Warning Notice
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice 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.
Case Information
DATE: June 25, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: 25-127-00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Debra Rosenberg, for the APPLICANT
APPLICANT
and -
Z.G.
Duty Counsel for the RESPONDENT FATHER
RESPONDENT FATHERand -
I.G.
Duty Counsel for the RESPONDENT PATERNAL AUNT
RESPONDENT PATERNAL AUNT
Douglas Millstone, for the OFFICE OF THE CHILDREN’S LAWYER, on behalf of the Children, T.G. and S.G.
HEARD: June 25, 2025
JUSTICE: J. Harris
Reasons for Judgment
[1] Today’s appearance was the return of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) motion related to medical decision-making including vaccinations, as set out in the CAST’s Notice of Motion, dated May 20, 2025, originally returnable May 26, 2025.
[2] On May 26, 2025, the relief sought in the Notice of Motion, dated May 20, 2025, was ordered on consent, with the exception of vaccinations, which the Father opposed.
[3] On May 26, 2025, the Father was granted an adjournment to file materials and the remainder of the motion was scheduled peremptory to today’s date.
Position of the Parties
[4] Today, the Father continues to oppose the Paternal Aunt having medical decision-making that includes the authority to consent to vaccinations. However, the Father has failed to file any materials despite an extension of the time for him to do so. As a result, the Father is seeking an additional adjournment today, despite the matter being set peremptory. The Father indicated that he requires an adjournment because he is struggling emotionally without providing any further information or evidence, such as a letter from a doctor.
[5] In his submissions, the Father indicated that he does not support vaccinating the Children and that he has long standing opposition to vaccinations, which he says were shared by the Children’s deceased Mother. He stated that he has done extensive research and is against vaccinations due to adverse reactions. The Father did not provide any evidence or submissions that would indicate that any of the Children had any specific medical concerns that would impact the Children receiving vaccinations.
[6] The CAST relies on the Affidavit of Krystal Harris, sworn May 20, 2025, and opposes the Father’s adjournment request.
[7] The Paternal Aunt consents to the relief sought by the CAST, and has filed an Affidavit, sworn June 6, 2025. The Paternal Aunt opposes the Father’s request for a further adjournment.
[8] The Paternal Aunt indicated that today is a graduation ceremony for one of the Children in her care and she was unable to stay for the court appearance. She also indicated that attending court is very stressful and she was seeking a lengthier return date to avoid court appearances this summer.
[9] The lawyer from the Office of the Children's Lawyer (“OCL”), who represents the two older Children, consents to the relief sought by the CAST and strenuously opposed a further adjournment. The two older Children are somewhat ambivalent towards vaccinations, but have a slight tilt in favour of receiving them, particularly with the application of a topical anesthetic.
Background Facts
[10] The Children’s mother passed away on September 21, 2024 under tragic and sudden circumstances. Allegedly, the parents had a very conflictual relationship marred by intimate partner violence.
[11] As a result of charges related to a Maternal Aunt and the Children, the Father is subject to a criminal release order which does not permit him to communicate with the Children except in the presence of the CAST or pursuant to a family court order. Additionally, the Father cannot be within 100 metres of where the Children live, work, go to school, frequent or are known to be, except for court appearances or in the presence of a third party designated by the CAST or pursuant to a family court order.
[12] On October 11, 2024, an application for decision-making responsibility and parenting time was commenced against the Father in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Newmarket) by the Maternal Aunt, who resided in York Region.
[13] On October 11, 2024, an emergency motion was heard, and Justice Himel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Newmarket) made a temporary without prejudice order placing the Children with their Maternal Aunt and returning the matter on October 17, 2024.
[14] On October 17, 2024, a temporary order was made by Justice Himel that the Children shall reside primarily with the Paternal Aunt, until otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the court.
[15] The Paternal Aunt resides in Toronto, which is also where the Children resided with their Mother.
[16] On October 17, 2024, the domestic matter was ordered to be transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice at 311 Jarvis Street, and a case conference was scheduled for November 14, 2024.
[17] The Children have resided with their Paternal Aunt since October 17, 2024.
[18] On October 23, 2024, the Paternal Aunt entered into a Kinship Care Agreement with the CAST for the Children.
[19] The Paternal Aunt learned that the Children did not have a medical provider or had ever received routine medical care, with the exception of hospital emergency room visits.
[20] None of the Children had been vaccinated for any vaccine-preventable illnesses.
[21] According to the Paternal Aunt, the Children were not vaccinated due to their parents’ concerns about vaccine safety and ideological reasons regarding modern medical practices.
[22] During the first three months that the Children resided with the Paternal Aunt, three of the Children became ill with a bad cough resulting in violent coughing fits that caused repeated vomiting. There were several visits to the emergency room of Michael Garron Hospital due to these illnesses, as well as complications including an ear infection and pneumonia.
[23] The medical team at Michael Garron Hospital suspected the Children had Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, which is a vaccine preventable disease.
[24] The Paternal Aunt arranged for the Children to be patients of Dr. Evangelia Papadouris (CPSO#23882), a pediatrician.
[25] Since the Children were placed in the Paternal Aunt’s care, she has received several and repeated recommendations by medical professionals that the Children be vaccinated.
[26] On March 4, 2025, the Protection Application was filed by the CAST. The child protection concerns include domestic violence, adult conflict, the Father’s mental health, and drug use.
[27] On March 28, 2025, the domestic matter was withdrawn by the Maternal Aunt, and all temporary orders were vacated.
[28] On March 28, 2025, the Children were placed in the care and custody of the Paternal Aunt, subject to the supervision of the CAST with terms and conditions, pursuant to a without prejudice temporary order made on consent. On that day, the Father still had counsel.
[29] Two of the Children sustained injuries (one caused by self-harm) where the DTaP vaccine against tetanus was recommended on an emergency basis, and the Paternal Aunt consented to it, and it was administered.
[30] On April 14, 2025, the Paternal Aunt asked for written assurance from the CAST that she could make all medical decisions for the Children, including vaccinations.
[31] On April 15, 2025, the matter was scheduled for a case conference. Neither the Father nor the Paternal Aunt attended court, both of whom are now self-represented. The Paternal Aunt was very ill, but the CAST worker raised the issue of medical decision making with the court that day. The Father was advised in the court’s endorsement that if he fails to participate and file his Answer and Plan of Care he may be noted in default and the case will continue without him. An extension was granted until May 23, 2025, for the Respondents to file their Answers/Plans of Care.
[32] On May 26, 2025, the relief sought in the CAST’s Notice of Motion, dated May 20, 2025, was ordered, on consent, except for medical decisions related to the Children receiving vaccinations, which was adjourned, on consent, because the Father opposed the relief sought and requested an opportunity to respond. The Paternal Aunt also requested an opportunity to file evidence in support of the Motion.
[33] The Respondents were granted until June 6, 2025, to file any responding evidence. The Respondents were also granted until June 23, 2025, to serve/file an Answer and Plan of Care.
[34] The CAST has no concerns with the Paternal Aunt’s ability to make medical decisions for the Children.
[35] The Paternal Aunt wishes to follow the advice of the Children’s physicians, medical community, and government public health guidelines and to make medical decisions including vaccinations for the Children.
[36] The Paternal Aunt is concerned about the health and safety of the Children as well as her own daughter who resides with her and is medically vulnerable to some extent. Additionally, it has been and will be very difficult to be the primary caregiver for the Children when they have prolonged and potentially severe illnesses.
Medical Decision-Making Including Consent to Vaccinations
[37] Since March 28, 2025, the Children have been placed with the Paternal Aunt pursuant to a temporary order under subsection 94(2)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”) on consent. The supervision terms do not specifically include a right to consent to medical treatment.
[38] This temporary motion and protection application are governed by the CYFSA. The paramount purpose of the CYFSA is “to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children”: Subsection 1(1) of the CYFSA.
[39] The CYFSA is remedial legislation and as such should be interpreted broadly with a view to achieving the paramount purposes: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415.
[40] Subsection 94(2) of the CYFSA states (emphasis added):
94(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;
[41] Subsection 94(6) of the CYFSA states (emphasis added):
94(6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2)(b) or (c) may impose,
(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision;
(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child’s parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and
(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.
[42] Moreover, on May 26, 2025, the parties consented to a temporary order that the Paternal Aunt could make medical decisions, excluding vaccinations.
[43] The issue for this motion is therefore specifically the issue of whether the medical decision-making term can also permit the Paternal Aunt to make medical decisions about vaccinations.
[44] When this motion was originally heard on May 26, 2025, the CAST made the submission that an order for medical decision making is unnecessary as a Paternal Aunt has the authority to make major medical decisions as a result of the Children being placed in their Paternal Aunt’s care and custody.
[45] However, the Paternal Aunt required a specific order to provide to the medical professionals involved with the Children and so a motion was brought.
[46] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.O., 2024 ONCJ 26, Justice Sherr described at paragraph 29 in the context of deciding “incidents of custody”, specifically international travel, within a temporary supervision order:
[29] Custody has been described as a “bundle of rights and obligations,” referred to as “incidents of custody”, which includes the right to physical care and control of the child, to determine the child’s residence, to discipline the child, and to make decisions about the child’s education, religion, medical care and general health and activities. See: Young v. Young, 49 R.F.L. (3d) 117 (S.C.C.); Chou v. Chou, [2005] O.J. No. 1374 (S.C.J.); Izyuk v. Langley, 2015 ONSC 2409.
[47] The court tends to agree with the submissions from the CAST generally, that a specific term permitting the Paternal Aunt to make medical decision seems unnecessary, as the Paternal Aunt has the Children in her temporary care and custody.
[48] However, in Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society v. M.L., 2025 ONCJ 228, Justice Neill held, as follows with respect to the medical decision making of a seven-month-old infant:
[33] … if the child is temporarily placed with kin pursuant to s. 94(2)(c), the kin cannot make medical decisions for the incapable child pursuant to s. 110. The terms of the temporary order placing the child with kin may authorize them to make medical decisions on behalf of the child so that they are a “person who is lawfully entitled to give or refuse consent to treatment in the place of a parent”, pursuant to s. 20 of the Health Care Consent Act.
[34] The parents are able to make medical decisions as they have a right of access to C.L. pursuant to s. 20(1) under the Health Care Consent Act.
[49] Therefore, a supervision term entitling the Paternal Aunt to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable child appears to be appropriate, to the extent any of the Children are incapable as contemplated by the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, which entitlement includes vaccination-related decisions.
[50] Additionally, the Paternal Aunt has indicated that the Children’s medical providers require this specific term.
[51] With respect to vaccinations specifically, the Court of Appeal for Ontario in J.N. v. C.G., 2023 ONCA 77 found as follows:
[29] It is unrealistic to expect parties to relitigate the science of vaccination and the legitimacy of public health recommendations, every time there is a disagreement over vaccines.
[44] … It is not the subject of dispute among reasonable people that Health Canada has, in the area of safety and efficacy of medical treatment, “special knowledge … going beyond that of the trier of fact”.
[45] Judicial notice should be taken of regulatory approval of a vaccine and regulatory approval, is a strong indicator of the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness…
[45] The respondent, as the parent seeking not to have the children vaccinated, had the onus to establish that, despite Health Canada’s opinion as to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness, they should not be.
[52] In B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2020 ONCJ 438, Justice Finlayson took judicial notice of the following facts at paragraphs 186-188:
[186] … Ontario’s publicly funded vaccines are safe and effective at preventing vaccine preventable diseases. Their widespread use has led to severe reductions or eradication of incidents of these diseases in our society.
[187] I take judicial notice of the harm to a child, flowing from contracting a vaccine preventable disease, may even include death.
[188] I find these facts to be so notorious as not to be the subject of dispute among reasonable persons. They are also capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resorting to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.
[53] The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that where one party seeks to have a child vaccinated in accordance with Health Canada approvals and recommendations, the onus is on the objecting party to show why the child should not receive the vaccination. This onus applies equally to prevent delaying vaccination in the context of an interim motion: S.E.T. v. J.W.T., 2023 ONSC 5416 (Div. Ct.), as cited in McGuire v. Tyrell, 2024 ONCJ 643.
[54] The court makes this decision for the following reasons:
- [a] It is consistent with the recommendations of the Children’s medical providers.
- [b] The evidence indicates the Paternal Aunt has made appropriate medical decisions throughout the time the Children have been placed with her.
- [c] Three of the Children are already suspected of suffering a vaccine-preventable disease, specifically, pertussis.
- [d] The lack of vaccination status and the potential for illness may impact the Children’s ability to remain in their placement with the Paternal Aunt, as the Paternal Aunt may be unable to care for Children if they have prolonged illnesses and the Paternal Aunt wishes to protect her own Child from exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases.
Access Remains at the Discretion of CAST
[55] The Father admitted to attempting to speak with S. at school while he was with the Paternal Grandmother, which is likely a breach of his criminal release order. No parties contacted the police.
[56] The Father is not to contact the Children directly or through another family member. All access to the Children by the Father is at the discretion of the CAST. The Father is encouraged to work with the CAST to arrange for access.
Next Steps
[57] The Respondents have a final extension to serve/file their Answers/Plans of Care by July 25, 2025.
[58] After July 25, 2025, the CAST has leave to file a 14B Motion seeking to note either or both the Respondents in default if they fail to file Answers/Plans of Care.
[59] The protection finding has not been made. If the protection finding is not made either on consent or default at the next appearance, a hearing date will be scheduled. The CAST is expected to circulate a Statement of Agreed Facts.
[60] This matter is not within the timetable stipulated by Rule 33(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. This matter requires resolution and will likely be scheduled for a settlement conference or final hearing at the next appearance.
[61] The matter has not been adjourned within 30 days in accordance with section 94(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1.
Orders
[62] The following orders are made today:
[a] On a temporary basis, in accordance with the relief sought in the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, Notice of Motion, dated May 20, 2025, including the consent to the Children’s vaccinations. Specifically, the Paternal Aunt shall have the ability to make medical decisions related to the Children, which includes the entitlement to give or refuse consent to treatment and vaccination-related decisions for the Children, in accordance with the advice of the Children’s physician as to the vaccines to be administered, and the manner and timing by which to administer the vaccinations.
[b] The matter is adjourned to September 3, 2025 at 12:00 p.m. by ZOOM.
[c] The Respondents are granted a further final extension to serve and file their Answers and Plans of Care by no later than July 25, 2025.
[d] Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to Children's Aid Society of Toronto counsel, the OCL and the Respondent parties.
Justice J. Harris