ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-113

DATE: 2015/07/09

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990

AND IN THE MATTER OF B., C., A., E. M-C

Marcelle Story, counsel for C., B. and E.;
Sheldon Cherner, counsel for A.

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant

– and –

M.M. and B.C.
Respondent

Marguerite Lewis, counsel for the Applicant

Michael Wonham, counsel for M.M.,
B.C. self-represented

HEARD: June 26, 2015 (at Ottawa)

ENDORSEMENT ON A MOTION

BLISHEN J.

INTRODUCTION

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) filed a Notice of Motion requesting an order prohibiting the release of a Family Court Clinic assessment dated June 18, 2014, in any format, to 15 year old twins C. and B. M-C. The parents of the children consent and also request the prohibition. The lawyer for C. and B. contests the motion on their behalf.

BACKGROUND

[2] The Family Court Clinic assessment was ordered on January 29, 2014, pursuant to section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as am. [CFSA], in the context of a protection application requesting a six month supervision order to the parents for four children: C. and B. born […], 1999 and their younger twin brothers A. and E. born […], 2003. At that time, the allegations were: risk of physical and emotional harm due to family dysfunction and conflict; physical and verbal aggression and out of control behaviour by C.; mental health concerns with respect to C. and her mother; the mother’s alcohol abuse; and the inability of the parents to cope with two sets of twins and to adequately protect their children.

[3] A temporary supervision order was made on January 29, 2014 along with the order for the Family Court Clinic assessment and an order appointing counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to represent all four children.

[4] On April 11, 2014, C. was apprehended after incidents on April 5 and April 9, when she became physically aggressive with B. and her father; ripped the alarm system out of the wall; cut the telephone cords; damaged B.’s bedroom door; smashed the television and was generally “out of control”. The police were called on April 5 by B. and on April 9 by Mr. C. The younger children were present during the incidents on April 9 and were hiding. The police transported C. to the Youth Services Bureau Crisis Unit where she was apprehended on April 11.

[5] The Society filed an Amended Protection Application seeking three months’ Society Wardship for C. On April 16, 2014 a without prejudice order was made placing C. in the temporary care and custody of the Society with access to her parents at the Society’s discretion.

[6] On June 18, 2014 the Family Court Clinic assessment, written by Director, Dr. David McLean, was completed and provided to the parties and counsel for the children, Ms. Story. After reviewing the assessment, the parties, their counsel and counsel for the children appeared at a Settlement Conference before Justice Polowin on July 16, 2014.

[7] By that time the parents were planning to separate. Final orders were made on consent finding all four children in need of protection and placing the three boys with their father under the terms and conditions of a six month Supervision Order with access to their mother, every second weekend and one evening per week. C. was made a Society Ward for four months with access to her parents at the Society’s discretion and in keeping with her wishes and best interests. The Family Court Clinic assessment was not provided to C. nor to B. either before or after the final orders were made.

[8] On November 10, 2014 the Society filed a Status Review Application requesting an eight month continuation of the supervision order to Mr. C. for B., A. and E. and a two month Society Wardship followed by a six month supervision order to the father, for C. C.’s mental health appeared to have stabilized; she continued to see her psychiatrist at CHEO who was assessing her medication; she had commenced counselling with a psychologist; and her visits with her father and siblings had gone well and increased to include overnights, without any reported concerns. The plan was to re-integrate C. back into her father’s home with her brothers in December, 2014.

[9] Unfortunately, according to the evidence of CAS supervisor, Rob Godman, C. once again became verbally and physically aggressive and expressed suicidal ideation. In addition, she refused to continue her treatment plan, including counselling and ultimately refused any access with her family. The reintegration plan was put on hold.

[10] By February, 2015 C. resumed access which went well and it was decided to again attempt a reintegration. C. was moved from her group home to a parent model foster home dedicated to helping girls re-integrate back into their families. However, shortly after the move, C. began indicating she no longer wished to return home. She requested placement in a long-term foster home in order to focus on: school, a summer job and other aspects of her life, without the challenges of living at home.

[11] C. was placed in a long-term foster home on May 20, 2015. She did very well in school, receiving a Youth Recognition Award for her academic achievements and was selected to participate in a youth employment opportunity this summer. There are no concerns with her behaviour at this time. She is adjusting well.

[12] When the family was together, B., according to the Family Court Clinic assessment, isolated himself; barricaded himself in his room; and got up in the middle of the night to do his homework. This was his way of coping with his dysfunctional family. Dr. McLean is concerned that the “emotional scarring” B. experienced due to the family dysfunction, will surface in the future. He recommended individual counselling for B. but felt it should not be forced upon him.

[13] At present, B. has expressed to the Society child protection worker he is happy to continue living with his father and to make his own decisions regarding access to his mother. He has little, if any, access or contact with his mother at this time. B. reports no major concerns with C.’s visits. He continues to do very well in school, is involved in extracurricular activities and has a good social network.

[14] The mother’s access to A. and E. has increased and the parents have agreed to a flexible schedule with the boys going back and forth, based on their comfort level.

[15] Although there is some continuing conflict between the parents, particularly over the access schedule, they have been cooperative with the Society and there are no current concerns as to the care of the children or their safety in each parent’s home. The family situation is now relatively stable.

[16] Therefore, on the Status Review Application, Minutes of Settlement have been signed for nine months Society Wardship for C. and for a termination of the Supervision Order to the father with respect to B., A. and E., on the basis of a Voluntary Services Agreement with the parents. Final orders can be made on consent once a decision is made on this motion.

[17] This is the background context for the request now made by C. and B. through their lawyer, Ms. Story, for a copy of the 54 page Family Court Clinic assessment. Ms. Story alerted the Society to this request, which resulted in the motion before the court.

Positions of the Parties and Children

[18] Ms. Story, counsel for C. and B., argues that pursuant to section 54(5) of the CFSA, it is mandatory that the Family Court Clinic assessment be provided to the children, as there is insufficient evidence that disclosure of the report would cause them emotional harm.

[19] The Society and parents argue the paramount purpose of the CFSA under section 1 must always be considered. In addition, the children were found in need of protection, a year has gone by and there is now an agreement to final orders on the Status Review Application. Further, there is sufficient evidence for a finding that emotional harm to C. and B. would result from disclosure of the report at this time.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Legislation

[20] Section 54(5) of the CFSA deals with the disclosure of a court ordered assessment to children 12 years of age or more. That section reads:

Where the person assessed is a child twelve years of age or more, the child shall receive a copy of the report, except that where the court is satisfied that disclosure of all or part of the report to the child would cause the child emotional harm, the court may withhold all or part of the report from the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (5).

[21] It is important to consider that subsection along with other relevant subsections of section 54 as follows:

Order for assessment

54. (1) In the course of a proceeding under this Part, the court may order that one or more of the following persons undergo an assessment within a specified time by a person appointed in accordance with subsections (1.1) and (1.2):

55. The child.

56. A parent of the child.

57. Any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward or would participate in a plan for the care and custody of or access to the child. 2006, c. 5, s. 10 (1).

Report

(2) The person performing an assessment under subsection (1) shall make a written report of the assessment to the court within the time specified in the order, which shall not be more than thirty days unless the court is of the opinion that a longer assessment period is necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (2).

Copies of report

(3) At least seven days before the court considers the report at a hearing, the court or, where the assessment was requested by a party, that party, shall provide a copy of the report to,

(a) the person assessed, subject to subsections (4) and (5);
(b) the child’s solicitor or agent of record;
(c) a parent appearing at the hearing, or the parent’s solicitor of record;
(d) the society caring for or supervising the child;
(e) a Director, where he or she requests a copy;
(f) where the child is an Indian or a native person, a representative chosen by (g) the child’s band or native community; and
(h) any other person who, in the opinion of the court, should receive a copy of the report for the purposes of the case. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (3).

Child under twelve

(4) Where the person assessed is a child less than twelve years of age, the child shall not receive a copy of the report unless the court considers it desirable that the child receive a copy of the report. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (4).

Child twelve or older

(5) Where the person assessed is a child twelve years of age or more, the child shall receive a copy of the report, except that where the court is satisfied that disclosure of all or part of the report to the child would cause the child emotional harm, the court may withhold all or part of the report from the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (5).

Assessment is evidence

(6) The report of an assessment ordered under subsection (1) is evidence and is part of the court record of the proceeding. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 54 (6).

Report inadmissible

(8) The report of an assessment ordered under subsection (1) is not admissible into evidence in any other proceeding except,

(a) a proceeding under this Part, including an appeal under section 69;
(b) a proceeding referred to in section 81;
(b.1) a proceeding under Part VII respecting an application to make, vary or terminate an openness order; or
(c) a proceeding under the Coroners Act,

without the consent of the person or persons assessed. 1999, c. 2, s. 14; 2006, c. 5, s. 10 (2).

Purpose of s. 54(5) and Timing

[22] It is clear from a review of section 54(3) that at least seven days before the court considers a Family Court Clinic assessment ordered under section 54, as to whether the children are in need of protection or as to what disposition is in the children’s best interests, copies of the report are to be provided to those listed in subsection (3). Section 54(5) includes children 12 or older. The purpose of this section is to provide everyone with an opportunity to review and consider the contents of the report and to make submissions upon it, prior to the court making any determination.

[23] In the case at bar, this report was prepared and provided to the court over a year ago in the context of the initial protection application. The court considered the report at a Settlement Conference held on July 16, 2014 and a final consent was reached. The children were found to be in need of protection and orders were made in their best interests after due consideration of the recommendations of the Family Court Clinic. Counsel for C. and B. had a copy of the assessment and consented on their behalf, without any discussion about disclosure of the report to the children.

[24] As noted above, a year has gone by and the situation with respect to C. has significantly improved; B. is stable, residing with his father; the family dysfunction has been greatly reduced, given the separation of the parents; and progress has been made towards long-term stability.

[25] It is important to ask: What is the purpose at this point in time, for the disclosure of this detailed, comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of all members of the family, to C. and B.? All parties have agreed to terminate the supervision order to the father with respect to the three boys. Therefore, there will no longer be any court ordered involvement by the Society for B. There is consent to a nine month Society Wardship order for C. Minutes of Settlement have been filed. If it had not been for this motion, the court would have made final consent orders some time ago. No evidence was provided as to why the children are now requesting the assessment report.

Purposes of the CFSA

[26] Specific sections of the CFSA must always be interpreted in light of the paramount purpose outlined under subsection 1(1) as follows:

The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

[27] Other purposes of the legislation listed in subsection 1(2) are also to be considered, as long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and wellbeing of the children. The relevant additional purposes for this case are:

1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered.

3. To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that,

(i) respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,
(ii) takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children,
(iii) provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests, and
(iv) includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate.

[28] In considering the additional purposes of the CFSA on this motion, I note: support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit; utilizing the least disruptive course of action appropriate to help a child; and providing children’s services in a manner that respects the child’s need for stable relationships must be considered.

[29] The CFSA requires a careful balancing of the paramount objective to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children, with the value of maintaining the family unit. The legislation does not emphasize parental rights but rather recognizes the importance of maintaining the family unit as a means of fostering the best interests of children. The values and purposes outlined under section 1(2) must be always be evaluated in contemplation of what is best for the child. A child-centred focus must not be lost at any stage of a protection hearing, see Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), 1994 83 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165.

[30] In Child and Family Services Act v. K.L.W., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 519, the Supreme Court of Canada again affirmed that child protection legislation is about protecting children from harm and commented at para. 80: “It is a child welfare statute and not a parents’ rights status.”

[31] Thus, in considering section 54(5), the overall wellbeing and best interests of C., B. and their siblings, A. and E. must be paramount, as opposed to C. and B.’s “right” to a copy of the report. Section 54 does not stand alone but is to be considered, as are all sections of the Act,: “under the overarching umbrella of the best interests of the child”, as stated by Justice Abella in Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v. B.D., 2007 SCC 38, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 83.

[32] Although a child’s views and wishes are relevant circumstances to consider in determining best interests under section 37(3) of the CFSA, they are but one in a long, non-exhaustive list of circumstances. The following are relevant in this case:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
3. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
4. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.
5. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
6. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
7. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

Emotional Harm

[33] Pursuant to section 54(5), if I am satisfied that the disclosure of all or part of the report to C. and/or B. would cause either of them emotional harm, I may withhold all or part of the report from one or both of them.

[34] It is important to note that the report prepared by the Family Court Clinic was a 54 page multidisciplinary report with respect to six individuals: the parents, M.M. and B.C.; C. and B. and their younger brothers, A. and E. Intimate, private details as to the parents’ background and personal mental health and psychiatric histories are included in the report and their parenting capacity is assessed. C. and B.’s brothers A. and E. are assessed. Given that all four children are before the court, the protection, wellbeing and best interests of all must be considered.

[35] Emotional harm under section 54(5) is not defined. I do not find the definition under section 37(2)(f) of the CFSA as to whether a child is in need of protection, applicable. That subsection indicates that emotional harm must be demonstrated by serious:

(i) anxiety,
(ii) depression,
(iii) withdrawal,
(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
(v) delayed development.

This section deals with whether or not a child is in need of protection and is always connected to the actions or the omissions of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.

[36] Throughout the Family Court Clinic assessment are numerous references to the disturbing nature of the relationships in this dysfunctional family. As noted, the serious mental health issues of both parents and personality difficulties and mental health issues pertaining to A. are outlined. In addition, the assessment includes statements, allegations and reports which could be upsetting and disturbing to the children. These include:

(1) “The Society’s information states that C. was “rude, aggressive and getting into trouble at school” and the mother’s reaction was to state “not again”, she “was done” and “if you want them, come and get them” (page 3, last para., lines 3 to 5).

(2) “B. had apparently indicated that he and M. were seeking a psychiatrist, he alleged that his wife was making statements about “how she would like to get rid of the children” and “killing the children”. According to the Society’s material, M. had made such statements in the presence of the children and 9-year old C. was scared to sleep given her mother’s threats. B. supposedly claimed that M. spoke openly of divorce at the dinner table, causing one of his sons to cry.” (page 4, lines 4 to 8).

(3) “C. reportedly claimed that her mother drinks to the point of intoxication almost every night…her mother will get angry, swear and yell when she is drunk’ …[C.] reportedly stated that her mother told her “I’m going to fucking kill you,” and made a gesture with her hand like a firing gun.” (page 4, para. 6, lines 2 to 7).

(4) “[M.] indicated that she wanted the counselling, noting that B. had lost his job, taken a severance package from Bell, and been off for about two and a half years. She added that she wanted him back at work and the final straw came when she caught him looking at pornographic movies in the basement.” (page 13, para. 2, lines 9 to 13).

(5) “B. stated that he decided to separate from M. because “there was a lot of problems”. He claimed that M. wanted C. to live somewhere else and that “she was counselling suicide of C.… She said to C.: “the happiest day of my life will be the day you die” and she called her a “fucking brat from hell” (page 22, para. 2).

(6) “M. indicated that C. had never been abused, to the best of her knowledge. She, however, did mention an incident when C. was about 12. M. had reportedly fallen asleep on the couch and gotten up around 2:30 in the morning. She recalled going up to bed and finding B. in his normal underwear, but C. was also in her underwear without a nightgown, sound asleep and snuggled up to B. She remembered shutting the door, stated that her “head exploded” and she went to pray.” (page 28, last para. line 1 to 7).

(7) “[Dr. McLean] raised the issue of C. being sent to St. Catharines for a year of her high school. M. indicated that this was the direct result of her finding C. in bed with B. She advised that she told B. that either he or C. had to get out of the house following the incident, and B. chose to stay. As a result, she noted that C. had to go to St. Catharines “which was fine”. (page 29, para. 2, lines 1 to 5).

[37] The conclusions reached by Dr. McLean with respect to Ms. M., Mr. C. and their ability to parent are significant. He states at page 51 that: “Both B. and M. have significant emotional baggage of their own which they brought into their partnership together. Neither had experienced childhoods where they seemingly felt that their needs for love and affirmation were ever met. Neither seemingly worked through these issues and as such, were apparently looking to their partner to provide that love and that sense of self worth they had never alone experienced.” Dr. McLean goes on to indicate that they were not in any way ready to deal with two sets of twins which resulted in M.M. reverting to her “childhood patterns of behaviour, including emotional outbursts and emotional abuse”, while B.C. “seemingly withdrew more, in keeping with his generally introverted, passive and insecure nature”.

[38] Dr. McLean indicates that all the children dealt with the family dysfunction in their own manner. He describes C. as “clearly the lightning rod or perhaps scapegoat, expressing her anger and frustration through her acting out and aggression. B. chose to virtually withdraw from the family, barricading himself in his room and escaping through school with his friends and activities there”.

[39] In June 2014, Dr. McLean concluded that C.: “will not be ready to return home until she has developed better mechanisms to deal with her emotions in a pro-social and non-violent manner”. He recommended that C. be placed in a treatment home such as Roberts/Smart where she could continue to work on managing her emotions and behaviour. He concluded that if she resumes her violent and aggressive behaviour towards others and vandalism of the family home, a possible Crown Wardship order might need to be considered.

[40] It is reasonable to conclude that such commentary and conclusions would be upsetting and disturbing to the children. As previously stated, this high conflict dysfunctional family is now finally stabilizing. C. has settled into her foster home; did well in school this year and has a summer job. She is moving on with her life on her own terms and has commenced healing, despite the conflictual background. B. will no longer be a child before the court as the CAS is terminating the Supervision Order to the father and will continue to assist Mr. C. by way of a Voluntary Services Agreement. B. has settled as well; continues to do well in school; enjoys extracurricular activities and is active socially.

[41] The Society Social Worker, Krista Pulfer, who has been involved with the family on an ongoing basis since September, 2013, provided detailed evidence as did her supervisor, Rob Godman in support of the motion to prohibit the release of the report to C. and B.

[42] Pursuant to section 63(2) of the CFSA, given that C. is a ward of the Society, the Society has the rights and responsibilities of a parent for the purposes of the child’s care, custody and control. Clearly the Society worker and supervisor who have been involved with the family for close to two years feel strongly that the release of the report at this time would cause C. emotional harm.

[43] B. has been in the care and control of his father under the terms and conditions of a Supervision Order. Mr. C. spoke clearly and eloquently to the court as to his concerns about the release of the report to B., as well as concerns he would have if, by releasing the report to the older children, advantage could be taken of the younger children, A. and E. He was particularly concerned that C., who has a history of acting out and aggression, could take advantage of the information regarding her younger siblings and once again engage in bullying behaviour. His concerns are for all of his children.

[44] Similarly, Ms. M. had significant concerns. Her affidavit evidence indicated her belief that “releasing the report to C. puts her at risk of emotional harm by bringing up past issues, portraying now resolved events in a negative light and highlighting the negative aspect of C.’s behaviour on the family”. She goes on to indicate that to her knowledge, B. has never wanted to have a copy of the assessment. She is concerned that if B. reads the report he may feel guilty for isolating himself from the family or feel that he could have had a more stabilizing role. She states:

I do not want B. to feel guilt, or to otherwise suffer emotional harm, as a result of reading the report and being haunted by what may have occurred if different things had, or had not, happened in the past, or to feel like he could have been more supportive of his siblings.

B. is a very caring boy. I do not find that it is reasonable for him to internalize the report without it causing emotional harm or setting back progress he has made in healing from the family situation.

[45] As stated by Mr. C., Ms. M. was also concerned as to the number of issues, concerns and conclusions in the report related to the other children that are currently unknown to B. or to C.

[46] Those who know C. and B. best believe release of this report would indeed cause them emotional harm and set back the progress that has been made. It is difficult to argue that receiving the Family Court Clinic assessment would, in any way, be the least disruptive or least intrusive measure supporting the integrity of the family nor in light of the primary focus on the wellbeing, protection and best interests of all four children.

Privacy

[47] Mr. C., stated his significant concern that if the report was released it could fall into the hands of the younger children or could be used, particularly by C., to take advantage of her younger siblings.

[48] There is evidence that C. actively uses social media and has already posted negative information regarding her mother on the Internet. The evidence demonstrates that, in the past when C. became upset she was at times unable to control her behaviour. For example, she has engaged in self harm. It would be unlikely that a safeguard such as a publication ban would be able to prevent C. from disclosing information in the Family Court Clinic assessment.

[49] Pursuant to section 54(8), the Family Court Clinic assessment is not admissible into evidence in any other proceeding, other than the exceptions listed under subsection 54(8), without the consent of the person or persons assessed.

[50] Subsection 54(8) provides conditional protection to a person assessed in a child protection case from having information released in a public forum. It is important to note that the privacy interests the subsection is designed to protect are for each individual involved in the assessment. I find those privacy rights equally important when considering the release of a report to a child pursuant to section 54(5). I cannot find that subsection to mean that where six people have been assessed, information about all of them may be released to one without the consent of the others, in other words, that C. and B. may receive all the detailed and potentially damaging information about their parents and their siblings, without their consent.

CONCLUSION

[51] Having considered all the evidence, the legislation and the jurisprudence, I find that the overarching principle of the CFSA to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children and the other objectives of providing support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit, considering the least disruptive course of action and recognizing that children’s services should be provided in a manner that respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships, lead me to conclude that the Family Court Clinic assessment, completed over a year ago, should not be released at this time to C. and B. M-C. Pursuant to section 54, disclosure of the assessment should have taken place prior to the Settlement Conference held July 16, 2014 and it was not. In addition, based on all the evidence along with submissions of the Society and both parents, I find disclosure at this time would cause C. and B. emotional harm. Finally, the privacy interests of all the other parties involved in the assessment – M.M., B.C., and A. and E. M-C, would be undermined by disclosure. Redacting all references to the parents and other children’s background, as well as Dr. McLean’s comments and conclusions would leave a skeleton of the assessment and render it virtually meaningless.

[52] The consent orders previously agreed to by way of Minutes of Settlement should be made as soon as possible in order to permit the children and their parents to move forward and continue the progress they have made to date. B. will no longer be the subject of an application by the CAS nor court order. His custodial parent will decide whether sometime in the future the situation is stable enough to provide some or all of the report to B., such that it will not cause him emotional harm. Similarly, as a Society Ward, the CAS may decide in the future to review some of the report with C. and to provide her with a copy of all or part of it when it is determined she is sufficiently stable and it would no longer cause her emotional harm.

[53] Therefore, I grant the Society’s motion and prohibit the release of the Family Court Clinic assessment dated June 18, 2014 to either C. or B. M-C.

Blishen J.

Released: July 9, 2015

COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-113
DATE: 2015/07/09

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990

AND IN THE MATTER OF B., C., A., E., M-C

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant

– and –

M.M. and B.C.
Respondent

ENDORSEMENT ON A MOTION

Blishen J.

Released: July 9, 2015