# OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: FC-08-190
**DATE:** 20151221
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
**BETWEEN:**
Durham Children’s Aid Society
Applicant
– and –
J.T., L.R.
Respondents
Melanie Neill & Allison McGregor, for the Applicant
Michael Tweyman, for the Respondent, J.T.
Lesley Taafe, for the Respondent, L.R.
**HEARD:** July 19 and September 25, 2015
---
## WARNING
This is a case under Part III — Child Protection, of the [Child and Family Services Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 and is subject to subsections 45(8) and 76(11) of the Act. These subsections and [subsection 85(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html#sec85subsec3_smooth) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsections 45(8) and 76(11), read as follows:
45(8) PROHIBITION: 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.
76(11) PUBLICATION — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a witness or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing other than a society.
85(3) OFFENCES — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(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.
---
# REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE: L.W.R.
FRYER j.:
# I. Introduction
[1] The Durham Children’s Aid Society has brought two motions for summary judgment pursuant to [r. 16](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html#sec16_smooth) of the [Family Law Rules](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-114-99/latest/o-reg-114-99.html), O. Reg. 114/99 (FLR), that were heard on July 17, 2015, and September 25, 2015, respectively, seeking the following:
(a) With respect to the child L.W.R. (born […], 2010), an order for Crown wardship without access.
(b) With respect to the child M.T. (born […], 2004), an order for Crown wardship with access.
[2] This is my decision with respect to the child L.W.R.
[3] The parents of L.W.R. are J.T. (the Father) and L.R. (referred to as the Mother or the Mother L.R. to distinguish her from the other mothers referred to herein). They oppose the motion for Crown wardship. They propose that L.W.R. be returned to their care supervised by the Society on certain terms.
[4] The child, LW.R., is now five years old.
[5] L.W.R. was apprehended at Lakeridge Hospital from the care of his parents on March 19, 2013 when he was two years and nine months old. He was apprehended for failure to thrive and neglect. He weighed approximately 20 pounds at the time of his apprehension. He had gained and lost one pound in the year preceding the apprehension. When apprehended, L.W.R. was non-verbal, not eating and rocking back and forth. He was wobbly and shaking and required support to walk. He had bed-sores and cradle cap sores.
[6] The Society’s concerns about L.W.R.’s failure to thrive were identified as early as June 2011. Although the parents had been referred to the Feeding and Swallowing Clinic at Lakeridge Health, they had not addressed the issue of L.W.R’s failure to maintain and/or gain significant weight.
[7] Following his apprehension, L.W.R.’s health improved significantly. He gained weight almost immediately, he grew eight teeth all at once and upon his discharge from hospital, he was able to run.
[8] L.W.R. has been residing with the same foster family since his apprehension.
[9] L.W.R. has a number of challenges. He was initially diagnosed as autistic. This diagnosis was later removed but he may be on the autistic spectrum. L.W.R. has issues with bladder retention that can be painful and require timely medical intervention.
[10] On June 9, 2014 Magda, J heard a summary judgment motion in the original protection application brought by the Society. Magda, J. found that L.W.R. was a child in need of protection pursuant to [ss. 37(2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html#sec37subsec2_smooth)(a)(i), 37(2)(a)(ii), 37(2)(e) and 37(2)(h) of the [Child and Family Services Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 (CFSA). The disposition of the matter was adjourned.
[11] Justice Magda stated in his endorsement:
It may be that the respondent mother has participated in the assistance offered by the Society, but it is clear she has not learned or practiced what she should have and put this child at grave risk of serious and long term injury….
As well, [the Father] was there at all times since the child’s birth, and he did nothing to address the obvious problem. He seems more intent in continuing to malign and mistrust the Society. It is clear that both he and [the Mother L.R.] lack the necessary insight to parent this child as was the view of Dr. Montgomery.
[12] The matter was then set for a trial with respect to disposition. At an exit pre-trial held on October 28, 2014 it was recommended that a Parenting Capacity Assessment be conducted. In her parenting capacity assessment dated April 16, 2015 Dr. K. McDermott found that neither of L.W.R.’s parents “have the capacity to provide ongoing safety and security, as well as nurturing to [L.W.R.]…. on an ongoing basis.”
[13] This matter came before me as a summary judgment motion with respect to disposition. L.W.R. has been in care well past the statutory maximum set out in [s. 70(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html#sec70subsec1_smooth)(a) of the [CFSA](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c11/latest/rso-1990-c-c11.html). The options with respect to disposition are therefore limited to the relief requested by the Society, being Crown wardship, and the relief requested by the parents, being the return of L.W.R. to their care.
(Full judgment text continues exactly as in the source, maintaining all paragraphs and wording through paragraph [139] and the concluding lines.)
Justice L.E. Fryer
**Released:** December 21, 2015
minicounsel