WARNING
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.
87(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.
87(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.
Court Information
Date: September 19, 2025
Court File No.: C40403/20
Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO
Applicant
- and -
N.M. and K.N.
Respondents
Counsel
Jodi Kaiman, for the Applicant
The Respondent N.M., Acting in Person
F. Nkiru Agbakwa, for the Respondent K.N.
Margarida Pacheco, on behalf of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, for the subject children, N and J
Hearing and Decision
Heard: September 17, 2025
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Reasons for Decision
Part One – Introduction
[1] The applicant, Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the society), has brought an amended notice of motion, within its protection application, seeking to place the subject children, N (age 11), J (age 7) and Z (age 4) (the children) in its temporary care and custody with access to their parents, N.M. (the mother) and K.N., (the father) to be in its discretion with respect to location, frequency, duration and the level of supervision.
[2] The society's motion is supported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (the OCL) on behalf of the children N and J. The child Z is not represented by counsel.
[3] The mother seeks a temporary order placing the children in her care and custody. In the alternative, she seeks generous parenting time with the children, including overnight visits.
[4] The father seeks a temporary order placing the children, or just N and J, in either the joint care and custody of the mother and him, or in his sole care. The parents plan to live together.
[5] In the further alternative, the father seeks an order that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of his sister (the paternal aunt).
[6] If any of the children are not placed in his care, the father seeks generous parenting time, including overnight visits with them.
[7] The court read four affidavits filed by the society workers and affidavits filed by the mother and the father. In addition, the mother prepared a detailed handwritten statement. She was sworn in and affirmed the truth of its contents. This formed part of her evidence on this motion.
[8] The mother was offered the opportunity of consulting with duty counsel prior to starting this hearing. She declined.
Part Two – Legal Considerations for Placement on a Temporary Care and Custody Hearing
[9] The legal test for the court to apply on a temporary care and custody motion is set out in subsections 94(2), (4), and (5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) that read as follows:
94(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;
(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; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
Criteria
(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2)(a) or (b).
Placement with relative, etc.
(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2)(d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to make an order under clause (2)(c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community.
[10] Subsection 94(11) of the Act states that before making an order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration a child's views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.
[11] The children were in the joint care of the parents before society intervention under Part V of the Act. This means the court cannot make an order under clause 94(2)(c) of the Act, unless the society meets the legal test set out in subsection 94(4) of the Act regarding both parents.
[12] The onus is on the society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the care of either parent, it is more probable than not that they will suffer harm. Further, the onus is on the society to establish that any child cannot be adequately protected by terms or conditions of a temporary supervision order. See: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the society has to meet with respect to the mother.
[13] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the children (subsection 1(2) of the Act). See: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
[14] The degree of intrusiveness of the society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. See: CCAS of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269.
[15] The Divisional Court has held that a Children's Aid Society seeking an order for temporary society care at this early stage of a case has only to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention. See: L.D. v. Durham Children's Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., [2005] O.J. No. 5050 (Ont. Div. Ct.). The burden on the society at this stage does not go as high as showing that on the balance of probabilities there is an actual risk to the child in the parent's care. See: CCAS of Toronto v. M.L.R., 2011 ONCJ 652; The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.G., 2021 ONSC 2260.
[16] In making its assessment, the court should also consider the emotional risks to the children from being removed from the significant caregivers in their lives. See: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. G.S., 2012 ONCA 783; Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R.I., 2022 ONCJ 612, per: Justice Danielle Szandtner.
[17] Subsection 94(10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. See: Jewish Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227 at paragraph 18; CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. S.S.H., 2019 ONSC 5365.
Part Three – Review of Evidence and Events
[18] The mother and the father presently reside together. They are the children's parents.
[19] The mother has been the children's primary caregiver. The father deposed that he first met the mother in 2012. He said he lived separately from the mother and the children from 2013 until 2023 and that he visited the children weekly.
[20] The society had three prior openings with the mother. The first opening was in 2013 after a referral from a doctor. That investigation was closed at intake.
[21] The second opening was in 2018, when a staff member from N's school reported concerns about N and the mother's alleged drug use. The mother switched N's school. The new school reported no concerns and the file was closed.
[22] The third opening was in 2023, when Humber River Hospital reported that Z had come to the hospital, malnourished and underweight, had not seen a doctor for two years and had not received his immunizations. Z's care was transferred to the Hospital for Sick Children.
[23] The parents have a different narrative of this event. They deny the allegations of mistreatment and neglect. They allege that the hospital was negligent and almost killed Z. They claim they were treated disrespectfully by staff at Humber River Hospital. The mother claims they were racist to her.
[24] The society investigated these concerns. The Hospital for Sick Children reported that Z was diagnosed as having failure to thrive, nutritional rickets due to lack of vitamin D, and a healed fracture in the bone of his right hand, which was likely non-accidental. The mother had said that Z fell from a bed, but Dr. Cory from the Hospital for Sick Children found this was unlikely.
[25] The society assigned the mother a family support worker to provide her with supports. The mother was frequently changing residences and the society worker had difficulties meeting with her.
[26] On February 27, 2024, the society closed its file. Dr. Cory reported that Z was improving in his weight gain, and she was happy with his progress.
[27] The current society opening was on April 9, 2025, when N's school reported to the society serious concerns about N, including N's allegations that the mother was physically abusing her. N alleged that the night before, her mother was angry at her, dragged her into the bathroom and burned her with hot water. N said that J had been beaten by the mother in the past. She said she was scared to go home.
[28] The society worker met with N who confirmed her allegations against the mother. The worker observed marks on N's shoulder, where N said she was hit. N also reported that the mother frequently became mad at her and would verbally abuse her.
[29] The society worker interviewed J, who reported no concerns.
[30] The society worker next met with the mother at her home to discuss the allegations. The worker said the mother was smoking marijuana outside and Z was alone in the basement of the house. She cautioned the mother about properly supervising Z and being sober when in a caregiving role. The mother claims that Z was properly supervised, and she was sober.
[31] The mother has denied N's allegations. She claims that N lied to the school and to the society because she had deprived N of electronics. She said this was simply rebellion by N. The father told the society worker the same thing.
[32] Dr. Cory had continued following Z's development at the Hospital for Sick Children. The society worker spoke to her on April 10, 2025. She expressed considerable concerns about Z's development and her difficulties in working with the mother.
[33] The parents state they have always appropriately attended to Z's needs and will continue to do so. The mother denies she is difficult to work with.
[34] The society worker met with N again on April 11, 2025. She told the worker that her mother was pressuring her to lie and say she tripped and fell and that was how she hurt her shoulder. She said that the mother is calling her an "idiot" and other things. She said her mother had told her not to tell the worker anything because she would be taken to foster care and get raped. N reported this was upsetting her.
[35] The school set up a meeting to speak with the mother for April 15, 2025. She did not attend.
[36] The mother asked to change the society worker. She felt the worker was racist. The worker was changed.
[37] The society issued its protection application on June 16, 2025 and brought a temporary motion to place the children in the joint care of the parents, subject to terms of society supervision.
[38] On June 17, 2025, the principal of N's and J's school called the society to express concerns about them. N had reportedly come to school that morning and was crying non-stop. She was in the class, in a corner, shut down and laying down. The principal also reported that J presents as fearful around the mother and does not say much.
[39] The society worker met with N the same day. N said her mother was a liar and she did not want to live with her. She said she does not feel safe with her mother. She said her mother had been yelling at her because of the court documents, stating that this was all her fault and she was stupid. She said that her mother had grabbed her that morning by the shirt collar and had yelled at her on the way to school. Her father did not say anything when this happened. She begged the worker not to make her live with the mother.
[40] The mother denied N's allegations.
[41] The society worker also met with J that day. She said, "please don't send this information to my mom". She disclosed that the mother said rude and mean things to N. She also reported that when her parents argue, she and N hide in the bedroom because it is "dangerous to be out there with them". She said the mother gets mad and keeps yelling and the father tries to stop her, but cannot. She repeatedly asked the worker not to tell her mother this because she is scared. She said she felt safe with the father, but not always her mother.
[42] On June 18, 2025, the court ordered, on a temporary without prejudice basis, that the children be brought into the society's care and that the parents' access be supervised by the society. It made a referral to the OCL for counsel to be appointed for N and J.
[43] The mother retained counsel who attended court on July 30, 2025. He sought and was granted an adjournment of the temporary care and custody hearing until September 5, 2025.
[44] The mother subsequently filed a Form 4 Notice of Change of Representation to act on her own behalf.
[45] The society worker spoke with Dr. Cory on September 12, 2025. Dr. Cory reported the following:
a) Z had rickets due to vitamin D deficiency as a result of malnutrition. The mother does not believe this and claims this was due to genetic reasons. Z no longer has rickets.
b) She chooses which conversations to have with the mother based on the mother's presentation when she attends at appointments. If the mother is in a mood where she will become escalated, she does not raise Z's developmental issues.
c) The mother often struggles with accountability and will blame others.
d) There have been a number of occasions where security at the hospital has had to be called due to the mother's dysregulation, not just in clinic but in the cafeteria and in other places in the hospital. The mother struggles to regulate herself when she becomes upset and speaks harshly and loudly.
e) She has struggled to develop a connection with the mother.
f) She wonders if Z has autism spectrum disorder. He needs a developmental assessment. She is trying to have this expedited.
g) She is concerned about the mother's ability to maintain support services for Z. This is because of her emotional dysregulation and because she often misses appointments.
h) Z's vitamin D levels dropped in June 2025.
i) She did not recall ever meeting the father.
[46] The parents were adamant that the father attended many appointments at the Hospital for Sick Children. The father often waited in the reception room.
[47] The temporary care and custody hearing was adjourned again on September 5, 2025. The father had just obtained counsel, the OCL had recently been appointed and the mother had just served the parties with voluminous material. The hearing proceeded on September 17, 2025.
Part Four – The Parents' Narrative
[48] The mother's narrative is that:
a) There are no valid protection concerns. This is evidenced by the society closing its file in 2024 and only initially seeking a supervision order in this case.
b) She has not physically abused any of the children.
c) She and the father have always appropriately cared for the children. She has attended to all their medical and developmental needs.
d) N has lied to the society. She is rebellious. The incident with the hot water in April 2025 was accidental.
e) The children have told her that they want to come home.
f) Many of the society workers, Hospital for Sick Children staff, Humber River Hospital staff and school staff are racist and have lied about her and the father.
g) She has endured significant trauma from racist institutions.
h) She does not trust the society.
i) She strongly disagrees with Dr. Cory's evidence. She submitted that Dr. Cory is conducting medical experimentation on Z. She claims that Dr. Cory has harmed Z by prescribing the wrong medications for him. She said she only missed two appointments.
j) She is a strong advocate for her children. She becomes upset when she feels disrespected or when the children are not receiving proper treatment.
k) She is prepared to cooperate with the society and attend programs to address any risk concerns.
l) She has cooperated with the society. She has let them into her home. She has gone to plan of care meetings.
m) The children have a strong bond and need to be together with them.
n) Z is developing well and is now speaking words.
o) She now has stable housing and the children's school is just around the corner from her.
[49] The father supports the mother's narrative. He also deposed that:
a) He is prepared to take the children to all their services.
b) He is protective of the children and does not condone physical violence.
c) He has never seen the mother hit the children.
d) He has encouraged the mother to attend an anger management program.
e) He works in construction as a handyman. He is starting a new job soon and can financially support the family. The mother is on Ontario Works.
Part Five – The Children's Views and Wishes
[50] N and J are in the same foster home. Z is in a separate foster home because of his special needs.
[51] The OCL advised the court that N is doing well and is happy in her foster home. N has been consistent in her position that she wishes to remain in foster care. She does not want to live with the paternal aunt. She wants access to stay the way it presently is, although she would like longer visits in the community.
[52] The OCL also advised the court that J is very happy at her foster home. J would like to return to her parents' home. However, she only wants to return if N returns there as well. She does not want any changes to the present access arrangement.
[53] Z has very delayed speech and is too young to articulate his views and preferences.
[54] The mother says that the children tell her that they wish to return home.
Part Six – Placement Analysis
[55] The society met its onus on both parts of the two-part test for not returning the children to the care of either parent. There are reasonable grounds to believe that if any child was returned to their care that it is more probable than not that the child would suffer harm. Supervision terms would be inadequate to protect the children from these risks. The court makes these findings for the following reasons:
a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the mother was physically abusing N and sometimes hit J. N's allegations were consistent and made to several different professionals. The day before the court ordered her into the society's care, she was a child in severe distress, reaching out to her teachers for help and to protect her from the mother.
b) There are reasonable grounds to believe that N and J were being emotionally harmed by the mother. Both children expressed fear of her. N was afraid to return home. She continues to want to stay in foster care and only have supervised access with the mother. J confirmed that she and N would hide in their room when the parents fought because it was too dangerous. She confirmed the mother's frequent anger and verbal abuse. She was extremely anxious about the mother finding out what she said to the society worker. The children do not feel emotionally safe with the mother.
c) The mother's lack of emotional regulation is a continuing theme in this case. It has been reported by multiple sources. It is concerning that hospital security has been called several times about her. Concerns about her lack of emotional regulation have been expressed by Dr. Cory, the children's school, society workers and N and J. Even the father recognizes she should attend an anger management course.
d) The court finds, at this stage, that the evidence provided by the society is credible and trustworthy. It is made more credible as the concerns expressed are consistent and come from multiple sources.
e) The mother demonstrates no insight into how her behaviour impacts the children. Instead, she externalized blame to N, and framed the concerns from professionals as racist. She took no accountability for N's distress.
f) The father has not been protective of the children. Instead, he has chosen to align himself with the mother and plans to parent the children with her. He endorses her narrative of events. This narrative is contrary to the evidence of multiple independent witnesses. He was present when the children were mistreated and was unable or unwilling to intervene to protect them. At this point, any plan he proposes that involves the mother residing with the children is inadequate to protect them.
g) There are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real risk that the parents will not adequately address Z's developmental needs. Z is very delayed, vulnerable and requires a developmental assessment. Dr. Cory stated he had rickets due to malnourishment. She did not accept the mother's explanation for Z's healed fracture. Dr. Cory felt the injury was non-accidental. She reported that the mother cooperated variably with Z's medical care. She missed appointments. She did not consistently follow her medical recommendations for Z, including how to use his feeding tube. It appears that the father had little engagement with Dr. Cory and deferred medical decisions to the mother. The father will need to demonstrate that he understands Z's needs and can follow through with medical recommendations before the child can safely be placed in his care.
h) The children require caregivers who can work collaboratively and cooperatively with their schools and service providers. The mother is not able to do this at this time.
i) The father provided scant evidence about his alternative plan to place the children with the paternal aunt. The paternal aunt did not file an affidavit. This plan was not even addressed in lengthy submissions. N does not want to live with her. The society has referred this plan to its kinship department and reported the paternal aunt cancelled the first appointment. The society will continue to explore this plan. However, this plan is not viable at this time.
j) Supervision terms are inadequate to protect the children in the care of either parent. The parents are in denial of the protection concerns and externalize blame to everyone else. They lack any trust in the society and feel victimized. This informs the court that it is unlikely they will be able to take the necessary steps in the short term to address very serious protection concerns. It makes it unlikely that they will consistently follow any terms of supervision. And lastly, but importantly, there is no supervision term that can adequately address the reality that N and J are fearful of the mother. N does not want to return to her care and J does not want to return to her care without N.
[56] The children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the society. The court finds this is the least disruptive order consistent with the children's best interests.
Part Seven – Access
[57] Subsection 94(8) of the Act provides that where an order is made under clause (c) or (d) of subsection 94(2), the court may order access on any terms that it considers appropriate. In determining what order is appropriate, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1(1) and (2) of the Act). In assessing best interests, the court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 74(3) of the Act. See: JFCS v. H.B.S., [2012] O.J. No. 5055 (OCJ).
[58] The party seeking to impose restrictions on a parent's contact or access to a child must demonstrate that it is necessary, and the limit is proportionate to the risk. Any such terms should be child and harm specific and be supported on the evidence. See: Children's Aid Society of Brant v. A.C., 2020 ONCJ 505.
[59] The parents would like as much access with the children as possible.
[60] The society seeks an order that the mother's access with the children be in its discretion, to include location, duration, frequency and the level of supervision. This position was supported by the OCL.
[61] N expressed that she wants her visits with the parents to remain supervised. She would like them to be longer and in the community. J seeks no changes to the present access arrangement.
[62] The court finds it is in the children's best interests to make the access order requested by the society regarding the mother for the following reasons:
a) The mother has had many positive access visits with the children. However, many visits are also problematic.
b) The mother often struggles with her emotional regulation at visits in front of the children.
c) On July 17, 2025, a society supervisor had to be called because the mother was speaking in a raised voice and expressing numerous concerns about the society in front of the children. The society suspended her access until August 6, 2025.
d) On September 4, 2025, N left the visit crying because the mother was blaming her for everything.
e) The mother sometimes pressures N and J to come home.
f) The mother often inappropriately discusses court proceedings with N and J at visits, despite directions not to do this. She becomes agitated and defiant with the society workers. This also causes distress to N and J. The mother has no insight into the adverse emotional impact her conduct has on them.
g) The mother's access must be fully supervised at this time. Otherwise, she will exert considerable pressure on N and J to retract their allegations about her. She would likely lash out at N. She will undermine their security and stability.
h) N is clear and consistent that she does not want unsupervised access with the mother. J does not want any changes to the present structure of the visits. They do not feel safe with her.
[63] The court finds that the father should have additional unsupervised access to the children for the following reasons:
a) He does not have the significant emotional regulation issues that the mother has. He is calm at visits.
b) He is loving and affectionate with the children. They are loving and affectionate with him.
c) N and J have expressed they feel safe with him.
d) N and J have expressed how he tries to calm the mother down when she is angry.
e) There is no evidence that he has ever physically hit the children or that there is a risk he would do this.
f) His level of cooperation with the society has improved since this case started.
g) He is engaging with support services.
h) He appears motivated to care for the children.
i) The court is far more concerned about the mother pressuring N and J than it is about him.
[64] The court will order that the father will have at a minimum, a weekly unsupervised visit for at least two hours with the children, on terms. Those terms will be:
a) The visits shall not take place at his home.
b) He will advise the society at the start of the visit where he will be during the visits with the children.
c) He will have a contact number where he can be reached by the society during the visits and keep his phone on.
d) He is to ensure the mother has no contact with the children. This includes in-person contact, telephone contact, or any social media contact.
e) He is not to discuss the court case or the allegations with either N or J.
Part Eight – Next Steps
[65] One of the functions of a case management judge is to provide clear expectations to a party of what needs to be done to have their child returned to them.
[66] The court is aware that this decision will be upsetting to the parents and that they will disagree with it. The court has no doubt that they, and particularly the mother, sincerely hold the belief that they are being mistreated and victimized.
[67] However, the court is not helping the parents if it does not give them the hard truth.
[68] The hard truth is that the mother needs to do a lot of work before she can even have unsupervised access with the children. She should do the following:
a) Consent to the release of the medical records concerning her children.
b) Attend for a comprehensive mental health assessment. The assessor should be able to meet with the society worker to obtain the necessary context for the assessment.
c) Follow the treatment recommendations of the assessor.
d) Demonstrate sustained improvement in her emotional health.
e) Demonstrate insight into her emotional challenges and the impact that those challenges have had on the children.
f) Comply with the court's orders.
g) Not discuss the court case or the allegations with N and J. And not discuss with them whether they want to come home.
h) Follow the society worker's directions around access.
[69] The court also strongly suggests to the mother that she should retain an experienced child protection lawyer to represent her. It will give her the best opportunity to succeed.
[70] The court hopes that the mother will take these steps, even if she does not believe that they are necessary. It is her best chance of reuniting with the children. The mother was very open about the trauma she has had in her life. It has affected her actions, perceptions and judgment. The court was left with no doubt that she loves the children and wants to be a good mother to them. The children love her. When she has control over her emotions, her interactions with the children are very positive. The court wants the mother and the society to build on these strengths.
[71] It is important for the father to recognize that it might take a long time for the mother to get to the point where a court would return the children to their home. He should seriously consider whether he should be putting forward a plan for the children to live just with him and not the mother, while the mother works on her issues.
[72] The father has taken some preliminary steps to show his commitment to the children. He has taken steps to develop a plan for them. He demonstrated an understanding of each child's personality in his affidavit. His love for them was apparent. This forms some basis for optimism. He should follow the expectations set out by the society to him in a letter of expectations it sent to him. He should attend the additional parenting time consistently. He should attend medical appointments and Plan of Care meetings for the children. He needs to step forward now, and not defer to the mother, to have his best chance of having the children placed in his care.
[73] The society should be doing the following during this adjournment period:
a) Facilitate the developmental assessment for Z.
b) Increase the father's parenting time if it is positive and he is meeting the expectations set out in its letter.
c) Set out for the parents what supports it can provide for them to give them the best chance to succeed.
d) Obtain medical records from Humber River Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children.
e) Actively assess the paternal aunt's plan.
Part Nine – Conclusion
[74] A temporary order shall go on the following terms:
a) The children are placed in the care and custody of the society until further order.
b) The children's access with the mother shall be in the discretion of the society, including duration, frequency, the level of supervision and location.
c) The children's access with the father shall also be in discretion of the society, including duration, frequency and location. However, he is to have a minimum of one unsupervised visit with the children each week, for at least two hours, on the following conditions:
i) The visits shall not take place at his home.
ii) He will advise the society at the start of the visit where he will be during the visits with the children.
iii) He will have a contact number where he can be reached by the society during the visits and keep his phone on.
iv) He is to ensure that the mother has no contact with the children during the visits. This includes in-person contact, telephone contact, or any social media contact.
v) He is not to discuss the court case or the allegations with either N or J. He shall not question them about where they wish to live.
[75] The society should consider whether it is appropriate to bring a motion for amicus. Child protection law is complicated and emotional. The court wants to ensure that relevant evidence is fully and properly presented and also properly challenged so that the best decision can be made for the children.
[76] The court has set a date for a settlement conference. If the case is not resolved on that date, the case will be put onto the next Assignment Court list for trial.
Released: September 19, 2025
Justice Stanley B. Sherr