WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.

Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order:

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

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

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: November 7, 2025

Court File No.: Toronto FO-24-00045657-0000

Between:

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto Applicant

— AND —

P.R.O. / R.G.A. Respondents

Before: Justice S. Mintz

Heard on: October 27, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: November 7, 2025

Counsel and Parties

L. Goldfarb — counsel for the Applicant Society

S.M. González Ponce — counsel for the Respondent Father

P.R.O. — on her own behalf

J. Douketis — on behalf of the Attorney General

C. Ramsay — on behalf of Legal Aid Ontario

M. De Celis — Child Protection Worker

Reasons for Judgment

MINTZ J.:

Background

[1] The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto ("CCAS" or "Society") brought a Notice of Motion, dated July 25, 2025 for the appointment of amicus curiae ("amicus") for the Mother. This matter involves a now 6 year-old child who has been in interim society care since February 19, 2025.

[2] In the intervening period between the motion being brought and heard, the Mother retained counsel. The motion was initially heard October 3, 2025, and ruled premature. It was adjourned to December 1, 2025, with an order to bring the motion back before the Court should the Respondent Mother no longer have counsel.

[3] The Mother no longer had counsel as of October 17, 2025. The motion was heard October 27, 2025.

[4] At the initial hearing of the motion, the Father took no position. He now consents to the appointment of amicus for the Mother. The Attorney General initially opposed the appointment of amicus because the Mother had counsel. On the return of the motion, the Attorney General consents to the relief sought, and submitted a draft order. Legal Aid Ontario took no position on the motion. The Mother opposes the appointment of amicus.

Legal Test for Amicus Appointment

[5] The legal test to apply is set out in Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides, 2019 ONCA 1023, where the Court of Appeal set out the principles governing the appointment of amicus in private family law cases:

1. The assistance of amicus must be essential to the adequate discharge of the judicial functions in the case. The stakes must be high enough to warrant amicus. This is a circumstantial determination within the trial judge's discretion.

2. A party has the right to self-represent. However, the trial judge is responsible for ensuring that the trial progresses reasonably.

3. While amicus may assist in the presentation of evidence, amicus cannot control a party's litigation strategy, and, because amicus does not represent a party, the party may not discharge amicus.

4. The authority to appoint amicus should be used sparingly and with caution, in response to specific and exceptional circumstances. A trial judge should consider whether a Legal Aid certificate would be available and whether the matter should be adjourned to permit a party to apply for it. A trial judge should also consider whether other resources could be gathered together to suffice. That one or both parties are self-represented is not a sufficient reason to appoint amicus, in itself, nor is it sufficient based on the idea that since one party is represented, amicus is necessary to level the playing field.

5. The trial judge must consider whether he or she can personally provide sufficient guidance to an unrepresented party in the circumstances of the case to permit a fair and orderly trial without the assistance of amicus, even if the party's case would not be presented quite as effectively as it would be by counsel.

6. It will sometimes, though very rarely, be necessary for amicus to assume duties approaching the role of counsel to a party in a family case. While the general role of amicus is to assist the court, the specific duties of amicus may vary.

[6] In Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 215, the Court appointed amicus for a mother in a child protection case, writing:

[38] The court appreciates that the appointment of amicus should be used sparingly and only be done in exceptional circumstances. However, I find that the appointment of amicus is warranted in child protection proceedings in cases where the society is requesting an order that permanently severs the parent child relationship and there is a concern that a self-represented parent will not have the ability to properly present their case.

[39] I have also considered that it is possible that Ms McCullough agrees to represent the mother or that she retains other counsel. However, I find that amicus should be appointed to ensure that if there is a break-down in the mother's relationship with her new counsel, that the trial does not become delayed, unfocused or chaotic. Amicus is necessary to ensure that the evidence that the court requires to determine this child's best interests is before the court.

High Stakes and Reasonable Trial Progress

[7] The Society is moving this matter toward trial. The Court anticipates that a trial will likely occur in the February 2026 child protection trial sittings, or in the April 2026 sittings, at the latest. In the original Application of November 2024, CCAS sought a six-month supervision order placing the child with the Mother. In the Amended Application, issued April 8, 2025, the Society seeks an order that the child be placed in interim society care for six months. The Mother is vehemently opposing the order, and any order where the child is not residing full-time with her. As such, the Court finds that the stakes are high enough to warrant amicus.

[8] The Court finds that a trial would not progress reasonably without the appointment of amicus, as supported by the following evidence:

a. The Mother has previously exhibited that she is ungovernable. This was outlined in the Temporary Care and Custody Hearing Endorsement of July 4, 2025. Her behaviour at the hearing of this motion confirmed that she remains ungovernable. She often spoke over people, including the Court. She was asked simple questions, such as how much longer were her submissions, and she could not give a straight answer. She instead used these as opportunities to launch into monologues about her daughter. This motion did not progress reasonably, and as such, there is no reason to believe that would change at trial;

b. The Mother gets angry and escalates quickly when presented with information she does not agree with. She becomes emotionally dysregulated and then redirection is difficult;

c. The Mother does not follow the directions given by the Court. When she initially referenced a 14B motion brought concerning her access, the Court reminded her that this was a motion about appointing amicus, and that the relief sought on her motion was not being dealt with today. She was advised by the Court not to make submissions on that relief. Despite that direction, she referenced her 14B motion repeatedly and made submissions about in person access with the child. She did so under the guise of a submission on amicus receiving disclosure of the CCAS file within 14 days of appointment;

d. The Mother seems unable to determine what is relevant, and places heavy significance on irrelevant items. For example, the Mother made considerable submissions on her being treated differently, and that she has been biased, because the draft order submitted by the Attorney General for the appointment of amicus had the word mother lower cased and father capitalized in the style of cause. The Mother submitted that this was clear gender bias. The Court does not agree. In the remainder of the document, the Mother's name was used and capitalized;

e. The Mother does not understand the proper legal test to apply. She twice made submissions about the Court needing to use the least intrusive measure. That is part of the test on the Temporary Care and Custody Hearing, not on the appointment of amicus. She also referenced the best interest of the child test under s. 74 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which again is not the legal test for the Court to apply on this motion;

f. The Mother wastes the limited resources of the Court making the same submissions over and over again. In doing so, her submissions ballooned to just under 50 minutes. The motion was scheduled for 60 minutes, and there were four other parties making submissions;

g. The Mother does not follow the Court rules. She repeatedly referenced items that are not properly in evidence on this motion, including making serious allegations about the Respondent Father; and,

h. The Mother did not understand the roles of the parties, and in particular, the role of the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario on this motion. She made submissions about the continued involvement of the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario. Both were made parties only for the purposes of the amicus motion.

Specific and Exceptional Circumstances

[9] In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. A.T., 2018 ONCJ 720, the Court appointed amicus. It noted the complex nature of child protection proceedings, that the mother had been unable to retain counsel for several months, that the mother had three previous lawyers and that if she were able to retain counsel, there was a risk that she would not be able to keep a lawyer. Similar facts exist in the present case, as detailed below.

[10] The Court finds that there are specific and exceptional circumstances that require the appointment of amicus, as supported by the following evidence.

a. The Mother has a legal aid certificate. She has already been through three counsel, as follows:

i. There was a Notice of Change in Representation served on November 25, 2024, that Ms. L. Israel had been retained. On December 19, 2024, a further Notice of Change in Representation was received by the CCAS that the Mother was self-represented. There were no Court appearances in this period that Ms. Israel was retained. This counsel lasted under a month.

ii. On March 12, 2025, Izevbuwa Ikhimiukor advised the Society that he had been retained, but by March 25, 2025, he confirmed he no longer represented the Mother. There were no Court appearances in this period that Mr. Ikhimiukor was retained. This counsel lasted approximately 2 weeks.

iii. There was a Notice of Change in Representation, dated July 25, 2025, that Ms. L. Baumal was representing the Mother. At the time of the initial hearing of this motion (October 3, 2025), the Mother had recently filed a change of lawyer request to Legal Aid Ontario. Ms. Baumal was no longer the Mother's counsel by October 17, 2025. There was one Court appearance in the period Ms. Baumal was retained. This counsel lasted just under three months.

b. The Mother was referred to the Family Senior Counsel Program through Legal Aid Ontario, most recently on June 13, 2025. The Program responded that it was unable to assist in this matter; and,

c. In her own Affidavits of March 5, 2025 and May 9, 2025, the Mother confirms her difficulty in securing counsel.

Judicial Guidance Insufficient

[11] The Court finds that a trial judge would not be able to provide sufficient guidance to an unrepresented party in the circumstances of the case to permit a fair and orderly trial without the assistance of amicus. This is because Mother has shown to not understand process, even when it is explained to her by the Court. At the start of the motion, the Court set out the order of the parties' submissions, with the Applicant Society first, all the aligned parties next, and then the Mother, who opposed the motion, last. The Mother then raised her virtual hand. The Court believed it was for a procedural issue and called on the Mother before submissions commenced. Instead, the Mother launched into her submissions. The Court then stopped her and reiterated the order of submissions.

Mother's Submissions

[12] Having found that the legal test in Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides is met, the Court will address the Mother's primary submissions. The Mother submitted she opposes the appointment of amicus based on procedural fairness, proportionality, her Charter rights, and the best interests of the child. She further submitted that the legal threshold for the appointment of amicus was not met because it is intended for unmanageable, complex, self-represented parties who cannot participate at all, and situations where access to justice is otherwise impossible. Her position is that she has been engaged in the process as a self-represented litigant, and in doing so, has served and filed motion materials, attended Court, and exercised her right to be heard. She submits that she is fully capable of participating meaningfully.

[13] As outlined above, the Mother is not capable of meaningful participation. She applied the wrong legal test, she has filed redundant material, and she does not follow the Court's directions. Amicus is required because the evidence needs to be placed properly before the Court in an organized fashion. Even on this motion, the Mother did not have any Affidavit material before the Court. This was despite her stern opposition to the appointment of amicus.

Charter Rights

[14] With respect to Charter rights, in Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A., 2017 ONCJ 553, the Court found that s. 7 Charter rights were engaged as a result of an order being sought to remove the child from the person who had charge prior to intervention and to limit their access to the child. The Court appointed amicus in that case to help protect that mother's Charter rights. The Court expressed concern that the mother in that case could not sustain a working relationship with counsel, given three past counsel relationships had broken down, there was no evidence that a new lawyer would be any different, and the mother was challenging to deal with. The same situation is present in this case, and as such, favours protecting the Mother's Charter rights with the appointment of amicus.

Balancing Rights and Trial Fairness

[15] The Court must balance the right of the Mother to represent herself with the need for the trial to run reasonably, and for the trial judge to have the relevant evidence before the Court to make this important decision about this young child's future. As outlined above, the Court has significant concerns that the trial will not progress as it should, and there may be gaps in the evidence should amicus not be appointed. Given the potential outcome, the Mother should be afforded every opportunity to have meaningful and appropriate participation at trial. The appointment of amicus would help to ensure that this happens.

Amicus Appointment if Mother Retains Counsel

[16] The Court is alive to the issue of the appointment of amicus even if the Mother retains new counsel at any point between now and the end of trial. As detailed in W.A.C. v C.A.F., 2021 ONSC 5140 at para. 32:

I accept that, should the mother get legal aid and retain counsel, then it is rare to have both a lawyer and amicus available at the same time, especially where their roles would overlap. But Mr. Jenkins submitted to the Court that the granting of a legal aid certificate, and an amicus appointment, are not mutually exclusive orders. He advised the Court that he has seen situations where amicus was appointed but then discharged once counsel got retained. By contrast, he has also seen situations where the Court kept amicus, despite the subsequent retaining of counsel by the party, out of an abundance of caution to avoid the trial being derailed.

[17] In that case, an order was made that only the Court may terminate amicus, or change the terms and conditions of the appointment.

[18] Other decisions have highlighted the concern that where there is a demonstrated "inability to work with counsel", that a trial would be in jeopardy if amicus were appointed and discharged if a party retains counsel. See: R v Imona-Russel, 2019 ONCA 252 at para. 43 and R. v. Chemama, 2014 ONCA 171 at para. 2.

[19] In its Notice of Motion, the Society sought several terms for the appointment of amicus. The Attorney General submitted a draft order containing those terms and others. Having reviewed the terms, the Court is satisfied that all are appropriate and makes those orders below, except for paragraph 9. Paragraph 9 addresses what happens if the Mother retains counsel in the future. Because the Mother has repeatedly shown that she cannot work with counsel, and that she frequently discharges counsel, an order requiring that amicus remain appointed even if the Mother retains counsel will be made.

Order

1. Amicus Curiae ("amicus") shall be appointed to assist the Court in its role of ensuring the trial is orderly and fair to all parties.

2. Amicus is hereby appointed to assist the Court in this proceeding, as follows:

   a. Amicus will not take instructions from the Respondent Mother, P.R.O. ("Mother"), but shall consider her views and preferences on any relevant matter;

   b. Amicus shall not take any instructions from or otherwise consider the views and preferences of any other party;

   c. For amicus to be effective, the Mother is encouraged to cooperate and engage with amicus;

   d. Amicus will be entitled to the complete and continuing file disclosure from the Applicant. The Applicant shall prepare the disclosure to be delivered to amicus within 14 days of the date of appointment;

   e. In any event, amicus should be added to Thomson Reuters Case Center and granted full access to the court file on Thomson Reuters Case Center. If the file is not available on Case Center, the Applicant shall provide amicus with a copy of the continuing record along with all endorsements within one week of the date of appointment;

   f. Amicus may assist the Mother in understanding the legal issues/tests, processes and procedural issues in the proceedings, including for trial, in the event and to the extent that any judicial guidance proves insufficient;

   g. Amicus may assist the Mother in revising her plans for the child;

   h. Amicus shall be entitled to fully participate in the proceeding and trial including, bring motions, make closing submissions, if necessary, file and call evidence, examine witnesses and conduct cross-examinations of witnesses at their own discretion after attempting to take into account the Mother's views. Amicus shall have the sole discretion in determining what steps and submissions are appropriate;

   i. Amicus is entitled to order the transcripts of any court appearance;

   j. Amicus shall be served with any future materials;

   k. Amicus shall not have a solicitor-client relationship with any of the parties. However, amicus' communications with the Mother for the purpose of carrying out the terms of this appointment shall be treated as confidential; and,

   l. Otherwise as directed or ordered by this Court.

3. The Attorney General shall provide funding for amicus in accordance with the terms of this order.

4. Amicus shall be paid at legal aid rates.

5. Amicus will abide by Legal Aid Ontario's policies and procedures, including authorization for disbursements, monitoring and review of accounts, billing practices, and payment rules.

6. Legal Aid Ontario shall manage funding of amicus in accordance with this order, the Ministry of the Attorney General – Legal Aid Ontario Protocol for Management of Court-Ordered Publicly Funded Counsel, and Legal Aid Ontario's policies and procedures, including authorization for disbursements, monitoring and review of accounts, billing practices, and payment rules.

7. The terms and conditions of the appointment of amicus may only be varied by further order of this Court. Only this Court has the authority to terminate or limit the involvement and participation of amicus in this proceeding. Neither the Applicant nor any other party has authority to terminate the involvement or change the role of amicus in this proceeding.

8. Amicus is at liberty to seek directions from the Court, on notice to the parties, the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario, as may be necessary to carry out their duties or to expand or alter the role of amicus.

9. In the event that the Mother retains counsel, notice of such shall be provided by that counsel to the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario. The appointment of amicus shall remain in full effect until the conclusion of this matter.

10. Amicus and counsel for the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario shall appear before this Court to address variations of this order, as may be necessary from time to time, or in the event of any non-compliance with this order.

11. This order shall bind any amicus who may be appointed by this Court.

12. On behalf of the Attorney General and the Court, Legal Aid Ontario shall make best efforts to locate one or more members of the Law Society of Ontario in good standing to assume the mandate set out in this order to act at legal aid rates for the Court's consideration, with no actual or potential conflict of interest with any of the parties to this proceeding. Legal Aid Ontario shall provide to the Court a list of available counsel and the Court shall confirm the appointment of one of the counsel to serve as amicus.

13. This matter is adjourned to a Case Conference at 9:00 a.m. on November 13, 2025, in person. Case Conference Briefs are not required. Confirmations with updates are required in accordance with the Family Law Rules. Spanish interpreter required.

Released: November 7, 2025

Signed Electronically by Justice S. Mintz