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:

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: October 30, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto DFO-25-46057-00

Ontario Court of Justice

Parties

Between:

Children's Aid Society of Toronto

Karen Freed, for the Applicant

Applicant

- and -

T.S., I.S., H.S., and M.S.

Ihtasham Shabbir, for the Respondent, T.S. Paul Cooper, for the Respondent, I.S. Margaret Teixeira, for the Respondents, H.S. and M.S.

Respondents

- and -

J.H.

The Respondent, J.H., Acting in Person

Respondent on the Motion

Marlo Shaw, on behalf of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, for the subject children E. and R.

Hearing Information

Heard: October 1 and 23, 2025

Justice: J.S. Daudlin

Reasons for Judgment

Part One: Introduction

[1] This hearing concerns the temporary care of the children: E. (age 9), R. (age 8), G. (age 4), and T. (age 1) (collectively, "the children").

[2] The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the Society) seeks an order:

(1) Placing E. and R. (the older children) in the temporary care and custody of the respondent, T.S. (the mother), subject to supervision.

(2) Placing the G. and T. (the younger children) in the temporary care and custody of the respondent, M.S. (the paternal grandmother), subject to supervision.

(3) Granting the mother access to the younger children at the Society's discretion, at least once per week.

(4) Granting the paternal grandmother access to the older children at the Society's discretion.

(5) Granting the respondent, I.S. (the father), and the respondent, H.S. (paternal grandfather), access to the children at the Society's discretion.

[3] The mother supports the Society's plan to place the older children in her care. However, she opposes placing the younger children with the paternal grandmother. Instead, she seeks an order placing the younger children in her temporary care, subject to supervision.

[4] Alternatively, the mother seeks an order:

(1) Placing the younger children in the temporary care and custody of S.P. (the proposed kith caregiver), subject to supervision.

(2) Granting her access to the younger children at least three times per week in the Niagara Region, at the Society's discretion.

[5] In either scenario, the mother seeks an order that:

(1) The father have no access or contact with the children.

(2) The paternal grandparents and other paternal family members have only supervised access at Family and Children's Services Niagara, at the Society's discretion.

[6] The mother's partner, J.H. (the partner), supports her motion.

[7] The father does not seek the children's return to his care. He consents to placing the younger children with the paternal grandmother, subject to supervision. However, he opposes:

(1) Placing the older children with the mother,

(2) The mother's request to have all four children in her care, and

(3) The mother's alternative plan to place the younger children with the proposed kith caregiver.

[8] The father also seeks as much access to the children as the court permits.

[9] The paternal grandparents seek an order placing all four children in their joint temporary care and custody, subject to supervision.

[10] Alternatively, the paternal grandparents support the Society's plan to place the younger children with the paternal grandmother. However, they oppose:

(1) Placing the older children with the mother,

(2) The mother's motion to place the children in her care.

(3) The mother's alternative plan to split care between the mother and the proposed caregiver.

[11] Regarding access, the paternal grandparents consent to the Society determining the terms of access between the children, the father, and the paternal grandfather, including the level of supervision required. They seek orders that:

(1) The children's access to the mother be supervised.

(2) The children have no contact or access with the mother's partner.

[12] The older children are currently in their mother's care.

[13] The younger children are currently in their paternal grandmother's care.

[14] The mother has access to the younger children at the Society's discretion. The Society determines the frequency, duration, location, and level of supervision, with a minimum of one visit per week.

[15] The paternal grandmother has access to the older children at the Society's discretion, including the frequency, duration, location, and level of supervision.

[16] The court has suspended all access and contact between the children and both the father and the paternal grandfather.

[17] The mother's partner has no unsupervised contact or access to any child without prior approval from the Society.

[18] The children have experienced multiple transitions during this litigation, including placements with each parent and with the paternal grandparents, all under the Society's supervision.

[19] The parties filed multiple affidavits, which the court reviewed on these motions.

[20] The issues for the court to decide on these motions are:

(1) Where should each child be placed on a temporary basis?

(2) What access should each party have with the children?

Part Two: Brief Background Facts

2.1. Background of Family Circumstances Prior to Intervention

[21] The mother and father began their relationship in or around 2015. They married in November 2018 and separated for the final time in late 2024. They are the parents of the four subject children.

[22] The family has a history of involvement with the Society and police, arising from reported allegations of intimate partner violence and adult conflict. More recent concerns about them include mental health issues, neglect, and drug misuse.

[23] On October 27, 2024, the father was criminally charged with assaulting the mother. He later pled guilty to a lesser and included offence. On March 5, 2025, the court imposed a probation order in relation to that assault, as well as for Breach of Recognizance and six counts of Failure to Comply with a Release Order.

[24] After their separation, the mother remained in the family home. The father moved into the residence of the paternal grandparents and his sister, in accordance with the terms of his criminal release and probation order. The probation order remains in effect and limits the father's contact with the mother to third-party communication or contact permitted by a family court order, among other conditions.

[25] After their separation, the parents implemented an informal parenting schedule. The children resided with the mother on weekdays and with the father on weekends. The paternal grandparents facilitated parenting exchanges. No formal agreement or court order governed the children's residence or parenting arrangements.

[26] The mother's partner moved into the family home in late February or early March 2025, after arriving from the United States at the end of January. The mother met him online in October 2024 and began referring to him as "dad" in the children's presence before his arrival.

[27] At the time of the Society's intervention, both parents were caring for the children under the terms of their informal parenting schedule.

[28] The older children currently reside with their mother in Welland, subject to a without prejudice temporary supervision order made by Justice Paulseth on May 2, 2025. The Society supervises the mother's access to the younger children, and determines the frequency, duration, location, and level of supervision. The May 2 order prohibits the mother's partner from having unsupervised contact with any of the children.

[29] The younger children reside with their paternal grandmother in Toronto, subject to a without prejudice supervision order made by Justice Sherr on August 7, 2025. The Society supervises the paternal grandmother's access to the older children, and determines the terms of that access. The August 7 order suspends all access and contact between the children and both the father and the paternal grandfather.

[30] The mother is pregnant with her partner's child and expects to give birth in late January 2026.

2.2. Timeline of Escalating Risk and Intervention

[31] Between March 5 and April 30, 2025, the family experienced escalating conflict and child protection concerns. Key events include:

(1) On March 7, the father reported to the Society that the mother's partner had physically disciplined the children and that the older children were fearful of him.

(2) On March 11, the Society commenced an investigation. The mother acknowledged that her partner had disciplined the children at her request, described the discipline as minimal, and admitted to occasionally using light physical discipline herself. She also disclosed a history of domestic violence involving the father.

(3) On March 19, the investigation revealed ongoing adult conflict, including an incident in which the paternal grandfather and paternal aunt allegedly attended the mother's home aggressively, causing a disturbance witnessed by the children. Police attended.

(4) Reports from the children's school highlighted missed attendance and concerns about parental disputes.

(5) By late March, the Society verified risks of physical and emotional harm due to exposure to caregiver conflict. On April 2, the Society implemented a safety plan requiring all adults to avoid conflict in the children's presence, refrain from physical discipline, and support access arrangements.

(6) On April 26, the paternal aunt and paternal grandfather brought then ten-month-old T. to Humber River Hospital for a fever. Medical staff observed multiple bruises on his head, ears, chin, and jaw, as well as a laceration to his upper lip. These injuries were inconsistent with the mother's explanation that the child was "curious" and had fallen. Dr. Kepecs assessed the injuries as suspicious and referred T. to the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Clinic at SickKids.

(7) On April 28, Dr. Shouldice concluded that T.'s injuries were non-accidental, noting extensive bruising and oral trauma inconsistent with the child's developmental abilities. Following consultation with police, the Society determined that the children were at imminent risk of harm and brought the younger children to a place of safety, being the father. The Society prohibited the mother's partner from having unsupervised contact with the children. The father was required to reside with the paternal grandparents and was not permitted to take the younger children for overnight visits or into the community without the paternal grandparents present.

(8) On April 29, the Society received a voicemail from the paternal aunt reporting that the mother's partner had physically assaulted the paternal grandfather, who was taken to hospital for treatment.

(9) On April 30, the mother informed the Society of a violent altercation at her home between her partner and the paternal grandfather. The incident escalated to physical violence and was witnessed by E. Police attended, and the paternal grandmother also became involved. The paternal grandfather was hospitalized.

[32] In view of the seriousness of the protection concerns and the need to formalize care arrangements, the Society commenced a child protection application and brought an urgent motion. The Society sought temporary orders placing the younger children in the care and custody of the father, and the older children in the care and custody of the mother, each subject to Society supervision and with terms governing access.

2.3. Litigation History

[33] On May 2, 2025, the parties appeared before Justice Paulseth on the Society's urgent motion. On consent and without prejudice, Justice Paulseth ordered that the younger children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to Society supervision, and that the older children remain in the mother's care, also under supervision. The mother was directed to ensure the children's school attendance, refrain from leaving them unsupervised with her partner, and avoid disparaging the father in their presence. Both parties were ordered not to withhold the children following parenting time or expose them to adult conflict. The mother's partner was prohibited from having unsupervised contact with the children.

[34] On May 29, 2025, the Society filed an urgent motion seeking to vary the May 2, 2025, temporary without prejudice order. The Society cited escalating concerns regarding the father's conduct and its impact on the children, including repeated breaches of court orders, exposing the children to adult conflict, involving them in post-separation disputes, reports of coaching the children to speak negatively about the mother and her partner, and E.'s disclosure that she felt unsafe with her father, describing an incident in which he pulled her by the leg during a confrontation.

[35] The Society sought a variation placing the younger children in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandparents under its supervision, with access to their parents and siblings subject to the Society's discretion.

[36] On May 30, 2025, on consent, the court made the requested order regarding the younger children.

[37] At the same appearance, the mother advised of her intention to relocate to Welland on June 2, 2025. The parties consented to a temporary without prejudice arrangement whereby the older children would remain with the paternal grandparents until June 17, 2025, to support school attendance. The mother was to have weekend parenting time, with exchanges in Hamilton. The older children were to return to the mother's temporary care under the supervision terms set out in the May 2, 2025, order, pending the temporary care hearing.

[38] The mother did not return the children to the paternal grandparents as ordered.

[39] On or about June 12, 2025, the mother reported that E. had disclosed an incident of inappropriate physical contact involving a peer, alleged to have occurred while in the care of the paternal family, specifically under the father's supervision. Photographs of bruising were taken on June 6, 2025, and shared with professionals in the days following the disclosure, prompting investigation and medical assessments.

[40] On June 27, 2025, the court convened an urgent conference to address concerns regarding compliance with access arrangements and ongoing adult conflict. A temporary care motion was scheduled for July 23, 2025.

[41] The temporary care motion did not proceed, as the parties sought an adjournment to obtain disclosure from hospitals and third parties and to add the mother's partner as a party to the motion.

[42] On July 30, 2025, a physical altercation occurred at the Society office involving the father, the paternal grandfather, and the mother's partner, in the children's presence. The father and paternal grandfather were charged with assault.

[43] Following this second violent incident involving the paternal grandfather and the mother's partner, the Society determined that the younger children could not safely remain in the care of the paternal grandparents. The children were brought to a place of safety that same day.

[44] Although the mother requested that the children be returned to her care, the Society declined, citing an ongoing investigation involving her and her partner.

[45] In response, the Society brought another urgent motion seeking to vary the existing temporary order and place the younger children in temporary Society care. The mother opposed the motion, seeking that the children be placed in her care under Society supervision.

[46] The matter came before Justice Sherr on August 5, 2025.

[47] On August 5, 2025, Justice Sherr adjourned the motions and suspended the father and paternal grandfather's access to all four children.

[48] On August 7, 2025, Justice Sherr placed the younger children in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother, supported by the paternal aunt, subject to Society supervision. The older children remained in the mother's care.

[49] The temporary care motion for all four children was rescheduled to October 1, 2025.

[50] Between August 7 and October 1, 2025, there were further procedural attendances and motions. The motion was argued on October 1, 2025, and the decision reserved. Shortly thereafter, the mother brought a Rule 14B motion for directions regarding a motion for fresh evidence and sought an urgent attendance.

[51] On October 10, 2025, the mother elected not to proceed with the fresh evidence motion. The court made temporary, without prejudice orders lifting portions of Justice Sherr's August 6 order and permitting the paternal grandfather's access for Thanksgiving weekend, on consent.

[52] In making the orders on this motion, the court did not consider the affidavits or submissions filed in relation to the motion for directions.

[53] On October 24, 2025, at the court's request, the parties appeared to make further submissions. The court advised that it was considering placing the children in temporary Society care and invited submissions on that issue, including proposed access terms.

[54] The following orders remain in effect:

(1) The order of Justice Sherr dated August 7, 2025: The younger children are in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother, subject to the supervision terms made by this court on May 30, 2025, with strict direction that neither the father nor the paternal grandfather reside in the home or have contact or access with the children.

(2) The order of Justice Paulseth dated May 2, 2025: The older children remain in the mother's temporary care. The mother continues to have access to the younger children, and her partner is not to have unsupervised contact with any of the children.

Part Three: Legal Considerations on Temporary Care and Custody Motion

3.1. Statutory Context and Children's Views

[55] The statutory scheme on temporary care hearings is set out in subsections 94(2), (4), and (5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) that reads 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.

[56] In short, with respect to the person or persons who had charge of the children immediately before Society intervention, the court first considers whether adequate protection can be achieved under clauses 94(2)(a) or (b). Only if supervision is inadequate does the analysis move to clauses (c) or (d), with relative placement under (c) considered before Society care under (d).

[57] The court considered the views and wishes of the older children, giving due weight in accordance with their ages and maturity under subsection 94(11). The views and wishes of the younger children cannot reasonably be ascertained given their ages.

3.2. Governing Principles

[58] At a temporary care and custody hearing, the society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondents, it is more probable than not the child will suffer harm, and that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of a temporary supervision order.[1]

[59] The court must select the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection (subsection 1(2) of the Act).[2]

[60] The degree of intrusiveness should be proportional to the degree of risk.[3]

[61] Subsection 94(10) permits the court to admit and act on evidence considered credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. Evidence must be assessed in its entirety.[4]

[62] The parents' criminal history, evidence of violent conduct, and potential exposure of children to violence are relevant.[5]

[63] Exposure to a pattern of domestic violence creates a risk of emotional harm.[6]

[64] At this early stage, a society seeking temporary Society care need only demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe there is a protection risk justifying intervention.[7]

3.3. Priority to Status Quo Caregiver and Transition to Removal Threshold

[65] The Act prioritises the person who had charge of the children before intervention (subsection 51(2)). There can be more than one person in charge.[8]

3.4. Supervision Framework

[66] The Society seeks temporary supervision orders under clause 94(2)(b). Subsection 94(6) applies to an order made under that clause.[9]

[67] When a society requests a non‑removal order under clause 94(2)(b) or a removal order under clauses 94(2)(c) and (d), the onus and criteria are the same. The question under clause 94(2)(b) is whether the Society has reasonable grounds to believe there is a probable risk that the child will suffer harm if reasonable terms and conditions of a supervision order are not imposed.[10]

Part Four: Temporary Care and Custody Analysis

4.1. Risk Assessment: Are there reasonable grounds to believe the children will suffer harm if returned to the parents?

[68] Both parents acted as primary caregivers prior to intervention. The children resided with the mother during the week and spent weekends with the father. No residential or parenting order or separation agreement governed their care. The court finds both were persons in charge of the children prior to Society intervention.

[69] The record establishes reasonable grounds to believe the children would likely suffer harm if returned to either parent at this time. The evidence reflects a pattern of serious concerns: non-accidental injury to a young child; repeated exposure to adult conflict and violence; coaching and recording of the children; non-compliance with court orders and Society direction; and ongoing criminal justice involvement.

[70] Illustrative examples include:

(1) T.'s injuries (April 26, 2025): The Hospital for Sick Children's SCAN Clinic documented bilateral ear bruising, scalp and jaw bruising, and an intraoral frenulum injury. These injuries were assessed as non-accidental and inconsistent with T.'s developmental abilities. The findings contradict the mother's account and support a real possibility of physical harm in her care.

(2) Mother's Response to T.'s Injuries: The mother attributed the injuries to falls, rough play, and household hazards, describing T. as active and "curious." She referenced precautions such as a baby helmet but provided no medical documentation. She rejected the SCAN Clinic's conclusion. Her refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the findings raises concern about her ability to recognize and respond to risk.

(3) Violence witnessed by the children (April 29 and July 30, 2025): On April 29, a confrontation at the mother's residence escalated into physical violence witnessed by E. and resulted in the paternal grandfather being hospitalized for his injuries. On July 30, a physical altercation occurred at the Society office involving the father, the paternal grandfather, and the mother's partner. The mother's partner sustained injuries, and both the father and paternal grandfather were charged with assault. All four children were present.

(4) Coaching and recording: E. reported that the father chased and pulled her leg when she refused to turn off a phone. R. disclosed that the father showed him photographs of the paternal grandfather's injuries, blamed the mother's partner, and coached G. to repeat derogatory terms. The Society directed all adults to refrain from coaching or recording the children.

(5) School and access transitions: The older children missed significant school time. The mother kept them home out of fear the father would pick them up. Her relocation to Welland increased logistical challenges and disrupted their access. Her failure to return the older children to the paternal grandparents disrupted their schooling. The mother neglected the academic and social needs of the children.

(6) June 2025 disclosure: E. presented with bruising in the pelvic/groin area and disclosed inappropriate touching by a peer while under the father's care, prompting referral to CAAP at McMaster.

(7) Supervision did not arrest risk: On May 20, 2025, the Society placed the younger children with the paternal grandparents and changed the father's access with the older children to fully supervised. The paternal grandmother attempted to redirect the father's behaviour during access, reminding him of court orders and intervening when necessary. Despite these efforts, concerns persisted. The paternal grandmother acknowledged that she and other family members had repeatedly advised the father to avoid involving the children in adult conflict, but these interventions were ineffective. Ten weeks later, a violent incident occurred in a controlled setting at the Society office.

[71] Taken together, the medical evidence, the children's disclosures, repeated exposure to adult conflict and violence, coaching and recording, and ongoing issues with compliance and candour establish reasonable grounds to believe that returning the children to either parent would likely result in harm. The first branch of subsection 94(4) is met.

4.2. Can the children be adequately protected by a supervision order if returned to the parents?

a) No plan to place with father

[72] The father has not proposed a plan for the children to return to his care. Instead, he supports the placement of the children with the paternal grandparents under Society supervision.

[73] In the absence of a plan from the father, the court turns to the mother's proposal, as she was the other pre-intervention caregiver.

b) Plan to Place with the Mother – The younger children

[74] The mother seeks the return of the younger children to her care and proposes that the older children remain with her, all under Society supervision.

[75] The second branch of the analysis—whether the children can be adequately protected by a supervision order—must be considered individually for each child. However, the court will assess the younger children together, and the older children together, recognizing that the level of risk and vulnerability differs between the younger and older children due to their ages, developmental needs, and expressed wishes.

i. Plan to return the younger children to the mother

[76] The mother proposes that the younger children be returned to her care under a supervision order. The issue to be decided is whether such an order would provide adequate protection to the children.

[77] On the evidence before the court, it would not.

[78] The younger children are developmentally vulnerable. T. is an infant and G. is preschool-aged. Neither child is capable of self-protection or of reliably disclosing harm, nor can they express their views and wishes in a timely or meaningful way. Their safety depends entirely on the protective capacity of their caregiver.

[79] The mother has not demonstrated that capacity.

[80] T. was observed to have extensive bruising to both ears, the scalp, forehead, jaw, shoulder, neck, and back, along with oral trauma including a laceration to the upper lip and injury to the frenulum. Medical assessments concluded the injuries were non-accidental and inconsistent with T.'s developmental abilities. Dr. Shouldice described the injuries as likely caused by forceful grabbing, squeezing, pulling, or twisting of the ears. T. was not yet crawling on all fours or able to stand independently, making self-infliction or injury by other children unlikely.

[81] The mother acknowledged that the injuries may have occurred in her home but maintained they were accidental. She attributed the bruising to falls, rough play, and environmental hazards during a move. These explanations were unsupported by medical evidence and did not align with the nature, location, or pattern of the injuries. Her refusal to accept the seriousness of the findings or the possibility of intentional harm reflects a lack of accountability and impairs her ability to develop sustainable protective strategies.

[82] The mother's partner remains a persistent source of concern. He has been involved in multiple incidents of adult conflict and violence, including a physical altercation at the Society office on July 30, 2025, witnessed by the children. Despite prior orders prohibiting unsupervised contact, he continues to reside in the home and participate in caregiving. The mother is pregnant with his child and relies on him for support. There is no reasonable likelihood that she will exclude him from the home, nor any reasonable expectation that she can or will supervise his interactions with the children. Prior assurances have not been honoured, and the relationship remains active and central to the household.

[83] The mother has also demonstrated a pattern of unilateral conduct and non-compliance with court orders and Society direction. She relocated to Welland without notice or approval, suspended access unilaterally, and failed to return the older children to the paternal grandparents as ordered.

[84] Although the mother has enrolled in counselling and parenting programs, there is no independent verification of her participation or progress. Her overstatement of service engagement undermines her credibility and suggests limited insight into the protection concerns.

[85] Supervision by the Society cannot mitigate these risks to the younger children. The Society cannot provide continuous oversight, and the effectiveness of supervision depends on the caregiver's insight, compliance, and ability to self-regulate—qualities the mother has not sufficiently demonstrated.

[86] There are reasonable grounds to believe that the younger children are likely to suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that they cannot be adequately protected by a supervision order.

ii. Mother's alternative plan to place the younger children with the proposed kith caregiver

[87] The mother also proposed an alternative plan for the younger children, seeking their placement with the proposed kith caregiver under Society supervision. However, the proposed kith caregiver is not known to the children, and there is no evidence of a pre-existing relationship or caregiving history. Given the younger children's developmental vulnerability and the absence of any established bond or protective track record, the plan does not offer a credible or protective alternative and is not found to be in their best interests at this time.

iii. Placement of the younger children with paternal grandparents

[88] Having determined that the younger children cannot be adequately protected by a supervision order in the mother's care, and that the proposed kith caregiver is not a viable placement, the court turns to the plan advanced by the paternal grandparents.

[89] The paternal grandparents' primary position is that the younger children should be placed in their joint care under Society supervision. In the alternative, they support the Society's proposal to place the children in the care of the paternal grandmother, with assistance from the paternal aunt.

[90] The evidence does not support a finding that placement with both paternal grandparents would be protective or appropriate at this time.

[91] On July 30, 2025, the younger children were brought to a place of safety from the paternal grandparents' care following a violent incident at the Society office. The paternal grandfather was observed stomping on the mother's partner during a physical altercation, while the father pinned him to the ground. All four children were present. The paternal grandfather was arrested and charged with assault. This incident followed a prior altercation at the mother's residence on April 30, 2025, also witnessed by E., during which the paternal grandfather was injured and hospitalized. The paternal grandmother is alleged to have participated in that earlier incident.

[92] The paternal grandfather states that he is taking accountability for his role in the conflict and is making efforts to address concerns, including changes to his environment and support systems. He has expressed a commitment to transparency and safe reunification. However, these statements must be weighed against the seriousness and recurrence of the underlying conduct. The paternal grandfather denied being charged following the July incident, despite clear documentation to the contrary. This lack of candour raises concerns about his insight and reliability. The court cannot be confident that he would comply with supervision terms or maintain appropriate boundaries.

[93] The proposed plan would return the paternal grandfather to the home and place him in a caregiving role. Historically, when the younger children were placed with the paternal grandparents, the paternal grandmother worked full-time, and the paternal grandfather was the primary daytime caregiver. The current proposal does not offer a credible or enforceable safeguard against recurrence of the dynamics that led to removal. If the paternal grandfather resumes a caregiving role or is left unsupervised, the risks to the children remain active.

[94] The younger children require consistent, protective caregiving. The paternal grandfather's history of conflict and aggression, combined with unresolved concerns about insight, compliance, and the sustainability of the proposed caregiving structure, undermines the stability of the placement. In these circumstances, the court is not satisfied that placement with both paternal grandparents would adequately protect the younger children or serve their best interests.

iv. Placement of the younger children with paternal grandmother

[95] Given the court's finding that placement with both paternal grandparents would not adequately protect the younger children at this time, the court turns to the alternative plan proposed by the Society and supported by the paternal family: placement with the paternal grandmother, under supervision, with assistance from the paternal aunt.

[96] This plan excludes the paternal grandfather from the home and from any caregiving role.

[97] The evidence supports a finding that placement with the paternal grandmother, under Society supervision, is protective at this time. The paternal grandmother has taken a leave of absence from work for three to five months to assume full-time caregiving responsibilities. By all accounts, the younger children are doing well in her care, and their needs are being met.

[98] However, the court acknowledges concerns about the sustainability of a plan that excludes the paternal grandfather from his family home.

[99] Historically, the paternal grandfather was the primary daytime caregiver while the paternal grandmother worked full-time. She is now the sole income earner in the household following the paternal grandfather's retirement. She does not drive and relied on the paternal grandfather to transport the children. The current arrangement marks a significant departure from that structure and raises questions about its long-term viability.

[100] In August 2025, the paternal grandmother took a leave from work to facilitate placement of the younger children in her care under a supervision order, which included a term excluding the paternal grandfather from the home.

[101] There is no independent evidence confirming that the paternal grandmother's leave can be extended beyond the initial three to five months she deposed she could obtain. The expectation that she can remain off work "as long as needed" is not supported by documentation and cannot be relied upon as a long-term safeguard.

[102] The court notes that a cooling-off period has been in effect since August 7, 2025, pursuant to the temporary care and custody order issued by Justice Sherr. During this time, the paternal grandfather has been excluded from the home and from contact with the children, except for a brief visit over the Thanksgiving weekend. This period, combined with the imposition of criminal charges and associated conditions, has contributed to a de-escalation of tensions.

[103] The paternal grandfather has expressed accountability for his role in the adult conflict and a willingness to comply with boundaries and expectations. While concerns remain regarding his past conduct, the paternal grandmother's ability to manage his behaviour, and the contributions of both her and their adult daughter to prior conflict, the court is satisfied that appropriate safeguards can adequately manage the risks associated with his return to the home.

[104] The court is satisfied that the immediate risks to the younger children can be adequately managed by a supervision order placing the children in the paternal grandmother's care.

[105] The court is not satisfied that the condition excluding the paternal grandfather from the home continues to be necessary.

c) Terms of Supervision – The younger children

[106] The younger children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, subject to the supervision of the Society. The court will set terms and condition of supervision in its order to protect the children.

d) Plan to Place with the Mother – The older children

[107] The mother seeks an order placing the older children in her temporary care and custody, subject to supervision. The Society supports this plan. The father and paternal grandparents oppose it. As was the case for the younger children, the court must determine whether a supervision order is sufficient to protect the older children in the mother's care, and if so, on what terms.

[108] The risks that led to removal for the younger siblings are not confined to them. The older children have been exposed to adult conflict and episodes of violence. They have also experienced instability in care and transitions. These risks are real and ongoing.

[109] The older children differ from their younger siblings in important respects. They are older, are represented by counsel, and can reliably express their views and wishes. They attend school and interact with professionals outside the home. These factors are protective and reduce their vulnerability.

[110] The older children's views and wishes are clear. They wish to remain in their mother's care, and to have their younger brothers with them. They have consistently expressed a sense of safety and comfort in her home.

[111] The Society has verified that the older children are doing well in the mother's care. They are attending school, engaging in age-appropriate activities, and maintaining stable routines. The Society has not identified any new protection concerns in relation to the mother's parenting of the older children since the last court order.

[112] While the older children have described the mother's partner as a supportive figure and have not reported recent concerns about his behaviour, they have also expressed distress about the conflict and aggression they witnessed in the paternal family's care.

[113] One of the children, R., stated that he wishes his mother were a single mother. This comment reflects an underlying discomfort with the presence of the mother's partner in the home.

[114] The children have reportedly disclosed to paternal relatives that they do not feel safe when the partner is around. These concerns, though not uniformly expressed, suggest that the partner's presence continues to destabilize the caregiving environment.

[115] The paternal family expressed disappointment that the mother introduced a new person to the home around the children too soon, without getting to know him first. They questioned the mother's judgment in allowing someone she had met recently to reside in her home and be involved in caregiving. These concerns are not determinative but are relevant to the court's assessment of risk.

[116] The mother's partner has submitted that he is not a violent or aggressive person. He has characterized the July 30 incident at the Society office as "out of character" and attributed his presence there to a misunderstanding of the Society's direction not to attend. However, his involvement in two serious incidents of adult conflict within a short period—first, an altercation at the mother's residence on April 30, 2025, and second, the physical confrontation at the Society office on July 30, 2025—undermines the reliability of that submission. Both incidents were witnessed by the children and occurred in settings where conflict should have been avoided.

[117] The July 30 incident is particularly concerning. It occurred during a scheduled supervised access visit at the Society's office and resulted in a Code White response. The mother's partner's participation in a violent altercation in a child-centered, professional setting raises serious concerns about his judgment and impulse control.

[118] The mother's partner's explanation that the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Society's direction or court orders is not persuasive. At best, it reflects a lack of insight into the seriousness of the situation and the expectations placed upon him. At worst, it suggests a lack of governability under a supervision regime. These concerns are not speculative; they arise from a pattern of conduct that has already impacted the children.

[119] The court is also concerned about the mother's ability and willingness to comply with supervision terms relating to her partner. A prior term of supervision required that her partner not be present during visits with the children, and that he not be left unsupervised with them. Despite this, the mother repeatedly attempted to bring him into the visitation room, contrary to the agreement established with the Society. This conduct demonstrates a disregard for the boundaries set to protect the children.

[120] The mother's partner's own actions—attending the Society office on July 30, 2025, despite being directed not to do so—further reflect a lack of compliance and insight.

[121] Taken together, these breaches suggest that there is no reasonable expectation that the mother or her partner will adhere to supervision terms that allow him to remain in the home. His exclusion is therefore necessary to ensure the integrity and enforceability of the supervision order.

[122] In light of these factors, the court finds that the risks associated with the mother's partner remain active and that his exclusion from the home is necessary to ensure the children's safety and well-being.

[123] The older children can be adequately protected by a supervision order placing them with their mother, provided that the mother's partner does not reside in the home.

[124] Having determined a supervision order placing the older children with the mother is adequate to protect them, the analysis of the paternal grandparents' plan for the older children is not required.

e) Terms of Supervision – The older children

[125] The older children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, subject to the supervision of the Society. The court will set terms and condition of supervision in its order to protect the children.

Part Five: Legal Considerations on Access

[126] Having determined the placement of each of the children, the court turns to the question of the children's access.

5.1. Temporary Access – Statutory Context and Governing Principles

[127] Where the court makes a temporary order under clause 94(2)(b), (c), or (d) of the Act, it may order access on any terms it considers appropriate. This authority is provided under subsection 104(1) for supervision orders made under clause 94(2)(b), and under subsection 94(8) for placement orders made under clauses 94(2)(c) and (d).

[128] The court must consider the paramount purpose of the Act—best interests, protection, and well‑being—and the secondary purposes of maintaining family integrity, assisting families, and recognising the least disruptive action consistent with the children's best interests (subsections 1(1) and (2)).[11]

[129] Courts should give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the child's best interests.[12]

[130] Where a party seeks to limit what would otherwise be normal access, they are generally expected to justify that position. The more significant the restriction proposed, the greater the obligation to provide a clear and compelling rationale.[13]

[131] In C.A.S. v. C.F.,[14] Justice McGee explained that access is the right of the child and discussed supervised access at paras. 32–34, emphasising that supervision is a critical tool where there is impaired judgment, a history of violence, or evidence of abuse or neglect. Supervised access is not intended as a long‑term arrangement; it is a bridge while risks are assessed and, when possible, repaired.[15]

Part Six: Access Analysis

6.1. Sibling Access

[132] Sibling relationships often serve as a vital source of emotional support, continuity, and identity for children involved in child protection proceedings.

[133] In the context of a temporary care motion, section 104 of the Act provides the court with discretion to order access, including sibling access, where it is in the child's best interests.

[134] In this case, the children have established meaningful relationships with their siblings, and there is no evidence of conflict or harm that would justify restricting contact.

[135] Given the children are not being placed together, preserving sibling bonds through access is especially important to mitigate the impact of separation.

[136] Sibling access will be ordered a minimum of once per week and may occur concurrently with the access between the children and the parents and caregivers, set out below.

6.2. The Younger Children's Access to the Mother

[137] The mother has maintained a consistent relationship with the younger children and has expressed a clear desire to remain involved in their lives, with all four returning to her care.

[138] Despite the concerns that led to their removal from her care, the evidence does not suggest that contact with the mother, when properly supervised, poses a current risk to the younger children's safety or well-being. On the contrary, continued access supports the younger children's emotional stability and preserves important familial bonds during a period of disruption. The younger children have experienced multiple transitions throughout this litigation, and maintaining regular, predictable contact with their mother is essential to their sense of continuity and attachment.

[139] Supervised access provides a structured and safe environment in which the mother can maintain her relationship with the younger children while the Society continues to assess and monitor risk.

[140] Accordingly, the court finds that it is in the younger children's best interests to have supervised access with their mother at least once per week, on the terms set out below.

6.3. The Children's Access to the Father

[141] The father requests access to each child to the fullest extent permitted by the court, and at minimum, seeks to resume the weekly visits that were in place prior to the suspension of his access on August 5, 2025.

[142] The mother opposes any access between the father and the children. She relies on his history of adult conflict, criminal charges, and coaching behaviour, which she submits pose an unacceptable risk to the children's emotional well-being.

[143] The court does not accept the mother's position.

[144] Before the Society's involvement, the children lived primarily with the mother during the week and spent weekends with the father, who played an active role in their care. At the outset of the Society's intervention, the younger children were placed with the father as a temporary place of safety. Despite concerns that have since arisen regarding his conduct, the children have maintained a bond with him. Continued access supports the preservation of that relationship while safeguarding their emotional welfare.

[145] The evidence supports a finding that supervised access is appropriate and proportionate. The court is not satisfied that a complete denial of access is warranted at this stage of the proceedings.

[146] The father has engaged in incidents of adult conflict, including the July 30, 2025, altercation at the Society office, which occurred in the children's presence and led to criminal charges. The record also includes evidence that he coached the children to speak negatively about the mother and her partner, and used photographs and commentary to influence their views. These behaviours have contributed to caregiver conflict and have compromised the children's emotional safety.

[147] Supervised access offers a structured and secure setting in which the father may maintain his relationship with the children while reducing the risk of further emotional harm. It also enables the Society to monitor interactions and evaluate progress.

[148] The court finds that supervised access with the father, at least once per week, is in the children's best interests. The specific terms of access are set out below.

6.4. The Older Children's Access to the Paternal Grandparents

[149] The paternal grandparents seek access to the older children, who are currently placed with their mother.

[150] The older children have a longstanding and meaningful relationship with their paternal grandparents, having previously resided in their home while in the care of the father.

[151] The Society acknowledges the value of this relationship and supports continued access. However, it seeks that the paternal grandfather's access be supervised due to concerns about his involvement in adult conflict and lack of candour regarding criminal charges. The Society is prepared to allow the paternal grandmother's access at its discretion.

[152] The mother supports continued access but seeks that all access with the paternal grandparents be supervised.

[153] The court finds that supervised access by the older children with their paternal grandparents is required at this time to mitigate the risk of further exposure to conflict. The frequency, duration, and location of visits shall be at the discretion of the Society, with a minimum of one visit per week, on the terms set out below.

6.5. Access by the Mother's Partner to the Children

[154] The court finds that the mother's partner shall have no access to the children.

[155] The evidence establishes that:

(1) The mother's partner presence has been consistently disruptive and provocative, contributing to a pattern of adult conflict that has placed the children at emotional risk.

(2) His involvement in the children's lives has been marked by repeated and serious incidents of adult conflict, including two violent physical altercations witnessed by the children. These incidents resulted in significant injuries and criminal charges, exposing the children to violence and emotional harm.

(3) He has demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with court orders, including attending access exchanges despite explicit directions prohibiting his presence. His conduct has disrupted access arrangements, provoked conflict between caregivers, and undermined the children's emotional safety.

(4) The Society has consistently identified him as a destabilizing influence in the children's environment. His presence has contributed to heightened anxiety and distress, and his failure to respect boundaries has compromised the effectiveness of supervision orders.

[156] In light of these concerns, the court finds that the mother's partner is a disruptive and provocative presence whose continued involvement poses a significant risk to the children's well-being. A no access order is necessary to protect the children and to support the stability of their care and access arrangements.

6.6. Terms of Access

[157] The court will set terms and condition of access in its order to protect the children from conflict.

Part Seven: Next Steps

[158] One of the functions of a case management judge is to give parties a clear and honest account of what must change—not only in their behaviour, but in their understanding of their circumstances, the impact those circumstances have had on their children, and what is realistically required before the court will consider returning the children or expanding access. Avoiding difficult truths does not serve the parties or the children; the court must be direct about what is required and why.

[159] The difficult truth is this:

(1) The children have been exposed to serious and repeated risks, including:

(a) Verified findings of non-accidental injury.

(b) Multiple incidents of adult violence.

(d) Repeated changes in care, changes in primary caregivers, and periods of sibling separation (ongoing).

(e) A pattern of poor decision-making—marked by non-compliance with court orders, disregard for professional direction, and unilateral actions—that consistently places adult interests ahead of the children's needs.

(2) These risks are not resolved by the current supervision orders. They are managed for now—but only if the parties comply and begin to make meaningful changes.

(3) The court has given serious consideration to placing the children in temporary Society care. That option remains firmly on the table and will be pursued if the parties fail to comply with the supervision terms or do not demonstrate meaningful and sustained progress.

(4) Failure to comply with any term of supervision or access may result in a change to the children's placement, including a placement in temporary Society care.

[160] The court expects all parties to shield the children from adult conflict, prioritize their emotional safety, and consistently place their needs ahead of personal or family grievances.

[161] Before the court will consider unsupervised access between the younger children and their mother, or returning them to her care, the mother must:

(1) Show insight into the risks posed by her partner and take meaningful steps to protect the children.

(2) Engage with parenting programs, counselling – including intimate partner violence counselling - and any services recommended by the Society.

(3) Maintain a child-focused environment and avoid unilateral decisions that disrupt the children's care or access.

[162] Before the court will consider unsupervised access, the father and paternal grandfather must:

(1) Refrain from any form of physical discipline, intimidation, or aggression.

(2) Comply strictly with all criminal release conditions and court orders.

(3) Engage with counselling, particularly anger management counselling, and services recommended by the Society.

(4) Show that they can support the children's emotional well-being without placing them in the middle of adult disputes.

(5) Demonstrate sustained governability under supervision.

[163] The court acknowledges that the parents and paternal grandparents have taken some initial steps toward addressing the concerns raised in this proceeding, including engaging with services and expressing a desire to improve. However, these efforts remain preliminary. As individuals and as a family system, they have a long way to go before they can demonstrate that they are consistently prioritizing the children's needs over their own interests, impulses, and conflicts.

[164] Between now and the return date, the Society is expected to:

(1) Monitor compliance with the supervision and access orders.

(2) Assess the parties' engagement with services.

(3) Evaluate the sustainability of the current placements.

[165] The Society must also file an updated affidavit before the next court date, outlining its assessment of each party's progress and any recommendations regarding placement or access.

[166] It is also expected that a draft Statement of Agreed Facts will be circulated and reviewed before the return date.

Part Eight: Order

[167] A temporary order shall issue on the following terms:

(1) The younger children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, subject to the supervision of the Society, on the following terms and conditions:

(a) The paternal grandmother shall permit the Society to conduct announced and unannounced home visits and to meet the younger children privately at home, school, daycare, or in the community.

(b) The paternal grandfather shall not act as a caregiver to the younger children and shall not be left unsupervised with either child at any time.

(c) Whenever the paternal grandfather is in the home and the children are present, a responsible adult supervisor (the paternal grandmother or another Society-approved adult) must be physically present and aware of the children's whereabouts.

(d) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunt shall refrain from negative commentary about one another and shall ensure the children are not exposed to adult conflict.

(e) The paternal grandmother will facilitate or otherwise support access arrangements with the respective parties as arranged by the Society.

(f) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunts shall not audio- or video-record the children in relation to adult disputes or litigation issues.

(g) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunt shall not audio- or video-record the children or another party during access exchanges, court appearances, or in relation to adult disputes or litigation issues.

(h) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunt shall keep communications with the children child-focused, age-appropriate, and limited to ordinary daily matters.

(i) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunt shall not use physical discipline, threats, or intimidation with the children.

(j) The paternal grandmother shall notify the Society within 48 hours of any change to address, contact information, household composition, or caregiving arrangements.

(k) The paternal grandmother shall ensure regular daycare or school attendance and maintain consistent daily routines; any significant absences shall be documented and explained to the Society on request.

(l) The paternal grandmother shall immediately notify the Society of any police attendance at the home, any alleged or actual breach of criminal or bail conditions by any the paternal grandfather or the father, and any injury beyond ordinary childhood scrapes or any hospital or urgent-care attendance, and shall provide discharge instructions and reports upon request.

(m) The paternal grandmother shall execute information releases permitting the Society to speak with daycare or school, health-care providers, public health or infant-nurse services, and identified community supports.

(n) The paternal grandfather shall strictly comply with all criminal or release conditions currently in force, shall provide copies to the Society, and shall promptly inform the Society of any modification.

(o) Within 14 days, the paternal grandfather shall identify at least two supportive adults and, with them, complete a written safety plan that identifies his triggers and red flags, sets out clear steps the network will take if concerns arise, and specifies backup supervision if the paternal grandmother is unavailable. The plan shall be filed with the Society and updated as needed.

(p) The paternal grandmother, the paternal grandfather, and the paternal aunt shall participate in a Family Group Conference or equivalent facilitated meeting if directed by the Society to formalize and review the safety plan and household expectations.

(q) The paternal grandfather shall engage in counselling or skills programming as directed by the Society and provide attendance or completion confirmations, including but not limited to anger management programming.

(r) The paternal grandmother shall engage in counselling or skills programming as directed by the Society and provide attendance or completion confirmations.

(s) Within 14 days, the paternal grandmother shall obtain and provide to the Society a letter from her employer confirming the approved duration of her current leave of absence, the process and likelihood of extension, and whether her position will be held for her return.

(t) Within 30 days, the paternal grandmother shall provide a written care-coverage plan acceptable to the Society setting out how daytime care will be safely covered if or when she returns to work. The plan shall exclude the paternal grandfather from any caregiving role.

(u) The children shall not be left with any unapproved substitute caregiver; any proposed caregiver must receive prior written approval from the Society.

(2) The older children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, subject to the supervision of the Society, on the following terms and conditions:

(a) The mother will allow Society workers to make announced and unannounced visits to the home, and to meet with the older children privately at home, at school or in the community.

(b) The mother will refrain from talking negatively about the father, the paternal grandparents or other members of the paternal family in the presence of the children.

(d) The mother will not record the older children in relation to any dispute or conflict with another parent or caregiver.

(e) The mother will have child-focused conversations with the older children about the mother and the father's separation, and their adjustment to the family changes.

(f) The mother will facilitate or otherwise support access arrangements with the respective parties as arranged by the Society.

(g) The mother will refrain from using physical discipline or intimidation tactics with the older children.

(h) The mother will inform the Society of any proposed change to their address at least 30 days in advance of the intended change, and will inform the Society of any changes to their address, contact information or family constellation within 48 hours of such change occurring.

(i) The mother will ensure that the older children attend school daily and on time, unless they are ill and unable to attend or unless it is for the purpose of attending access.

(j) The mother will participate in a parenting program focused on child development and safety, as may be recommended by the Society.

(k) The mother will complete intimate partner violence counselling or programming recommended by the Society to identify patterns of behaviour and develop strategies, as may be recommended by the Society.

(l) The mother will sign consents to allow the Family Service Worker to verify attendance and progress with service providers.

(m) The mother's partner shall not reside in the mother's home.

(n) The mother shall file a written safety plan within 14 days identifying approved substitute caregivers, and no unapproved caregiver shall provide childcare to the older children.

(3) The following terms of access shall issue:

(a) The older children and the younger children shall have access with one another at least once per week.

(b) Sibling access may occur concurrently with access visits with the mother, the father, or the paternal grandparents, at the discretion of the Society.

(d) Each of the children shall have supervised access with the father at least once per week, either together, separately, or in groups, at the discretion of the Society.

(e) The older children shall have supervised access with the paternal grandparents at least once per week.

(f) The Society shall determine the duration and location of visits at paragraph (1) through (5) above, except that access shall occur on alternating weeks in Toronto, and in intervening weeks in the Niagara Region.

(g) The supervised access set out in paragraphs (1) though (5) above, shall be supervised by the Society while in Toronto, or by an agency designated by the Society while in the Niagara Region.

(h) The mother's partner shall have no access to any of the children, including in-person, virtual, electronic or telephone access.

(i) Communication with the children by the mother, the father, and the paternal grandparents, shall be age-appropriate and child-centered.

(j) The mother, the father, and the paternal grandparents shall refrain from making disparaging comments about other parents or caregivers or discussing adult conflict or litigation in the presence of the children.

(k) The mother, father, and paternal grandparents shall not video- or audio- record the children or coach them to make statements about other caregivers.

(4) The Society shall file an updated affidavit before the next court date, outlining its assessment of each party's progress and any recommendations regarding placement or access.

Released: October 30, 2025

Signed: Justice Jennifer S. Daudlin