, the parents have had perfect attendance and have not been late since March 11, 2025. Now the visits can be semi-supervised in that the supervising worker can do something else and then check back.

[42] On March 21, 2024, this worker interviewed A at his mother’s home. He was excited to show her his room and seemed happy to see her. He appeared to speak freely. He said that “dad drinks beer and at times has a bottle in his jacket.”

[42] The society children service worker for B, C, and D gave evidence; a summary of which follows:

1. B and C are placed in the same foster home – a very experienced foster family with adult children to assist and experience with their own autistic child.
2. Immediately upon his admission to care, it was striking that B had no language or babbling sounds. His hearing appeared fine. When this worker asked the parents about these concerns, they said he had spoken some words before coming into care, although mother thought he had a slight speech delay. They also said his hearing had been tested but couldn’t say when or where. Mother said that B had very few behaviour issues.
3. Following B’s diagnosis of autism by the doctor in January 2024, therapies such as ABA, speech and occupational therapies were recommended. Father asked for a second opinion and mother asked how she could be involved. This worker explained the funding model to the parents but indicated that the society would pay for these services until the funding came through. There is a very long waitlist for this funding. B is eligible but still on the waitlist.
4. The waitlist follows the child and thus B’s spot remains secure if he returns home to his parents’ care.
5. In February 2024, B began ABA therapy at Papillon Family Health. He attends three days a week for three hours each day. He also has one hour a week of speech therapy and one hour of occupational therapy.
6. B has made progress: he can follow some directions and can make hand gestures. He continues to make very few speech sounds.
7. In March 2025, B began a five day a week program, three hours a day, at ErinoakKids Centre as a transition to school this fall.
8. The foster mother is trying to steer B away from sweet foods and this has been communicated to the parents. Many children with autism have sensory struggles which can lead to challenges in feeding him fruits vegetables and protein foods. Father said that he and mother are vegetarians but B does like hot dogs, lasagna, chicken nuggets, and shepherd’s pie.
9. The foster mother met with the society health specialist to receive tips for improving B’s eating habits.
10. B needs close supervision as he puts things in his mouth and can chew through plastic.
11. This worker describes C as an extremely bright and verbal two year old. She is strong willed and able to articulate her wants and needs. She will protest loudly at times if she is not the centre of attention. She loves music and can hold a tune and remember the words to many children’s songs.
12. C can be very clingy with the foster mother and the foster mother’s adult daughter. She will cry and fuss when they leave the room. She will also step between the worker and B to obtain attention.
13. There is a concern that C cannot regulate her emotions and cannot engage with other children. In December 2024, the foster mother secured a placement for C for three days a week at daycare.
14. There have been 4 Plan of Care meetings for B and C; mother attended two and father attended three. This worker noted the following:
    • Mother said the children had been vaccinated in Haliburton but there is no such record.
    • Mother thought B had been tested for his hearing and for autism before. Mother also said that B knew his ABC’s, although no one has heard this from him. Mother wasn’t sure B had autism and father thought he was being “coy”.
    • Several times the father would tell the mother to be quiet.
    • Father said he was happy with the care the children were receiving and observed they were always dressed and looking well.
    • The children’s challenges and strengths were discussed.
    • Concerns about B’s eating were raised and the parents became very upset. They said that he had eaten well at home. Father offered to bring home made meals for B and suggested that pieces of hot dog be left around the room for B to eat. Father had to leave the meeting.
15. In December 2023 this worker also became the worker for D, who was placed in a separate foster home. She was only two weeks old at the time. She is now a 15 month old toddler (at the time this worker swore her affidavit), who is friendly and outgoing. She can use several words correctly and loves to sing and dance.
16. The parents have attended 3 of the 4 Plan of Care meetings for D. Father asked for the March 2024 meeting to be virtual so this worker sent him the virtual invitation but there was no response. By the third meeting, D appeared to be developing well and in good health. Mother was asked to not wear her mask so the baby could see her. In the December 2024 Plan of Care meeting both parents said they were happy with D’s care.
17. This worker supervised about 23 visits and noted the following:
    • Of the 18 visits that mother attended, she was on time for 11 of them.
    • The parents interact appropriately with the children, speak to them in a loving manner and talk with pride about their accomplishments. Mother will remain calm and speak in a soft voice to help the children de-escalate.
    • When father attends the visit on his own, he often has difficulty managing the children and this worker steps in to assist.
    • During every visit the parents have offered the children sweet sugary snacks; including to D who is only 15 months old; they also let B run around with a lollipop in his mouth.
    • Both parents are polite and respectful.
    • C looks forward to the visits with her parents and siblings.
    • The parents are happy and appreciative regarding D’s care in her foster home.
18. There was an additional plan of care meeting the week before court.

[43] An access support worker for the society gave evidence about the parents’ visits with the children. A summary of her evidence is:

1. From November 23, 2023 and March 27, 2025, this worker supervised 109 in person visits. Mother attended 83% of those visits and father attended 92% of the visits. They were late about 50% of the time.
2. The visits were twice a week on Monday and Thursday from 10:00 am until 11:30 am. D was born in December 2023 and she was added to the two visits with the other children and had one visit on her own on Tuesday.
3. The parents are affectionate and warm with the children. They are patient and able to meet the children’s needs during the visits. They are open to feedback and mostly follow the suggestions during the parenting time.
4. Being late was a serious problem, until very recently.
5. The parents also struggled to provide beneficial, nutritious snacks for the children. Repeatedly, the parents brought and fed sugary foods to the children.
6. On several occasions, mother would use a sugary snack to calm B down.
7. When D was born, the worker had difficulty meeting with the family and the baby so a health specialist was brought to the next visit with the other children on December 11, 2023. The parents felt this was intrusive and mother raised her voice and had tears in her eyes over the request to weigh the baby.
8. Mother had difficulty managing the three children on her own.
9. During the visit of January 23, 2024, father appeared to be incoherent - jumping between topics, pacing the room, and expressing concerns about his own parents.
10. Mother missed visits between March 7, 2024, and May 16, 2024, when her whereabouts were unknown.
11. On January 9, 2025, this worker intervened on four occasions to bring B back into the visitation room. He was running back and forth in reception area.
12. This occurred again on January 23, 2025, when the parents were late. After the worker redirected B several times, B threw himself on the floor with a tantrum. Father said he had been given a prescription for high blood pressure pills but told not to use them for a week.
13. On January 27, 2025, B again periodically ran in the hallway unsupervised. The parents did not notice.
14. On January 30, 2025, the parents were late and again B ran in the hallway and this worker redirected him. He then had a tantrum. The worker gave him a sensory ball which distracted him. On each of these occasions, mother gave B a lollipop.
15. Father missed visits on February 10, 11, and March 4, 2025. Mother said he was ill. Mother had a very challenging time on her own and this worker assisted her.

[44] The foster mother for B and C gave evidence. She is a very experienced foster mother who lives with her husband, two adult children, a teenager, and a 12 year old son who has autism. She and her family have fostered about 40 children over the last 19 years. She said that she has never had two children as challenging as B and C.

[45] This witness has the benefit of the following resources for the children:

1. relief care two weekends a month,
2. daycare for C three days a week since December 2024,
3. Three days a week specialized centre for B and now expanded to five days a week as a transition to school which will begin in September 2025,
4. Speech and occupational therapy for B, and
5. C has difficulty regulating her behaviour and will be monitored for this until she is old enough for an assessment.

[46] Foster mother described B as he presented on admission to care as:

1. needing two to three people to change his diaper,
2. a very picky eater,
3. would only fall asleep if he was rocked in a stroller,
4. non verbal,
5. headbutting, scratching, and pinching when frustrated,
6. puts anything in his mouth, and
7. very unpredictable, such as throwing C to the ground.

[47] Some of this behaviour has diminished over the past 6 months.

[48] Foster mother described C when she first came to her home:

1. very constipated, requiring an ultrasound to find the blockage,
2. wanted to be held at all times and cried when new people entered the home,
3. could not hold her bottle, at 15 months of age,
4. very oppositional and strong willed,
5. would scream for hours, and
6. although she is verbal, she could not tell you what she needs or wants.

[49] Some of these behaviours have improved but even now it can take a long process, up to an hour, to get C to sleep at night and she will still wake up in the night screaming and crying and looking to be comforted.

[50] Neither child would sit in the bathtub. They would scream and cry when you tried to wash their hair. Now they love the bath.

[51] The two children are still quite jealous of attention being given to the other child.

[52] Daycare has helped C but she still has bad days about 4 out of 5 days a week.

[53] B is still a runner so must have his hand held when out of the house. He also goes into a rage a few times a week.

[54] Both children still require one to one attention at times during the day.

Police records:

[55] Police records filed with the court indicate many contacts with the parents. Those incidents which are not already indicated above are:

1. April 1, 2019: father charged with assault on A’s mother, KB. He received an absolute discharge with a five year weapon prohibition.
2. April 30, 2020: Mother arrested on a warrant from Peel region.
3. August 1, 2020: Father charged with three counts of threatening death.
4. May 12, 2021: OPP called to Haliburton residence for disturbing the peace. No charges.
5. May 20, 2021: police attended Haliburton home for a domestic dispute. A was present. No charges.
6. July 4, 2021: OPP attended Haliburton residence for a domestic dispute. Three children under the age of 5 present.
7. July 8, 10, and 14, 2021: OPP received calls for domestic dispute. No charges.
8. November 4, 2021: mother charged with uttering death threats against a neighbour. Charges withdrawn April 28, 2023.
9. June 16, 2022: mother was charged with failure to attend court. Charge withdrawn April 28, 2023.
10. October 1, 2022: father wanted on bench warrant. Arrested May 6, 2023.
11. February 9, 2023: Mother charged with failure to attend court. Withdrawn April 28, 2023.
12. April 28, 2023: Mother arrested on outstanding warrants. Children were present. Mother held for bail and then released. Police noted she was in a manic state and appeared to be under the influence of drugs.
13. June 28, 2023: mother charged with break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime.
14. July 8, 2023: parents involved in domestic dispute. Mother was charged with assault and pled guilty. Mother placed on 12 months’ probation with condition to attend a partner assault program.
15. March 8 and 10, 2024: mother cautioned for attending at address after eviction. March 13 and 28, 2024: mother again returned to this address. She was cautioned by police and on the last occasion, she was taken to a shelter.
16. March 13, 2024: mother apprehended under Mental Health Act after reports of mother wandering Brimley Road in and out of traffic clothed only in underpants. Police met her at the bottom of the bluffs. She appeared to be suffering from mental health issues and possible drug use. She was taken to hospital.
17. March 29, 2024: mother refused to get off a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus at Coxwell station and kicked TTC officers trying to remove her. She was charged with two counts of assault on a peace officer. On May 3, 2024, she was convicted and given a 12 month probation sentence (including “keep the peace”).
18. March 31, 2024: OPP had calls about a woman on the highway. Mother was picked up and given a ride to the bus station in Peterborough.
19. April 1, 2024, the OPP received calls about a woman on the side of the highway. She was taken to Norland, Ontario.
20. June 16, 2024: Mother charged with two counts of assault and failure to comply with probation (keep the peace) after an altercation at Sunnys Sports Bar. Mother was drinking heavily and accused a male of taking her drink. She punched him twice causing a cut above his eye. Mother kicked a woman who tried to intervene and punched her in the face. Police noted she had been drinking heavily. These charges are still before the court.
21. There are repeated references in the police records to mother preferring to go by a completely different name and the nickname, Nikki.

Apprehensions under the Mental Health Act:

[56] The police records indicate several incidents that led to mother’s apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

[57] On June 12, 2020, mother was apprehended under the Mental Health Act, when she was found walking southbound in the north bound lanes of Pharmacy Ave. in Toronto. She spoke about working for the CIA and could not remember her name. She said she had brain cancer and then switched to talking about ISIS and CIA. She was happy one minute and then crying and then burst out with angry threats to kill. She tried to run away but was taken in the police car to hospital where the doctor placed her on a Form 1.

[58] On August 3, 2020, mother was apprehended under the Mental Health Act when officers attended at her apartment. She had been getting dressed when her dog ran outside. When mother followed, only partly dressed, the door had closed behind her and she could not get in. She threw rocks through the kitchen window and was screaming and hitting the door. She started to bleed and used her blood to write on the walls. Police followed the blood trail to her unit door. Mother screamed and swore at the officers through the door. She was rambling quickly and changing topics frequently. She would turn up the music when the officers tried to talk to her. Officers had to cover her with a blanket and carry her to an ambulance. She was taken to hospital. She was placed on a Form 1 by the doctor.

[59] On August 10, 2020, officers again were called to mother’s unit where she was screaming and throwing items out of the window. She barricaded the door and officers apprehended her under the Mental Health Act and took her to hospital. The doctor placed her on a Form 1.

[60] On March 13, 2023, officers took mother from the bluffs to the hospital. She was discharged from the emergency department. The police officer involved gave evidence about this incident.

C.2 Evidence for the Parents:

[61] The parents swore a joint affidavit and each gave oral evidence.

[62] A summary of their affidavit evidence is:

1. Father is 51 years old and mother has now turned 25. They both have a grade 9 education. Father has some training as a dry-cleaning technician but does not plan to work in the near future as he will parent the children full time with mother if the children are returned to them. They are supported by Ontario Works.
2. They have both taken parenting courses: in June and October of 2024.
3. They plan to enroll D and C in full time daycare at a facility close to their home.
4. They will use Early On programs and enroll the children in some extra activities such as ballet and swimming. They will take B to the ABA program at Markham and Eglinton. They will pay for programs themselves until funding becomes available.
5. Father expects to receive close to $30,000 in retroactive child tax benefits from the Canada Revenue Agency for the period that A lived with them.
6. B will start school in September at the local public school near them.
7. They will ensure a consistent and stable routine and cooperate fully with the society.
8. They have had a stable plan for the children since the fall of 2024:
   • stable housing,
   • strong relationship,
   • cooperative with the society,
   • do not use and have never used physical discipline, and
   • no concerns about drug or alcohol as they have never had a problem with these,
9. They describe each of the children in detail: their likes, dislikes; favourite activities; favourite colour. In particular:
   • B loves to be held by his parents, and to play with his siblings;
   • C likes to sing and to be part of every activity. She too loves to play with her siblings;
   • D loves to be outdoors and to play with E; and
   • E is only two months old. He does well with tummy time and likes to be in the swing.
10. The concerns of the KHCAS were mainly about A’s mother, KB, and not this father.
11. Mother was in the care of the CAS since about 2012. While in foster care she was the victim of human trafficking, and her foster parents were criminally charged. She then went to a group home and was made a crown ward. She received continued support until 2022.
12. Mother lived in Haliburton from 2018 until 2020 when she moved to Toronto and met father. Together with A they moved to Haliburton. During Covid, A did school online and then in person when it was available. He had perfect attendance.
13. They moved back to Toronto in 2022.
14. B and C were up to date with vaccinations when they came into care in November 2023.
15. Their home has been consistently clean; they have not abused alcohol or drugs; mother’s mental health is stable; they have never used physical discipline.
16. Father admits there were conflict issues with A’s mother and that school attendance was a serious concern, although Covid attendance policies may explain some of the absences.
17. When mother was arrested on April 28, 2023, it was due to a missed court date. Mother had taken B for a walk and a bus ride in Norland, where she was staying while their apartment was fumigated. The bus driver called the police because B was having serious behavioural issues. She was held briefly and released.
18. Mother had advised the society that she was staying in Cochrane Ontario.
19. They did not argue often and rarely in front of the children; they never hit each other.
20. Mother did not physically discipline A; A’s jacket ripped when he threw himself on the ground while having a temper tantrum. A liked to come up behind mother and squeeze the back of her neck and she would very lightly put her fingers around the back of his neck.
21. When the family service worker visited the home, it had just been sprayed for cockroaches and their fridge was broken. They were waiting for a new fridge. There was no marijuana in the apartment. In cross-examination, mother said she was maybe in the middle of spring cleaning and they were waiting for the second fridge to arrive. (The society worker saw two fridges there.)
22. The parents explained the March 13, 2024 bluffs’ incident when mother was apprehended by the police under the Mental Health Act. They say that mother was in the shower and then left the room to get a towel that was outside the motel room, along with her backpack and shoes. She became locked out. Father had gone to the store. She did not walk into traffic. She walked up the street looking for father. The psychiatrist at the hospital released mother and the hospital gave her some clothes. By his own statement, father was not present for any of these events.
23. On April 28, 2024, when mother was arrested in Coboconk, Ontario, she denies she was in a manic state or under the influence of drugs.
24. On June 16, 2024, mother was not intoxicated and denies she assaulted the man. This man had stolen mother’s debit card and, when confronted, assaulted mother.
25. Mother denies admitting to hospital staff that she drank alcohol or used cigarettes.
26. The children regularly saw medical doctors when in the care of the parents.
27. Mother’s prenatal care began in January 2025 as she didn’t know she was pregnant before then. E was born on February [xx], 2025.
28. The parents were concerned about A’s behaviour before he was taken into the care of the society.
29. Foster mother sends cookies and sweet cereal to the visit with B.
30. When the father spoke about hotdogs, he was referring to vegetarian hot dogs.
31. The parents do not agree that father struggled to manage the children on his own. He was happy to accept support but didn’t need it.
32. The parents have a 90 minute transit trip to arrive at the visits and are dependent on the vagaries of the TTC system. The children, too, can arrive late sometimes.

[63] Mother gave evidence which is summarized as follows:

1. She disputes the eviction ruling from the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal for illegal activity. She does not believe that she had proper notice and the charges for drug trafficking were eventually withdrawn. Her narrative was:
   • The lease was in her name;
   • She had been away for a few weeks;
   • Her neighbours were being investigated and they broke into her area. They had the drugs and not her;
   • She observed the neighbours breaking in and so she walked into town to report them to the police;
   • In town, she used the phone to call into the police station and no one answered so she walked on to the fire station where she knew some people;
   • She then went to a hotel and stayed overnight;
   • She returned to the residence the next day and was there when the police raided the unit. She was charged in April of 2020 (May 2020 is the police record);
   • The Landlord and Tenant review was in June of 2021; and
   • Her charges were withdrawn in May of 2023 (May 2022). The neighbours were convicted and are incarcerated now.
2. Mother agreed that the police were called to her and the father’s home about 14 times but she denies it was for arguments or domestic disturbance. She said it was for noise.
3. Mother describes the incidents that led to her being held involuntarily at the hospital on June 12, 2020:
   • She was on Pharmacy Avenue and was choking on a fish bone, which made her cry;
   • She was very emotional and the police could not understand her;
   • Police took her to the hospital where she stayed for 48 hours as they wanted her to calm down; and
   • When the doctor discharged her she asked if she could stay for lunch.
4. Mother gave her version of the events that led to her involuntary hospitalization on August 3, 2000:
   • A former girlfriend of father’s (Kerry) was banging on mother’s apartment door (O’Connor street apartment) and tried to steal mother’s dog.
   • Kerry was responsible for the blood smeared on the walls of the hallway that said “I love M”.
   • Mother was then in the shower and did not hear the police banging on the door. She also had music playing loudly.
   • Eventually, she did open the door and the police took her to Michael Garron Hospital so she could talk to a psychiatrist. The doctor offered her a two to three week stay. This is when she learned she was pregnant.
   • She did not want to return to the unit in Haliburton due to a broken door there.
5. A week later on August 10, 2020, mother barricaded herself in her apartment and the police were called. Mother explained:
   • she was very afraid and thought she would get shot in the face;
   • she had been followed by a man in a ball cap for a few days;
   • also a large male in his 30’s with a black hat chased her;
   • she had been threatened by men and women;
   • she herself is pretty strong and has grown a few inches in height since she had her children;
   • she brings her puppy and cat with her everywhere;
   • she moved an end table in front of the door;
   • police sawed the door open while she was sleeping with her cat;
   • she told officers she takes medication everyday for her mental health; she said in court she had a prescription for marijuana since she was 16 years of age but then her psychiatrist said she doesn’t need it anymore; and
   • She was taken to hospital where they asked her to stay for 72 hours but she left after 12 to 15 hours.
6. On March 7, 2024, she and father were evicted from Littleborough Court. She kept returning to the basement apartment as she had nowhere to stay and all her belongings were there:
7. On March 9, 2024, the police found her in the apartment and warned her not to attend again. Police thought she was “High on some sort of drug” but she denies this.
8. On March 10, 2024, mother returned to the basement apartment but left before police attended.
9. On March 28, 2024, mother returned again to the property and refused to leave as she saw items that belonged to her and the father; such as, barbeques, bags of shoes and children’s clothing. She did not have a cell phone and had nowhere to stay. The police took her to a shelter.
10. From March to May 2024, mother had no place to live. She left her wallet at the apartment from which they were evicted. She did not have a cell phone and could not find Marlon. She went to Cochrane, about an 18 hours drive. She returned to Toronto briefly and then back to Cochrane. She did not say who drove her. She said she tried to get housing in Cochrane but then came back to Toronto. She could not connect with father.
11. During this time (March to May 2024), she connected (as a crown ward) with her CAS support worker for some money in order to get to and from visits. She testified that she was struggling for about two months.
12. On March 29, 2024, mother said she fell asleep on the bus and the police woke her up. She refused to leave. She was having a hard time because she could only go to the shelter during the day and had no bed. She recalled the police saying they didn’t need to charge her but she said it was “okay”. She pled guilty to the assaults on the TTC police and has a 12 months’ probation order.
13. Now mother feels more secure with her housing and more financially stable. She is calmer now.
14. On February [xx], 2025, her new baby, E, was born. At the hospital, mother admitted to smoking cigarettes, using marijuana, and having “70 standard drinks of alcohol a week”. Mother denies this now. The hospital record shows normal delivery and mother with a diagnosis of “psychosis”. Mother denies the hospital note that she had no prenatal care. She said that she just found out in mid-January that she was pregnant, and she went 4 or 5 times to a clinic. She was scheduled to have blood work done in 3 or 4 weeks.
15. Mother explained the incident in June 2024 at Sunny’s Sport Bar. She said that she was the victim of someone stealing and using her debit card. She was not drinking but had gone into Sunny’s to order some take out food. She had also ordered food from the Chinese restaurant in the same plaza. When she went to the Chinese restaurant, she could see on her phone that someone was using her debit card at Sunny’s so she returned there and demanded her card. The police were called. These charges are still outstanding.
16. Neither mother nor father have any family supports. Mother says she was put into care of the society at a young age. She doesn’t speak to her siblings and her father lives in Europe. The paternal grandmother lives in Toronto and the paternal grandfather has a new partner and lives in Hamilton.
17. Mother says that she had no difficulty managing three children when they were in her care: A, B, and C.
18. Mother does not think C has any behaviour issues except for normal temper tantrums. She believes that the foster mother is overwhelmed.
19. Mother has gone a few times to visit the receptionist for the ABA program in Scarborough - she said she went to Markham and Sheppard.[7] The family will also go to Strides for services. Until funding is approved, the parents can pay the $100 to $200 per session.
20. Mother has also visited the local public school near their apartment. This school can accommodate autistic children with support staff.
21. Mother says that A had perfect school attendance in Haliburton but doesn’t explain the 90 days missed when they returned to Toronto.

[64] Father testified and the following is a summary of his evidence:

1. Father spoke about the steps he has taken to obtain approval of his application for the tax benefit for the period when A lived with the mother and him. He expects to receive between $17,000 and $20,000.
2. Since the last order of 6 months interim society care was made in April 2024, he has made a lot of changes:
   • He has stable housing since February 2025.
   • He is on time the last two months and regular for visits.
   • He has taken a parenting course and has learned to manage all three children. Some tips he has learned are: let the child explore; don’t overreact; and provide comfort time. He has experience with his older children.
   • Conflict with the mother has been reduced: he is humbler and has tried to merge his ideals with the mother’s ideals; they “have a lot of differences.”
   • He has never had an issue with alcohol or drugs; mother doesn’t drink.
   • He used to have 2 or 3 jobs and took an apprenticeship training course in dry cleaning.
3. A missed a lot of school. Father was in conflict with KB, A’s mother. When they moved to Toronto, KB was in a shelter and he gave her day visits with A. She would withhold A and he had to call the police 3 times.
4. In Toronto, A was sick a lot and father would homeschool him.
5. Father appreciates now the importance of attending school: “attending is 50% of the mark”. Father also wonders now whether the 90 days of school absences may have included “lates”.
6. It is not true that stepmother physically disciplined A. She read to him and made his lunch and they would “horse around”.
7. Regarding mother’s mental health, he said that stress is real. She is not crazy but has basic stressors like everyone. He thinks she could handle some stressful situations better than she does.
8. From March until May of 2024, when mother was missing, she had lost everything. She had no housing, was staying a motel and she was stressed.
9. Father agreed that mother’s prenatal care before E was minimal. She had an ultrasound and went three times to a walk-in clinic. She was supposed to do the bloodwork.
10. Father has been evicted for non-payment of rent twice before the March 2024 eviction: once in 2020 when he owed $3870; and in 2010 when his first wife left him and he owed about $4500. He disputes the March 2024 eviction that he was behind more than a few months and he disputes that he had notice.
11. Father says he has “plenty of children”:
    1. J who is 34 years old by mother Angie,
    2. J, who is 33 years old by mother Sofie,
    3. M who is 18 years old by mother Agalia,
    4. M, who is 17 years old, by mother Agalia,
    5. A, by KB, and
    6. four children with this mother.
12. Father does not really see the older children now as he is focused on the young ones.
13. Father has not seen A in more than 6 months for father’s “own protection” but when this case is over he will bring a motion to get him back.
14. He will get a larger apartment in a year or two if the children come back.
15. He has not paid child support in awhile and may have some arrears owing. He has an agreement with the 17 year old’s mother.
16. Father does not want to disclose his plans for the child tax benefit arrears that he will receive soon.
17. From 2019 until 2024, he had police come to his home 6 times following domestic violence allegations. He pled guilty to slapping the mother of A but he now denies ever doing that. He has explanations for the police calls about disputes with mother ranging from – it wasn’t an argument just a noise complaint to it was malicious third party hearsay.
18. Of the four complaints to the police about violence with mother in July 2021, he denies all concerns.
19. His friend Kerry was not a girl friend as they were just dating at the time. She said father punched her and he denies that. In that Occurrence report, father told the police he had been drinking and they were just arguing.
20. When asked about the period from July until November of 2023, when the society could not reach the family, he said he did see a card from the worker and saw something taped to his door in August.
21. Father is surprised by the struggles that the foster mother has in managing B and C. He has never had any difficulty. He agrees that he has only had them for 90 minutes and then 2 hours for the younger two.

D. Evidentiary Rulings

D.1 Issue of A’s hearsay statements in Statements of Agreed Facts (SAF)

[65] Counsel for mother and father argues that the statements by A, relied upon in the Statements of Agreed Facts to support a finding in need of protection for A and for B and C, are hearsay and inadmissible. He submits that they cannot be relied upon for the truth that A’s stepmother (the mother of B, C, and D) physically disciplined A.

[66] It is undisputed that the SAF from A’s proceeding is evidence of past parenting of another child by the same parents as in this proceeding. See section 93 of the Act.

[67] It is undisputed that the parents do not wish to go behind the findings made by the court both in this proceeding but also in the proceeding about A.

[68] The finding for A was under subsections 74(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and (b)(i) and (ii) of the Act:

Child in need of protection

(2) A child is in need of protection where,

(a) the child has suffered 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;

(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;

[69] A Statement of Agreed Facts should have enough information to set out the basis for the protection finding (where applicable) and the disposition. This is an important document that aids the court in addressing subsequent proceedings, like this Status Review Application. The Court must have a proper understanding as to the factual basis of the resolution of the prior proceeding, to assess the ongoing issues in the case.

[70] Counsel for the parents points to the decision in Children’s Aid Society of Huron County v R.G., 2003 ONCJ 68691, where the court found a litany of past facts or non-facts in one of these documents and expressed concerns. The issues in that case are not a concern in this case because:

1. No other facts in the three Statements are criticized;
2. There has been no “rush to resolve” a prior proceeding;
3. The SAF’s in question were reviewed and accepted by the court; and
4. Both parents had counsel when the April 10, 2024 orders were made based on the SAF’s, including one SAF that referenced A’s disclosure.

[71] The details of A’s initial statement to his biological mother is contained in the August 2023 SAF: he was hurt by stepmother, stepmother and father argue, and he was afraid in their home.

[72] A summary of that disclosure is given in the SAF of April 10, 2024, where the facts are being used as past parenting evidence.

[73] The only evidence of A coming to physical harm is his statements to his mother which were not disputed by the parties who participated at the time nor when it was used as past parenting evidence in the SAF for B and C.

[74] These statements must be taken as accepted for the truth of the contents. The findings made by the court were based upon those facts. The court is not prepared to go behind them now.

D.2 Legal Framework for children’s hearsay statements

[75] Where a previous order was made on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, the society may tender additional evidence. This accords with the reality that prior consents may have limited facts due to the parties’ desire to move the case forward without contention. See: Durham CAS v. B.R., 2005 ONSC 32199.

[76] The society seeks to tender additional statements by A to the workers, as indicated in bold above.

[77] The essential defining features of hearsay are the fact that it is an out of court statement adduced to prove the truth of its contents and the absence of a contemporaneous ability to cross-examine the statement.

[78] It was agreed that a voir dire would be held to determine the admissibility of these statements on the following terms:

• The voir dire would be restricted to child statements made to the two society workers
• The evidence on the voir dire will be applied to the trial proper, subject to admissibility rulings.
• It was agreed that the voir dire would be restricted to the issue of the threshold reliability of the child's statements. The necessity element of the principled hearsay exception was met.

[79] The court heard evidence from the two society workers on the voir dire. They were both cross-examined. Apart from denials, the parents did not comment on the voir dire evidence.

The Principled exception

[80] Hearsay is presumptively inadmissible unless it falls within a traditional exception or if indicia of reliability and necessity are established on a voir dire (the principled exception).

[81] Child hearsay can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, using the principled approach of establishing reasonable necessity and threshold reliability as set out in R. v. Khan, 1990 SCC 77.

Necessity

[82] The first question to be determined is whether the reception of the hearsay statement is reasonably necessary. At paragraph 31 in Khan, the Supreme Court of Canada said that,

"The inadmissibility of the child's evidence might be one basis for a finding of necessity. But sound evidence based on psychological assessments that testimony in court might be traumatic for the child or harm the child might also serve. There may be other examples of circumstances which would establish requirement of necessity."

[83] The test for necessity is not whether the hearsay statement is the best form of the evidence (for that will always be live testimony), but whether it is the "best available form" in the circumstances. See: R. v. Couture, 2007 SCC 28.

[84] In this case, the parties did not dispute necessity.

Reliability

[85] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S., 2018 ONCJ 124, the court discusses the principled approach:

• Child hearsay can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, using the principled approach of establishing necessity and reliability as set out in R. v. Khan, 1990 SCC 77.
• The court in Khan set out many considerations to assess reliability, such as timing, demeanour, the personality of the child, the intelligence and understanding of the child, and the absence of any reason to expect fabrication in the statement. There is not a strict list of considerations for reliability. The matters relevant to reliability will vary with the child and with the circumstances.
• In determining the issue of reliability, the legal test for the court to apply at a voir dire involving child statements is whether the circumstances surrounding the statements achieve threshold reliability -- not whether the statements are ultimately reliable. The question for threshold reliability is whether the particular statement is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. See: R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57.

[86] Threshold reliability is not established just because a child gives a statement to a child protection worker. In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.G., 2018 ONCJ 193, the court set out a list of questions that should be asked as follows:

• The experience of the workers.
• The training of the workers in interviewing children.
• The workers’ practice in note-taking and whether that practice was followed in the child interviews.
• Were the statements recorded contemporaneously?
• Did the workers record their questions that they asked the child?
• Did the workers ask leading questions?
• Were the child’s statements spontaneous or prompted?
• Did the child provide detailed and coherent statements?
• Did the child have any motivation to fabricate the statements?
• Did the timing of any of the statements arouse suspicion about their validity?
• Were the child’s statements consistent over a period of time?
• Is there evidence corroborating the child’s statements?
• What is the level of maturity of the child?
• What is the intelligence and level of understanding of the child?
• Where was the child interviewed? Was there any reason to believe that the location of the interview influenced the child’s statements?
• Were the visits private? Were any other adults nearby during the interview?
• What is the nature of the workers’ relationship with the child? Is the child open and candid with them?

[87] On the threshold test of reliability, it is not necessary that the judge be satisfied on each and every potential indicator of reliability. Weaknesses in some areas may be compensated for by strength in others. See: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. L. (L.), 2001 ONSC 28153; Children's Aid Society, Region of Halton v. L. (T.D.L.D.S.), 2015 ONCJ 255.

State of Mind Exception

[88] The basic requirements for the state of mind exception are:

• a statement asserting a condition or state
• the statement must comprise a contemporaneous physical, mental or emotional state of the declarant
• the statement may not describe the cause of the state, whether it be past or present events
• the mental state can include a person’s present intention to do a future act
• the statement must not be made under circumstances of suspicion.

The court, for example, permits child’s counsel to express children’s views and preferences as state of mind hearsay exceptions. See: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (Elliott Lake) v. P.C.-F., 2017 ONCJ 898.

[89] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S., 2018 ONCJ 124, the court found that the state of mind hearsay exception includes a child’s wishes and preferences and statements made by the child about his or her physical, mental and emotional state. The statements must assert a contemporaneous physical, mental or emotional state. They cannot include the reason for the child’s statement and should not be made under circumstances of suspicion. The court admitted child statements to show child’s views and preferences about where she wanted to live and how much access she wanted with her father; her feelings about living with her aunt; feelings about her access with the father; feelings about pressure father was placing on her; statements about her stress level, her pride in her school performance and how she was sleeping and eating for state of mind.

[90] In N.P. v. D.B., 2019 ONCJ 291, the court admitted statements for state of mind regarding views and preferences about where the children wished to live and what school they wish to attend, statements made regarding fear of the father and his wife, statements regarding conflict between the parents and any statements regarding their fears, anxiety and worries would fit into this category.

D.3 Hearsay Statements by A to the Intake Worker:

May 11, 2023 Statement:

1. On May 11, 2023, this worker met in the home with the parents and A, B, and C. The home had clothes and toys on the floor throughout the one bedroom and the hall, kitchen and living room. There were boxes throughout the apartment and the parents explained they were just unpacking after the apartment was fumigated for bedbugs (the parents clarified it was for cockroaches). Mother said she had been up north when she was arrested for outstanding warrants. Father, too, had outstanding warrants and turned himself in to police on May 6th. He was released the next day.
2. This worker interviewed A in the presence of the father in the living room. A said he was 7 years old and in grade 2. He took the school bus to school. He said: that his parents argue with each other[8], as recently as “yesterday or the day before.”

May 17, 2023 Statement

3. On May 17, 2023, this worker went to A’s school and reviewed his attendance record: he was absent 90 days between September 2022 and May 2023, while in the care of the parents. She interviewed A at the school and he indicated: His mother brought him to the home of father and step-mother. Before entering the apartment, they heard the parents arguing and listened at the door. His mother called the police.

June 1, 2023 Statement

4. On June 1, 2023, this worker met with the parents to discuss the bruise found on A’s leg and his disclosures that stepmother grabbed him and hit him. The parents admitted to arguing but denied stepmother ever hit the child. They said the bruise may have been caused from rough-housing or playing.

5. On June 6, 2023, this worker interviewed A at school. A said:

   (a) He was not good. He did not like the father and stepmother arguing. They would also punch and choke each other. His dad told him not to tell. He did not want to go back to dad’s.

   (b) Stepmother would grab him by the neck. It hurt. I asked if this happened often and he said yes. He was outside when stepmother grabbed him by the front of his jacket and dragged him into the house. He fell on the floor and the jacket ripped.

   (c) Stepmother punches him on the leg. When asked if he play fights with stepmother, he said no.

   (d) He said his father drinks every day and night and then fights with stepmother.

   (e) He wants to live with his mom or anyplace but the father’s.

   (f) He began to cry and said he was afraid of the fighting and that he would get into trouble. Stepmother would hit him. Dad would not hit him.

[91] This worker had received the child interview training and a refresher course. She records her notes within 24 hours. She has many years of experience. In cross-examination she became flustered about the difference between leading and open ended questions. This factor becomes less important when placed in context with other factors.

[92] The father was present for the May 11th interview and the fact that the parents argue was already admitted by father and the stepmother. This applies to the May 17th interview as well. These statements are therefore corroborated by the parents.

[93] By June 6th, the child is so comfortable with this witness that he essentially blurts out immediately that he is not good. He is also in a very neutral and private setting at school. His statements about arguments, fighting and grabbing him by the neck are consistent with the earlier statements. He has complained to his mother and already been interviewed by HSC and the police. Neither the worker nor the child have any agenda for lying. The worker suggests an alternate explanation for the bruise and he says they do not play fight.

[94] The worker’s direct observation that the child began to cry is not hearsay.

[95] The child’s statements about:

1. where he wants to live
2. not feeling good and
3. about being fearful

fall under the “state of mind” exception outlined above and are admissible.

[96] The court finds that the remaining statements to this worker have achieved threshold reliability for admission for the truth of their contents due to:

a) Their consistency over time,
b) The experience and note taking practice of the worker; the notes were taken contemporaneously, or soon after the statements were made,
c) There was no reason to fabricate, as the child was already placed with his mother, and
d) The statements were consistent with the demeanour of the child.

Hearsay Statements by A to the Family Service Worker

March 21, 2024

[97] On March 21, 2024, this worker interviewed A at his mother’s home. He was excited to show her his room and seemed happy to see her. He appeared to speak freely. He said that “dad drinks beer and at times has a bottle in his jacket.”

[98] This worker was also trained in all aspects of interviewing children. She is a very experienced worker. She records her notes within 24 hours. She was asking the child open ended questions about his visits with father. Mother is not opposed to visits. (see SAF, Exhibit 1, Tab 7) The child was comfortable and happy.

[99] In cross examination, it became clear that mother was in an adjoining room with another child and could possibly hear parts of this interview. She added a comment about father’s drinking.

[100] There is no evidence that the worker had any reason to fabricate or exaggerate the drinking issue. The child has no reason to fabricate. He has also voiced concerns in the past about his biological mother. He appears to be an honest and forthright child.

[101] The arguments of the father and stepmother have really bothered this child. The drinking could lead to arguing (as father states to the police) and this child is very sensitive to this issue.

[102] The court will admit this statement for the truth of its contents, as it fits within the principled hearsay exception.

In the alternative: the child’s relationship with father and stepmother

[103] Child statements can be admitted for purposes other than the truth of their contents.

[104] If the court hadn't admitted the child statements for the truth of their contents, it would have admitted the statements that the child made about the father and stepmother for the purpose of demonstrating the nature of his relationship with them. The statements the child is making, whether true or not, are indicative of a damaged relationship the child has with the father and stepmother.

D.4 Record of Landlord and Tenant Hearing

[105] The society filed the record from the Landlord and Tenant Tribunal. This tribunal evicted mother from the Haliburton residence for illegal activity. Mother claimed she had no notice of the eviction and sought a review. A review was granted. Mother had difficulty joining the second part of the Tribunal review hearing by video and the eviction was upheld.

[106] Mother disputes that she was conducting illegal activity on the premises. She reported the neighbours to the police for breaking into her unit and conducting drug business. She argues that her charges were ultimately withdrawn so this report should be excluded from the evidence in this hearing.

[107] The court accepts that mother’s charges were withdrawn. The term “illegal activity” could also apply to any of the mother’s guests in her home. (see LTB | How a Landlord Can End a Tenancy ; Tribunalsontario.ca) It is uncertain when the mother started to reject the company of her neighbours. It is unclear how much time mother was actually spending in this unit.

[108] The court accepts mother’s argument that the illegal activity was not hers.

[109] The court also appreciates that this is one more example of mother being, possibly unwittingly, implicated in illegal and unsavoury activities.

E. Analysis

E.1 Credibility and Reliability:

[110] Mother's narratives are often inconsistent both in her retelling and with other sources of information; such as police records, both TPS and OPP, and hospital records.

[111] Mother admits to and clearly has memory lapses.

[112] Mother's episodes on Pharmacy and on the bluffs, as reported by the police and hospital records, indicate periods of time when she is not in touch with reality.

[113] Father presents his case by making bald denials. He gives narratives to the court and society that are inconsistent with numerous police records and the observations of the workers from various societies, dating back to 2019.

[114] The whereabouts of the parents together and individually have been unknown for periods of time in the recent past; both before and during the temporary supervision order. Mother was also out of touch with the society while the children were in care for a few months in the spring of 2024.

[115] Until very recently, the parents could not arrive for visits on time. The parents have no children living with them presently.

[116] The parents are neither credible nor reliable.

[117] The society workers presented their evidence in a very straight forward manner. It was detailed and consistent.

[118] The family worker had little contact with the parents outside of the visits because they avoided her.

[119] The society obtained records from two police services and a hospital in order to verify their information.

[120] The parents worked hard at evading the society generally.

[121] The three workers who observed access visits were very child focused and made every attempt to be sympathetic to the parents. Two of the children demand close supervision and active intervention.

[122] The intake worker was worried about the children because she couldn’t find the family.

[123] The workers presented as very credible and reliable.

[124] The foster mother was a remarkable witness in her colourful details and her candour. She presented as very caring with a great deal of energy and creative ideas to manage her very challenging situation.

[125] Where the evidence of the parents conflicts with the evidence of the society, the court accepts the society version of events.

E.2 Strengths of the Parents

[126] The parents love their children.

[127] In the past two months, the parents have attended visits on time. They claim to be trying to obtain a third weekly visit with baby E.

[128] The parents have also moved into a clean one bedroom apartment.

E.3 Mother’s mental Health

[129] Both mother and father deny that mother has any mental health issues. Father says that he can understand why people might think that of mother because she does not handle stress well. He has been working with her on that.

[130] On April 28, 2023, the police describe mother as "manic". Hospital records describe mother as having psychosis.

[131] The descriptions of mother’s behaviour and statements to various police officers and doctors have led to several involuntary hospital admissions in recent years.

[132] There are numerous examples of mother placing herself in dangerous situations.

[133] There are numerous examples of mother not knowing her own name, describing her own actions as those of another person, and not knowing where she is. She has an assumed name that she prefers to her own.

[134] Mother’s condition has been untreated for many years now.

[135] Father shows no insight into mother’s condition. He prefers to minimize or simply deny her dangerous actions.

E.4 Parenting History

[136] Mother and father’s parenting history has consistently included concerns about: inadequate care, physical discipline, adult conflict, inattention to regular and required medical care for children; inattention to school attendance, and failure to take steps to identify children’s developmental needs.

[137] Despite their complete denials of any concerns, the court records alone indicate very serious parenting concerns noted by 5 children’s aid societies: Kawartha Haliburton, Highland Shores, Native Child and Family services, and both Toronto children’s aid societies. All of the children have come to the attention of local children’s aid societies from shortly after birth.

E.5 Domestic Violence

[138] Father has a criminal history of family violence with past female partners and with this mother.

[139] Mother has also been convicted of assault on father.

[140] The parents have been the subject of numerous calls to local police for suspected violence in the home.

[141] Conflict in the home has been cited in every Statement of Agreed Facts relied upon for court orders for these children and for A.

[142] The parents admit to arguing.

[143] The impact of domestic violence on children is so damaging that this factor has been added to family legislation as a mandatory consideration for the court.

[144] In the face of this extensive pattern of behaviour, the parents make bald denials.

E.6 Stability

[145] The parents lack any meaningful stability in their lives.

[146] Housing is a minor but important feature of this instability. They have moved numerous times. They have struggled with paying rent and keeping their accommodation at even a very minimal standard.

[147] The parents have no professional supports. Having denied any concerns, they have not sought any treatment or mental health supports.

[148] The parents are not connected to any community support.

[149] The parents have no family or friend supports.

[150] Mother has been observed to roam the highways between many southern towns and even a few northern Ontario communities.

[151] The parents have no one to help them build roots or a family foundation.

[152] Parents who lack capacity in some areas can often parent successfully with supports and stability. The key is to recognize the need and to accept the help.

E.7 Cooperation:

[153] The parents do not have a history of cooperation with local professionals or the children’s aid societies.

[154] In person or on the phone, the parents can be very polite and promise whatever is asked of them. They will purposely mislead people who are trying to find them or help them. There is no follow through.

[155] There are several significant gaps in time when the society could not locate the parents and/or the children. At the time, the children were very young and not seen in the community.

[156] When the children were brought into care by the court, the court noted that the parents had not complied with any of the court ordered terms of supervision.

[157] For most of the scheduled visits, the children waited for the parents, who were late.

E.8 Parents’ Plans

[158] Father has applied to the Canada Revenue Agency for a retroactive payment of child tax credit for the year that A lived with him. He expects to receive maybe close to $30,000.

[159] When this case is finished, father plans to seek a review of A’s custody order with his biological mother, KB, and get his son back. He has not seen A in more than 6 months.

[160] The parents have identified local schools and resources for B’s autism. The week before court, however, mother couldn’t remember the name of the school or daycare.

[161] The parents’ description of the children in their affidavit is quite detailed. They know their favourite colours and toys and foods.

[162] The parents believe they have made many changes by:

• Attending visits on time since March 11, 2025;
• Obtaining a one bedroom apartment in February, 2025;
• Not having a third party report domestic violence or conflict in the home;
• Asking the local walk-in clinic if mother has a mental health issue; and
• Proposing a comprehensive supervision order and plan that includes tremendous cooperation, transparency, mental health assessment, and resources for the children.

[163] The parents denied they had any real housing instability, despite many moves, as the evictions in their view were not legal.

[164] The parents denied any substance abuse issues: despite many police reports where the parents acknowledge drinking and mother reports to medical staff that she is a marijuana user. SAFs report substance abuse dating back for years.

[165] The parents deny any past conflict; again, in the face of numerous police reports, a conviction for father, and outstanding charges for mother. The parents claim that third parties were being malicious or the complaint is for noise not abuse. The SAF’s confirm concerns about domestic violence dating back for years. A is afraid to be around them.

E.9 The Society's Plan

[166] The society has an obligation to pursue permanency planning for all of the children should they be placed in their extended society care.

[167] Pursuant to section 35 of the Act, children's aid societies are tasked with a number of functions, including the investigation of allegations that children may be in need of protection, and the protection of children. Part of their mandate is to provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or to prevent circumstances requiring the protection of children. Children's aid societies are also required to adequately supervise, when required to do so. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. T.T.L., 2019 ONCJ 530.

[168] In accordance with section 1(2) of the CYFSA, the Society has a duty to consider and provide services, including early intervention services and community support services. The services are to build on the family's strengths. The Society is also to provide clear expectations to the family to assist them to address the issues before the Court. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.R., 2018 ONCJ 288.

[169] The society attempted to make referrals and suggest community supports but the parents were often very difficult to find or to contact. The parents also denied they really needed any supports.

[170] There have been numerous facilitated conferences about the children: plans of care meetings and access conferences.

[171] While in foster care, the children have benefited from these services:

• children service workers,
• foster homes,
• specialized resource workers,
• health specialist,
• specialized care for B including a pre-school program, speech therapy and occupational therapy;
• daycare for C, and
• medical care for all three children; including immunizations.

[172] The society has brought this application pursuant to section 113 of the Act. The society filed, and the court considered, the society’s plan of care pursuant to section 100 of the Act. That plan is consistent with the position it took in this case.

[173] Section 114 of the Act provides that where a status review application is made under section 113, the court may, in the child’s best interests, vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 101 (1), make a further order under subsection 101 (1) or make an order under section 102 of the Act.

E.10 The Children

[174] Each child has very unique qualities:

1. B is described as a sweet and affectionate little boy. He is full of energy and is often jumping, running, or climbing. He loves music. B is a very picky eater, which is not unusual for children with autism, according to his worker. His foster mother has worked with B to steer him toward healthier eating habits. Through therapy and practice, B has learned to communicate well using gestures and can now imitate some action, such as stacking. He continues to make very few speech sounds. He also has a fixation on putting non-food items in his mouth and chewing them. He requires therapy, close supervision, routines, and patience.
2. C is a very bright verbal little two year old. She is strong-willed and able to articulate her wants and needs. She loves to be the centre of attention and will protest when she is not. She loves music and is often singing to herself. She appears to be meeting most of her milestones. She speaks in full sentences of 4 to 5 words and can follow two step directions. There is a continuing concern about her tantrums. Daycare has helped somewhat with this regulation.
3. D is a friendly outgoing and strong willed toddler. She appears to be meeting her milestones. She is walking and can use several words. She loves singing and dancing and laughs loudly. She is happy and comfortable.

E.11 Best Interests of the Children

Physical mental and emotional level of development and needs:

[175] B clearly has very special needs. He requires active management and close supervision.

[176] C, also, is a difficult child to manage. The parents do not “see” these behaviours or challenges. At one point father suggested that the problem was the foster mother.

[177] The foster mother’s daily management of these two children illustrates an incredible challenge for even a very experienced foster mother with many supports.

[178] D appears to be developing normally. She is a happy comfortable toddler.

Importance of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of the family:

[179] All children deserve a secure position in a caring family. When admitted to care, neither B nor C could be said to have such a relationship. Neither parent really “saw” each of these children and did not meet their needs.

[180] The parents do not appreciate the lack of care they provided to the children.

[181] The court is also mindful of how A was treated in the home: never taken to school and being afraid.

Relationships with other family members:

[182] Both parents appear to be isolated in the community. Despite having many other children, father does not have a regular consistent relationship with those children. Extended family members, including father’s parents in the greater Toronto area, do not appear to be supportive of this couple or their children.

[183] Mother has gone to the home of a former foster parent from time to time.

Delay

[184] Delay is a very serious issue in this case. The Act stipulates that children under the age of 6 should not be in temporary care for longer than a year. These children are far in excess of that limitation.

[185] A permanent plan is absolutely essential.

The importance of continuity:

[186] These children have had their most consistent care since coming into the care of the society.

Risk of harm:

[187] To return to the home that was not able to meet their needs in the past would be to repeat the risks of the past for these children.

[188] Neither parent has any track record of continuous care for children. Every day is a struggle for this mother to manage her own life.

[189] Father has many schemes. Few, if any, come to fruition.

E.12 Conclusions on Disposition

[190] It is not in these children’s best interests to be returned to the care of their parents; in particular, because:

a) The parents have just been able to look after themselves in the past few months.
b) The parents profess to have made many changes since the children were admitted to care; but without acknowledging the original concerns, the changes are much less meaningful.
c) Mother has been pregnant five times since meeting this father in 2020, when she was 19 years old. She lost one child in a miscarriage.
d) One of the children has very special needs, requiring experienced caregivers, family support, clear and consistent community resources and routines.
e) C may also require a developmental assessment.
f) The parents have no ability to meet these needs.
g) The parents have not been able to work with clinics and doctors. The children were not immunized.
h) The parents have no track record of providing routines and structure for their children.
i) The parents were unable to comply with the terms of a temporary supervision order. For the court to make a supervision order, it would need to be confident that they would comply with the order. See: Windsor-Essex CAS v. L.H., 2004 ONCJ 196 and my comments in Jewish Family and Child Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.R., 2024 ONCJ 233.
j) The parents have no track record of working constructively with community supports or schools. When professionals try to engage with the parents, they run or hide.
k) The children are very young: 4, 2, and one year of age. They could easily not be seen in the community.
l) The history of parenting is very poor. The risk to the children of returning them to the parents would be very high - emotionally and physically - too high.
m) The parents have run out of time to experiment with one or more of these children. The children have now been in care for 18 months, B and C since November of 2023 and D since December 2023, well beyond the statutory limit and without the probabilities for success that any extension might give them.
n) The combination of blanket denials, little innate parenting capacity, isolation, and mental health issues is an almost overwhelming challenge.

[191] The court has also considered that the parents are only having supervised access with the children. It would be irresponsible for a court to return the children to them until they could demonstrate that they could adequately parent the children without supervision for extended periods. This would be a lengthy process. Even in the best-case scenario, the court could not place the children with them without first testing whether they could adequately parent the children, first, on a fully unsupervised basis, second for full days, and third, for overnight visits. This process would need to take place for at least 6 to 9 months for the court to effectively evaluate whether a return of a child was viable. There is a huge difference between managing a child in a structured setting for a short period of time and caring for a child without supports on an extended basis. The time to attempt extended access in this manner has long passed.

[192] It is in the children’s best interests to be placed in the extended care of the society.

F. Post Extended Society Care Access -

F.1 Legal Framework

[193] Subsection 105 (4) states that where the court makes an order that a child be in extended society care, any order for access is terminated.

[194] Subsection 105 (5) sets out that in considering the issue of access to a child in extended society care, the best interests of the child is the test. The court may not order access to such a child unless it is satisfied that the order would be in the child’s best interests.

[195] The best interests considerations are set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act.

[196] Subsection 105 (6) of the Act sets out additional factors to be considered in determining whether an access order would be in the best interests of a child in extended society care. These are:

a) whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and
b) if the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.

[197] The Act does not preclude the court from making an access order if these criteria are not met. They are only two of many criteria to be considered in the ultimate determination of best interests. Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. B.P and B.W., 2018 ONSC 4371.

[198] In Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316 the Court of Appeal wrote the following:

a) The changes to the access test are significant (par. 47).
b) The changes are not just semantics. They represent a significant shift in the approach to access for children in extended society care (par. 48).
c) The burden is no longer on the person requesting access to demonstrate that the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child and will in no way impair the child’s future adoption opportunities (par. 49).
d) Instead, the court is to undertake a best interests analysis, assess whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and consider impairment to future adoption opportunities only as part of this assessment and only where relevant (par. 49).
e) This means that it is no longer the case that a parent who puts forward no evidence will not gain access (par. 49).
f) Similarly, while any evidence of possible impairment to adoption opportunities would have thwarted previous requests for access, under the new Act, access is to be ordered for a child with otherwise excellent adoptive prospects if it is in her overall best interests (par. 49).
g) The court should reference the best interest considerations in subsection 74 (3) of the Act in making its decision (par. 53).
h) The “presumption against access” to “Crown Wards” test no longer exists (par. 53).

[199] In Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. K.B., 2018 ONCJ 650, Justice Sager stated that the new access test should be given a liberal and flexible interpretation, writing as follows:

• The introduction of the best interests test in the CYFSA brings a less rigid and more flexible approach to deciding whether to order access to a child placed in the extended care of the society, as a court is now permitted to give consideration to any factor it considers relevant, one can assume, on the well accepted principle in cases involving children that one size does not fit all.
• As the best interest analysis involves a consideration of what could be numerous factors, there cannot be a hard and fast rule as to how much weight a court must give any one factor including whether the relationship between the party seeking access and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child. That must be determined on a case by case basis, by weighing all the relevant factors against the particular needs of the child before the court. This is a significant departure from the rigid test in the predecessor legislation.
• For some children who are the subject of an order of extended society care, a relationship with a parent may be in their best interests for a myriad of reasons. Some of those reasons would not have been sufficient to demonstrate a beneficial and meaningful relationship under the predecessor legislation to the CYFSA. The court ought not be confined to a one-dimensional definition of beneficial and meaningful under the CYFSA, as to do so would be to potentially ignore the variety of needs children have as a result of being removed from their parents' care, both at the date of the order and in the future. For this reason, the test was altered in a significant way to one of best interests.

[200] This approach was endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA, in dealing with the interpretation of beneficial and meaningful in subsection 105 (6) of the CYFSA. The court set out the following:

a) Pre-CYFSA case law that provided a rigid definition of beneficial and meaningful is no longer applicable. This includes the requirement that access must be “significantly advantageous” for the child.
b) In considering whether a relationship is beneficial and meaningful the court can consider any factor, whether past, present or future. This would include the prospect of an openness order.
c) The child’s best interests clearly are not static. This is confirmed by the wording of s. 74(3) which requires the court to consider: (i) any other circumstance of the case; (ii) the child’s development of a positive relationship; (iii) continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; (iv) 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 [Emphasis added].
d) The underlined words all demand considerations that continue through time. There is simply nothing in the plain wording of the current Act to suggest that access should be decided without reference to the future.
e) The “beneficial and meaningful” test is not a separate pre-condition as it was before. Instead, it is a consideration within the context of the child’s best interests.
f) The new access test now permits the court to conduct a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of what is best for a child.
g) A child’s best interests in connection with future access involve a delicate weighing and balancing of multiple factors. It is not a fact-finding mission and the exercise is not assisted by determining what the onus is or where it lies.

The court concluded with these comments:

The CYFSA requires a new approach to determining access. I note too that access can come in many forms that depart from in-person visits. The exchange of gifts, emails, video chats or phone calls are all forms of access. The form and frequency of access should be tailored to the child’s specific needs and age-appropriate wishes.

[201] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866, based on the evidence of the society’s adoption worker, the court found the following to be general benefits for a child to making an access order after an order for extended society care:

a) It is very important for children to know their story, their history and where they come from.
b) Many children will want to search out their birth parents at adolescence if they have no contact. It can help them remove any fantasy about their birth parents and have a more realistic understanding of who they are.
c) It can help build a child’s identity – to know who they are.
d) It can help a child be more secure in where they’ve come from and where they are going. It might provide the child with a greater sense of security moving forward.
e) It helps the child understand their roots, heritage, culture and religion – about foods and events that are important in their culture.
f) It helps the child understand why decisions were made about them and why they live where they live. It can inform them that they were and are loved by the birth parent.
g) It promotes self-esteem and can help meet the emotional needs of the child.
h) It can provide the child with readier access to medical information. This can be very important if genetic concerns develop. This is also important information for the adoptive family to have.
i) It allows the adoptive family to reinforce the child’s ability to understand their story and their history.

[202] The phrase “impair the child’s future opportunity for adoption” means more than just impairing a child’s opportunity to actually be adopted. The impairment also applies to an undue delay in the child being adopted. To interpret this phrase otherwise would be contrary to the paramount purpose of the Act set out in subsection 1(1) – to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M.M., 2012 ONCJ 369; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.A.L., 2024 ONCJ 146.

[203] With a young child, impairment of the opportunity to be adopted will almost always be a relevant consideration. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866.

[204] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.F., 2015 ONCJ 678, the court set out the following attributes of persons who may impair a child’s future opportunities for adoption:

• [166] The first attribute is a difficulty with aggression, anger or impulse control. Persons with this attribute are often confrontational. This attribute may threaten the physical or emotional security of the adoptive parents and their family.
• [167] The second attribute is a lack of support for an alternate caregiver of the child. This might manifest itself in an undermining of the adoptive placement and the child’s sense of security with the adoptive family. Persons with this attribute may be relentlessly critical of the adoptive parents and make their lives very difficult. They are usually unable to accept their reduced role in the child’s life.
• [168] The third attribute is dishonesty and secrecy. Persons with this attribute can often not be trusted to comply with the terms of court orders or to accurately report any important issues about the child.
• [169] The fourth attribute is a propensity to be litigious. Persons with this attribute are usually unable to accept a reduced role in the child’s life and are likely to engage in openness litigation.

[205] A fifth attribute was added in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.P., 2019 ONCJ 631, being: a person with a mental health condition, substance abuse issues, transience or chaotic lifestyle. Persons with this background may be difficult to deal with and their personal issues may result in there being difficulty in making arrangements with them for contact and as a result dissuade adoptive parents.

[206] These attributes were accepted and applied as appropriate considerations in an appeal decision in JFCS v. E.K.B., 2019 ONSC 661.

[207] While many forms of access may deter future adoptive applicants, some other forms, such as cards and letters won’t, and will be ordered. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.J., 2014 ONCJ 221; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.B., 2013 ONSC 7087; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489.

[208] The challenge in making an access order for a child in extended society care is finding the fine balance between what will preserve a relationship in the best interests of the child and, at the same time, what will permit flexibility to allow the mental and emotional transition towards permanency by the child in their new adoptive home. See: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. J.B., 2017 ONSC 1194.

F.2 Beneficial and meaningful relationship

[209] The parents’ current access with the children has some positive attributes:

1. the parents can be warm and affectionate;
2. mother can regulate her voice to help calm the children;
3. the parents are polite with staff;
4. the parents make efforts to bring snacks and food for the children; and
5. the parents make efforts to engage the children in play.

[210] There are however concerns about the visits:

1. the parents do not accept or fully appreciate B’s limitations and needs;
2. already the parents are quick to explain away C’s temper tantrums as normal;
3. mother did not appreciate the importance of facial interaction with the baby, D;
4. mother did not originally know how to feed the baby; 5