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.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child. -- No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged. -- The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142. -- (3) Offences re publication. -- A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

COURT FILE NO. FO-25-46862-00

DATE: December 2, 2025

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto -- Applicant

Fatima Husain appearing for Rachel Buhler, for the APPLICANT

-- and --

K.R. -- Respondent Mother

A. Brown, Duty Counsel, for the RESPONDENT MOTHER

-- and --

D.C. -- Respondent Father

N. Ubochi, Duty Counsel, for the RESPONDENT FATHER

HEARD: November 27, 2025

JUSTICE J. HARRIS

INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES

[1] This is a first appearance within a protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto ("CCAST") concerning two male Children: aged 2 years (the "Younger Child"), and aged 7 years (the "Older Child", and together with the Younger Child, the "Children").

[2] The CCAST's Application seeks protection findings pursuant to subsections 74(2)(a), (b), (e), and (j) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1, ("CYFSA"), and interim society care for 6 months.

[3] The CCAST filed a Notice of Motion, dated November 25, 2025, and relied on the Affidavit of Connie Iannello, the CCAST ongoing worker, sworn November 25, 2025, seeking the following orders:

[a] A temporary order pursuant to subsection 94(2)(d) of the CYFSA placing the Children in the care and custody of the Catholic Children's Aid Society Toronto, pending disposition of the Child Protection Application.

[b] An order pursuant to section 94(8) of the CYFSA that access to the Children by the Mother, shall be a minimum of twice per week. Duration, location, and level of supervision shall be at the discretion of the Society.

[c] An order pursuant to section 94(8) of the CYFSA that access to the Children, by the Father, shall be twice per week. Duration, location, and level of supervision shall be at the discretion of the Society.

[4] The parents were provided the materials the evening before the Motion.

[5] The Younger Child was present in court. The Maternal Aunt and her husband were present in court. The Older Child was reportedly being cared for by the Maternal Grandmother.

[6] The Younger Child remained seated on his Maternal Aunt's lap throughout the hearing and was inactive. He was well dressed. He said "Mama" and "Wawa" a few times. He appeared well below his chronological age.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[7] The parents were assisted by duty counsel, although the court was advised that the Father does not qualify for a legal aid certificate.

[8] The Mother, through duty counsel, made the following submissions:

[a] The Mother requested an adjournment and for the court to order terms of the adjournment.

[b] She sought a date to argue the CCAST motion.

[c] She denied there was urgency supporting the Children's removal from her care. She questioned, if the Younger Child's condition was so serious and concerning, "why wasn't something done sooner?"

[d] She submitted that the order sought by CCAST today was not required and the CCAST procedure is unfair to the parties, given that they were only served the evening before.

[e] She suggested that the CCAST could have obtained a warrant and never sought to remove the Children at any time previously.

[f] With respect to the Younger Child the concerns are being addressed and the issue is a medically diagnosed condition, specifically hypothyroidism.

[g] She follows the recommendations of CCAST.

[h] Given the intensity of medical care in the last month, there is no "immediate" risk to the Younger Child.

[i] She submitted that the concerns could be mitigated by a supervision order with terms determined by the court.

[j] With respect to the Older Child, she submitted that there is no evidence of risk of harm justifying his removal.

[9] The Mother directly submitted that the Younger Child has appointments on Monday with an ophthalmologist, and for blood work "for the seventh time".

[10] The Father, through duty counsel, supported the Mother's position and sought to have the Children remain in the Mother's care under the "least intrusive" order. The Father advised that the parents do not reside together.

BACKGROUND

[11] The CCAST has three prior openings with respect to the Older Child as follows:

[a] November 2018 -- January 2019 -- The Older Child suffered a skull fracture resulting in intracranial bleeding and swelling. A joint investigation with Toronto Police Services ("TPS") and the Hospital for Sick Children ("SickKids") Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Unit ("SCAN") conducted a joint investigation and accepted the Father's explanation that the Child, then 4 months old, had fallen off the bed. The file was closed.

[b] June 2019 -- August 2019 -- It was unclear from the evidence who the referral source was; however, the concerns related to the Older Child appearing ill, pale, lacking hair on his head and his weight percentile had fallen to the 3rd percentile. The Child's doctor recommended that the Child receive a regular diet and referred the Child to a pediatrician and dietician. The parents were connected with a dietician, Health Babies, Healthy Children and there was a noticeable improvement to his weight. The file was closed.

[c] September 2022 -- November 2022 -- TPS was contacted by the Father after an argument between the parents escalated. The Father reported to TPS that the Mother hit the Older Child and threatened to harm herself. The parties reported it was an isolated incident and were referred to counselling. The file was closed.

Current Involvement -- Initial Referral

[12] On April 8, 2025, Dr. Shelby Olesovsky (CPSO# 121924) from the St. Lawrence Health Centre contacted the CCAST and reported concerns for the Younger Child, as follows:

[a] On February 11, 2025, the Father brought the Younger Child to St. Lawrence Health Centre for the first time when he was 18 months.

[b] The family does not believe in some medical practices, for example, immunizations.

[c] The family is vegan, and the Mother was breastfeeding the Younger Child.

[d] The Younger Child was below the 18th percentile for weight.

[e] There were red flags for the Younger Child's fine, gross, and cognitive skills with an unknown cause.

[f] A referral was made to the pediatrician and an appointment scheduled for April 3, 2025. The family did not attend.

[13] A follow up with Dr. Olesovsky was also scheduled for April 8, 2025. The family did not attend.

[14] On April 16, 2025, the Mother shared with the Intake Worker:

[a] The Older Child is home schooled because of the Toronto District School Board's policy on teaching about transgender and sex.

[b] The Older Child participates in t-ball and soccer in the community.

[c] The Older Child's health is excellent.

[d] She is vegan and her Children are vegan.

[e] The Older Child eats lentils, oatmeal, berries and vegetables.

[f] The Younger Child breastfeeds, drinks water, oatmeal, peas and pureed lentils.

[15] The Older Child was sleeping during the home visits at 1:10 p.m. and reportedly went to sleep at midnight.

[16] On April 30, 2025, the Intake Worker spoke with Dr. Olesovsky who shared that she was connecting the family to an occupational therapist, encouraged them to attend an EarlyON program, and referred them to an early interventionist therapy program.

[17] On May 30, 2025, Dr. Olesovsky reported to the Intake Worker that the family did not connect with the occupational therapist.

[18] On June 18, 2025, the matter transferred to ongoing services because of the missed medical appointments and concerns about the Younger Child's development.

[19] On June 26, 2025, the ongoing worker, Connie Iannello, and the CCAST Health Specialist met with the family at the Mother's home with the Children. The Mother shared:

[a] The Mother had no concerns about the Older Child's school progress.

[b] The Younger Child was hitting all his developmental milestones.

[c] The Younger Child has met with a pediatrician twice and the pediatrician had no concerns about his development and his height and weight increased.

[d] The doctor had been unsuccessful at drawing blood from the Younger Child but they would attempt the next week.

[20] The CCAST Health Specialist referred the Mother to Surrey Place. An intake worker from Centennial Infant Development Centre re-scheduled their home visit with the Mother to complete an intake for their services.

[21] On July 7, 2025, Dr. Michael Sgro (CPSO # 61098) from St. Michael's Pediatric Clinic contacted the Ongoing Worker and reported:

[a] The Younger Child has been seen in the clinic twice and he is "tremendously underweight," below the first percentile, he has two lower teeth.

[b] The parents have "tremendous denial" regarding the Child's medical issues.

[c] There is a pattern of inadequate feeding.

[d] He recommended developmental assessments for both Children as well as bloodwork to rule out underlying medical issues.

[e] The family should work with a dietician.

[f] The parents were asked to book a follow up appointment and did not.

[g] Bloodwork was requisitioned for the Younger Child on June 24, 2025 and still had not been completed.

[22] On July 10, 2025, the Ongoing Worker attended the home unannounced at 2:50 p.m. Both Children were sleeping. The Mother shared:

[a] The Father took the Younger Child for blood work twice, but he was inconsolable.

[b] The visit with the dietician went well.

[23] On July 14, 2025, the Ongoing Worker and the CCAST Health Specialist contacted Dr. Sgro again who advised that the Younger Child was severely underweight and malnourished. The blood work had been requisitioned three weeks ago and the parents were directed to go to SickKids, but this was not done. The Younger Child needs a developmental assessment.

[24] On July 14, 2025, the Ongoing Worker contacted the Mother by text and the Mother texted that the Father tried to take the Younger Child to SickKids for blood work again, but he would not sit still. The Mother stated she wanted a second opinion about the need for blood work because she believed the Younger Child was putting weight on and growing. The Ongoing Worker advised that it was urgent that she take the Younger Child for bloodwork. The Mother asked if the doctor could do a physical examination instead.

[25] On July 15, 2025, the Mother confirmed the Younger Child had not been taken for blood work. The Ongoing Worker indicated that "legal intervention" may be necessary. The Mother stated she required a contract with the CCAST to be liable if anything should happen to the Younger Child because of the blood work.

[26] On July 16, 2025, the Mother contacted the Ongoing Worker's Supervisor, Nilisent Dominques, and reported:

[a] The CCAST was only involved because the Younger Child was "not as big as a formula fed baby".

[b] The Younger Child was a healthy, happy baby and was thriving.

[c] The pediatrician was against them for their choice not to vaccinate.

[d] The pediatrician was pushing for bloodwork when it was not necessary.

[27] On July 24, 2025, the Parents told the Ongoing Worker that they felt it was unreasonable to request blood work for the Younger Child.

[28] On July 25, 2025, Dr. Sgro arranged for the Younger Child to be seen by another pediatrician.

[29] On August 11, 2025, the Younger Child turned two years old.

[30] On August 22, 2025, the Mother reported to the CCAST Health Specialist that the Younger Child was seen by the new pediatrician on July 31, 2025, and the new pediatrician did not have worries about the Younger Child's growth or weight. The Mother was consenting to blood work being done but the Father was not.

[31] The CCAST Health Specialist noted that the Younger Child had his breakfast, the first meal of the day, at 2:30 p.m., which consisted of blueberries.

[32] On August 28, 2025, the Dietician at St. Michael's Pediatric Clinic reported to the Ongoing Worker that the Younger Child had had fallen below the zero percentile. The medical team did not understand the Younger Child's failure to thrive. The Father was refusing blood work because he felt it would cause undue pain to the Younger Child.

[33] On September 5, 2025, the Mother advised the Ongoing Worker that Dr. Olesovsky had seen both Children and that they were doing well. The Younger Child was again reported by the Mother to be hitting all his milestones.

[34] On September 8, 2025, Dr. Rozenblyum (CPSO #90635) reported:

[a] The Younger Child gained a bit of weight but not what the team expected.

[b] The Younger Child is delayed in all areas of his development.

[c] Blood work is needed.

[d] The Younger Child is profoundly malnourished, delayed, and has very low muscle tone.

[e] The Child's teeth erupting at 22 months is indicative of being malnourished.

[f] She wants to work with the family.

[35] On October 15, 2025, the Ongoing Worker contacted Dr. Olesovsky who stated:

[a] Blood work was imperative as he is extremely delayed for 22 months old.

[b] Dr. Olesovsky made a referral to have the Older Child developmentally assessed at St. Michael's Pediatric Clinic as well.

[36] On October 17, 2025, the Mother connected with the Ongoing Worker by text message and said they were taking the Child to get blood work. The Mother asked who told the Ongoing Worker that the Younger Child was significantly behind in development because the Younger Child is meeting every milestone. The Ongoing Worker confirmed that both Dr. Olesovsky and Dr. Rozenblyum stated that the Child was very delayed overall.

[37] On October 17, 2025, the Mother confirmed the Younger Child's bloodwork was done.

[38] On October 17, 2025, Dr. Rozenblyum texted the Ongoing Worker to report that the Younger Child was admitted to SickKids and the parents were refusing to permit interventions such as taking Vitamin D.

[39] On October 20, 2025, Dr. Rozenblyum advised the Ongoing Worker that:

[a] The Mother was told that the Younger Child needed to be hospitalized because he was at risk of seizures, arrythmia and heart failure. As well as the Younger Child's dangerously low levels of calcium.

[b] The parents initially refused Vitamin D and SCAN was called to assess the situation.

[c] The Mother expressed concern that the Younger Child would be injected with "Mercury" and "Thalidomide".

[d] The Mother did not want any more blood work as she perceived that it would not be good for the Younger Child's immune system.

[e] The Younger Child's thyroid was underactive. The parents had refused the newborn screen, so it was not possible to know if this existed at birth.

[f] The x-rays are reflective of Rickets, which is rare in developed countries, and Dr. Rozenblyum has never seen a case.

[g] The Younger Child was responding to treatment, and it is imperative that the parents follow through with all medical recommendations because significant gains can be made.

[40] Dr. Yeung (it is unclear from the evidence Dr. Yeung's first name) also called the Ongoing Worker that day and reported:

[a] The Younger Child had been discharged. He would need to be followed closely in the community.

[b] He was diagnosed with Rickets due to malnutrition as he had no dairy, no "VB supplementation" and was solely breastfeed for 21 months.

[c] He has two old finger fractures caused by soft bones.

[d] The parents are aware that his condition is life threatening.

[e] The parents present as having a heavy mistrust of the medical system.

[f] The Younger Child's thyroid issue is the reason for his short stature and his delayed teeth growth.

[g] The Younger Child is also iodine deficient.

[h] The Younger Child should be assessed for nutrient deficiency.

[41] The Younger Child's Discharge Summary from SickKids states:

[a] He was diagnosed with severe hypocalcemia, secondary to presumed vitamin deficiency, Rickets, hypothyroidism and low cortisol.

[b] The Child's admission weight was 10.6 kg and discharge weight was 10.9 kg.

[42] On October 22, 2025, Dr. Yeung reported to the Ongoing Worker:

[a] The parents cancelled the appointment with Dr. Brie Yama (CPSO#101403) from the infant and toddler feeding clinic, which is a specialist that the Younger Child must see, and it is imperative that the parents follow through with this.

[b] The Younger Child may have dropped 800 grams since his hospital discharge.

[43] On October 28, 2025, the Ongoing Worker attended an appointment with the Younger Child, the Parents and the CCAST Health Specialist. The Younger Child was weighed with his clothes on and weighed 10.5 kgs.

[44] On November 3, 2025, the Younger Child was seen by Dr. Yama with the Mother and Maternal Aunt present. Her assessment indicates that:

Collectively, [the Younger Child's] growth curve, blood work, x-rays and the clinical history supports the diagnosis of severe chronic malnutrition, growth faltering/length stunting, and possible impact on brain growth. As a result of his chronic malnutrition, [the Younger Child] also has micronutrient deficiencies which have led to him developing Vitamin D deficient (nutritional) rickets and hypothyroidism (most likely due to iodine (dietary nutritional) deficiency).

The cause of [the Younger Child's] malnutrition is likely multifactorial and a combination of:

• Prolonged breast feeding as the primary source of nutrition
• Delayed introduction of age-appropriate nutrition
• Inadequate calorie and micronutrient provision to meet [the Younger Child's] nutritional needs
• Contribution of hormone imbalance (hypothyroidism) leading to altered metabolism
• Restricted diet deficient in essential micronutrients based on caregiver preferences and beliefs

[45] On November 5, 2025, Dr. Yama reported to the Ongoing Worker and the CCAST Health Specialist as follows:

[a] The Younger Child has life threatening low levels of calcium, a vitamin D deficiency, Rickets, and two fractures due to thin bones.

[b] Hypothyroidism, due to [iodine] deficiency, which is rare in North America.

[c] The Younger Child has had a restricted diet for almost two years of just breastfeeding, vegan food, and no pediatric care.

[d] He is less than the 1st percentile for weight.

[e] There has been no weight gain in two weeks and typical weight gain should be 5.6 grams per day.

[f] She is unsure whether the Mother is accurately reporting what she is feeding the Younger Child.

[g] The Mother reports perfect development, which is not observed at the clinic.

[h] Rickets is reversible, Osteopenia is reversible with iodine, but prolonged hypothyroidism may have irreversible impacts on development.

[46] On November 7, 2025, the Occupational Therapist spoke with the Ongoing Worker and shared that she has met with the Younger Child three times and has seen improvement in his play and interactions, and that his play skills are good. He looks like a new walker, and she has not seen him walk up any stairs.

[47] On November 7, 2025, the Ongoing Worker observed the Younger Child. He was with his Mother and his maternal aunt. The Younger Child was more engaging and played with a toy. The Mother had purchased calorie boosting products. The Mother agreed to have the Younger Child's blood work completed at her next appointment with Dr. Yama.

[48] On November 10, 2025, the Younger Child was seen again by Dr. Yama with his Mother, the Older Child and the Maternal Aunt. He was more alert. Dr. Yama's assessment indicates:

The Younger Child presented today for brief reassessment of his weight after there had been no weight gain since he was discharged from hospital at the last (intake) clinic visit. He had gained slightly above average weight per day since last clinic.

[49] On November 10, 2025, a full nutritional panel was ordered by Dr. Yama for the Older Child. The Older Child was observed to be thin for his stated age. He only spoke in 2-3 word sentences. Dr. Yama noted concerns for developmental delays. The Older Child has a Zinc and Vitamin D deficiency and a survey for Rickets was completed but did not show active Rickets. The Older Child also had low carnitines and low amino acids.

[50] On November 14, 2025, Dr. Yama reported to the Ongoing Worker:

[a] The Younger Child was on the cusp of hospitalization.

[b] His weight was 10.14 kg from 10.1 kg.

[c] She would like to see double the weight gain.

[d] The Mother's food choices, due to dietary belief system, are restrictive.

[e] She is very concerned and will see the Younger Child every two weeks which is not her typical practice.

[f] The Younger Child's blood work showed deficiency in Vitamin D at high risk of blindness.

[g] He was treated with a dose of Vitamin A.

[h] He must be urgently seen by an ophthalmologist and the Mother was recommended to see one at SickKids, but the Mother declined and said she would see one in the community.

[i] Nutrition is the best medicine, and the Mother is restricting the Children's diet. The Younger Child's restrictive diet is causing the malnutrition and preventing him from healing.

[51] On November 20, 2025, Dr. Yama reported to the Ongoing Worker:

[a] The Mother agreed to see the ophthalmologist at SickKids on November 17, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. after a weigh-in at 2:00 p.m. The Mother brought the Child at 3 p.m. and refused dilation. A proper assessment could not be completed.

[b] The Child has gained weight and now weights 10.92 kg.

[c] There are no signs of Rickets on the Older Child's x-rays, but there are changes to his bones suggestive of metabolic conditions such as scurvy or malnutrition.

[d] The Older Child should be taking 4000 units of Vitamin D.

[52] On November 21, 2025, and November 24, 2025, SickKids was unable to reach the Mother.

[53] On November 25, 2025, the Ongoing Worker was contacted by a nurse at the St. Michael's Pediatric Clinic to advise that the Mother had cancelled the Younger Child's developmental assessment, and that the Mother advised that the Younger Child was developing well. This was the third time the family had cancelled the assessment. It was previously scheduled on September 22, 2025, and October 20, 2025.

LAW

[54] Subsection 94(2) of the CYFSA states that where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody of the child: *Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.G.*, 2023 ONCJ 47 at paragraph 5.

[55] The Court must make a temporary order, and therefore the request for an adjournment is denied.

Temporary Care and Custody

[56] Section 94(4) of the CYFSA sets out the criteria the court is to consider when making an order placing the Children into the temporary care of a children's aid society.

[57] The onus is on CCAST to establish, first, that there is credible and trustworthy evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the Children remain with the Respondents, it is more probable than not that the Children will suffer harm. Second, CCAST must establish that the Children cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.

[58] The court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child as required by subsection 1(2) of the CYFSA: *Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M.*, 2012 ONSC 2448.

[59] The degree of intrusiveness of the CCAST's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. *Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. J.O.*, 2012 ONCJ 269.

ANALYSIS

[60] The court recognizes that it does not have the benefit of responding materials from either of the parents, however, the CCAST's evidence supports the temporary placement order sought.

[61] The evidence at the next court appearance may be different, and it is possible the court may arrive at a different outcome with respect to temporary care.

[62] The court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe there is risk that if the Children remain in their parent's care, they are likely to suffer harm, based on the following:

[a] The Children have not received adequate medical attention for years.

[b] The Parents delayed recommended blood work for months resulting in the Younger Child's hospitalization.

[c] The Parents have a heavy mistrust of the medical system and lack insight into the seriousness of the Younger Child's medical conditions.

[d] The Younger Child has life threateningly low levels of calcium.

[e] The Younger Child has been diagnosed with severe hypocalcemia, vitamin deficiency, hypothyroidism, low cortisol, and Ricket's due to the malnutrition in the Parent's care.

[f] The Younger Child is at risk of blindness.

[g] The Mother is unable or unwilling to consent to the dilation of the Younger Child's eyes, as recommended by the Child's medical team, to ensure the Child receives adequate medical attention to avoid blindness.

[h] The cause is malnutrition and the cure is nutrition.

[i] The Mother insists on a restrictive vegan diet.

[j] The Mother either is unable to understand or unwilling to understand the seriousness of the Younger Child's conditions.

[k] The Older Child's bones are suggestive of metabolic conditions such as scurvy or malnutrition.

[l] The Older Child is vitamin deficient and requires specialized pediatric care.

[m] The Older Child is not enrolled in school and is not visible in the community.

[n] The Older Child requires a full clinical assessment.

[o] SickKids attempted to schedule a full clinic appointment for the Older Child on December 1, 2025, but despite multiple calls to the Mother there was no answer.

[p] The Mother is not transparent and cooperative.

[q] The Mother persistently misses the medical appointments necessary for the Children.

[63] The court is also satisfied that a supervision order would not mitigate risk because of the parents' lack of insight, lack of cooperation and the urgent need for the Children to receive adequate nutrition and medical care without any further delays. These Children need daily nutritional support and extensive medical intervention. This cannot be mitigated through a supervision order because it requires a level of daily competence and attention to the Children's nutritional and medical needs, which the parents currently do not have.

[64] Duty counsel, on behalf of the Mother, argued the merits of the motion as an "adjournment request", while stating that the motion was not being argued. It may have been open to the court to find that the merits of the motion were argued given the extensive submissions made by duty counsel for the Mother on the evidence.

[65] However, the court is making the order "without prejudice" in fairness to the parents, in light of the short notice of the motion and given that the Mother seeks to file responding evidence.

[66] Duty counsel, on behalf of the Mother, raised a very important issue specifically, "why wasn't something done sooner?"

[67] This matter should have been brought to court months ago to ensure the Children received adequate medical testing, timely diagnosis, as well as ongoing treatment.

[68] Additionally, had the matter been brought to court earlier, the parents would have had the benefit of counsel, so that they may have understood the severity of the child protection concerns, the possibility of the Children being removed from their care, and taken earlier steps to address those concerns, and to engage with services and support to develop greater supports and parenting abilities.

[69] Kinship placements may have also been assessed. There is extended family interested in planning for the Children. Kinship assessments could have been completed.

[70] A supervision order either with the Mother or a member of the Children's extended family may have been effective at some point prior to today, and avoided the Children's removal to society care.

[71] Children do not need to be in life threatening condition before those professionals responsible for their safety, protection and wellbeing take adequate steps to mitigate risk: *Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. F.B.*, 2025 ONCJ 198 at paragraph 92.

APPOINTMENT OF THE OCL

[72] Pursuant to subsection 78(4)(b) of the CYFSA, legal representation is "deemed to be desirable" given that the Children are in care, and it is alleged that the Children are in need of protection within the meaning of clauses 74(2)(a) and (j).

[73] Pursuant to section 78 of the CYFSA, the court is appointing legal representation for both the Children by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

NEXT STEPS

[74] The Mother intends to retain counsel and qualifies for a legal aid certificate. The Mother does not consent to an adjournment greater than 30 days.

[75] Pursuant to Rule 33(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 this matter is within the child protection timetable.

[76] The matter has been adjourned for no more than 30 days in accordance with section 94(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1.

ORDERS

[77] The following orders are made today:

[a] On a temporary without prejudice basis:

[i] Orders to go in accordance with the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto Notice of Motion, dated November 25, 2025.

[b] Pursuant to section 78 of the CYFSA, the court is appointing legal representation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer for the two Children.

[c] The matter is adjourned to a Temporary Care and Custody Hearing on December 11, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. in-person before Justice Sullivan.

[d] Court administration is requested to email the endorsement to Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the Respondents and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Justice J. Harris