CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S., 2016 ONSC 1747
COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-321
DATE: 2016/03/11
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
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. F-S, born […], 2013
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
S.S., Respondent Mother
J.F., Respondent Father
Respondents
Marie-Josée Ranger, for the Applicant
Emmanuel Gibson, for the Respondent Mother
Ezioma Nnorom, for the Respondent Father
HEARD: March 3, 2016 (at Ottawa)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
shelston j.
Legal Proceedings
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“the Society”) requests a summary judgment with respect to its amended protection application dated December 14, 2015, relating to the child B., born […], 2013.
[2] In the initial child protection application filed on February 23, 2015, the Society sought an order that the child be made a ward of the Society for a period of six months subject to the parents having access.
[3] The child was apprehended on February 18, 2015 and on February 23, 2015, the honourable Justice Labrosse made a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the care of the Society with access to the mother a minimum of three times per week and access to the father at the Society’s discretion.
[4] On April 27, 2015, after a contested care and custody hearing, the honourable Justice Blishen ordered that effective May 18, 2015, the child be returned to the mother’s care subject to supervision by the Society. This order was subject to the mother terminating her relationship with the father and complying with a restraining order granted on the same date.
[5] On May 19, 2015, pursuant to minutes of settlement, the Court made an order varying the April 27, 2015 order of the honourable Justice Blishen returning the child to the care of the Society following the mother’s failure to comply with a restraining order against the father.
[6] On July 29, 2015, the Court ordered that the parents undergo a parenting capacity assessment conducted by Dr. Worenklein.
[7] The matter is set to proceed to a seven-day trial commencing Tuesday, March 29, 2016.
[8] On December 14, 2015, the Society filed an amended child protection application seeking an order that the child be made a Crown ward.
[9] The Society originally filed a motion for summary judgment on January 13, 2016 but at the request of the Society, the motion was adjourned to March 3, 2016.
[10] The Society, in its amended child protection application, seeks the following:
(a) A finding that the child, B., is in need of protection pursuant to subsection 37(2)(i)(ii) and (g);
(b) A finding of birth, religion and parentage; and
(c) A final order that the child, B., be made a ward of the Crown for the purposes of adoption and placed in the care of the Society.
[11] The parents contest the Society’s motion, seek its dismissal and request that this matter proceed to trial scheduled for March 29, 2016 on all issues.
[12] The Society relies on affidavit evidence of a child protection worker, a child youth counsellor who has supervised access; the section 54 assessment of Dr. Worenklein; and the paternal uncle where the child is currently residing.
[13] The mother has filed a detailed reply affidavit. The father has not filed any reply affidavit material. Both parents were present and were represented by counsel.
Facts
[14] The Society has been involved with the father when his three previous children namely N., L., and B., were apprehended in 2011. The father and his ex-partner A.R. were in an on-and-off relationship for several years resulting in the father being arrested for assaulting his ex-partner A.R. on three separate occasions on April 2, 2009, July 2, 2009 and in September 2010. Further, the father also breached the no contact order with A.R. resulting from the April 2, 2009 assault.
[15] In 2010, the father and A.R. permanently separated. In August 2011, the father and his ex-partner A.R. signed an agreed statement of facts on August 29, 2011 agreeing that N., L., and B., were exposed to physical and emotional harm and subject to neglect while in their parents’ care. Further, the foster parents reported that all three children did not have a routine or structure and lacked basic self-care skills. Finally, the children were diagnosed as presenting with developmental delays and that the parents had not followed through with any of the recommendations made by professionals.
[16] Those children were made Crown wards and were adopted by the father’s brother and his wife.
[17] The respondents are the parents of B. born […], 2013, the child the subject of this protection application.
[18] The Society had no involvement with the mother prior to the birth of the child. From October 2013 until June 2014, the Society was involved with the mother during which time she cooperated with the Society and the child was thriving in meeting his milestones.
[19] The Society was concerned about the relationship between the mother and father. Based on assurances by the mother that if the relationship worsened, she would move in with her maternal grandmother and aunt, the Society closed its file in June 2014.
[20] On August 18, 2014, the father assaulted the mother. The child was in a room in the apartment where the assault took place during which the father hit and kicked the mother, threw the dining room table over, pulled her hair, stood on her, held her neck and pinched her body while pinning her down.
[21] Despite assurances that the mother would advise the Society if the relationship worsen, the mother did not. The Society became aware of the assault after being advised by police sources in September 2014.
[22] The Society met with the mother on September 26, 2014, who indicated that she continued to reside with the father and that he had problems with alcohol, a difficulty in communicating and that this led to fights. At the meeting of September 26, 2014, the worker noticed bruises and marks on the mother’s arms which she reported occurred two weeks prior when the father grabbed her arm.
[23] At that meeting, the Society indicated to the mother that she had to leave the father and that she should not to disclose her address to the father and not allow him access to the child without the Society’s approval.
[24] In October 2014, the father was arrested for the August incident and charged with the assault and a no contact condition was put in place with the parents.
[25] In December 2014 the father’s surety contacted the Society advising that she was no longer going to be the father’s surety as he was abusing her.
[26] During this period of time, the mother assured the worker that she is having no contact with the father or giving them access to the child.
[27] However on February 17 and 18, 2015, the Society obtained information from three separate sources that the father had access to the child without the Society’s knowledge and that the mother had visited the father in breach of the criminal condition, the Society’s expectations and the mother’s assurances to the Society.
Apprehension
[28] On February 18, 2015, the Society worker found the mother in the father’s home with the child while the father was at work. The mother admitted to the Society worker that she did not see the need to leave the father as they were trying to resolve their problems and only had left the father’s home to avoid the child being apprehended.
[29] On February 18, 2015, based on the mother’s failure to follow through with a safety plan and her lack of insight into the safety concerns of the Society regarding the child, the child was apprehended and was placed with his paternal uncle and aunt and the father’s three other children who had been made Crown wards.
[30] Through March and April 2015, the mother had access to the child three times per week.
[31] After the child was apprehended, the mother became engaged in Violence against Woman counselling. By mid-April she had commenced one-on-one counselling and was engaged in parenting classes.
[32] The mother advised the Society that she still loved the father and cared for him but would not have them back unless he changed his behaviour.
[33] A care and custody hearing was argued before the honourable Justice Blishen on April 27, 2015. At that time the mother acknowledged that her relationship with the father was toxic and that he had always done awful things to her. She indicated the relationship was over with no chance of reconciliation and that the father would have to address personal issues such as alcohol and anger issue.
[34] The mother argued that she made a mistake in the past and requested that the child be returned to her care on account of the progress that she had made.
[35] From the time the child was apprehended until the motion on April 27, 2015, the father had had no contact with the Society and no access to the child.
Care and Custody Decision of Justice Blishen
[36] In support of her position that the child be returned to her subject to a supervision order the mother presented her safety plan, her agreement not to provide her address to the father, her agreement not to allow the father to have access the child without the Society’s approval and that she would not meet the father.
[37] On April 27, 2015, Justice Blishen returned the child to the mother with conditions including that the return to the mother would be progressive and the order would be effective May 18, 2015. In addition, she granted a restraining order against the father towards the mother.
[38] Unfortunately, in May 2015, there were three reports that the mother had attended at the father’s home on two occasions and at his workplace. Further, the mother admitted to the worker that the parties were working out the relationship.
Variation of Order of Justice Blishen
[39] Based on the three reports and being concerned about the child’s welfare, the Society brought a motion to vary the order of Justice Blishen.
[40] With the consent of all parties, on May 19, 2015 the child was placed in the care of the Society. The Society placed the child with the paternal uncle and aunt and the three half-brothers of the child. The mother was granted access two times per week in her home and the father’s access was at the discretion of the Society. The restraining order issued on April 27, 2015, that the parents were not to contact remained in effect.
[41] On May 22, 2015, the mother admitted that’s he had invited the father to her home and had given him her address, despite the restraining order and the non-contact conditions of the criminal charges.
[42] On September 8, 2015, the father’s probation officer reported the mother provided consent for the father to have contact with her.
[43] The mother attended group counselling as the Children’s Aid Society aimed at assisting mothers who are victims of domestic abuse as well as an anger management for parents at the Pinecrest Queensway Community Health Center. Both programs taught participants about the cycle of domestic violence and how to cope as well as how it could have a negative impact on children.
[44] The mother began one-on-one counselling in April 2015. The mother and the father attended couples counselling with Catholic Family Service of Ottawa and attended appointments in August 11, August 27, September 17, October 1 and October 15, 2015. They have not attended since October 15, 2015.
[45] The access by the father started on August 24, 2015. He has attended 16 of 25 visits. The workers have observed some strength with his visits but he has had minimal engagement with the child and minimal to nonexistent engagement during meal times. The paternal uncle has tried to schedule access visits with the father but generally the father was unavailable.
[46] The mother’s access was two times per week for the months of May through early August 2015. As of August 10, 2015 the mother’s access was partially supervised.
[47] In September, October and November 2015 the mother arrived late for multiple accesses and consequently by December 2015 the visits were returned to the mother’s home two hours per week fully supervised for two hours.
[48] In addition to the access provided by the Society, the paternal uncle and aunt provide one additional visit per week to the mother which is been difficult since she started her new job at Tim Hortons in November 2015. As a result, these visits are usually once every two weeks.
[49] The evidence from the mother and the Society is that the child has affection for the mother, there is a bond between the mother and the child, that the mother is prepared for activities, that she has the ability to give the child clues that he follows but that there is concern about the mother’s basic parenting skills.
[50] The Society has provided evidence about the mother’s lack of insight with respect to her ability to supervise the child, regarding potential dangers or paying attention to the child during the visits. The mother contests these observations and indicates that she has the ability to parent the child.
Parenting Capacity Assessment
[51] On July 29, 2016, a section 54 assessment was ordered. On November 30, 2015, the report prepared by Dr. Worenklein was completed.
[52] Dr. Worenklein noted there were concerns with respect to three issues raised by the Society: (1) being the father’s mental health issues related to repeated violence and alcohol abuse; (2) the risk to the child being exposed to adult conflict and violence and (3)the mother’s capacity to protect her child.
[53] With respect to the father, Dr. Worenklein at p. 12 of his report stated:
The results indicate that the following scale scores are elevated (75th percentile or above) and potentially could be cause for concern:
• Duration of Anger Problems,
• Suspiciousness,
• Resentment,
• Rumination, Impulsivity,
• Verbal Expression,
• Relational Aggression, and
• Passive Aggression
[54] The assessor was concerned with the father’s breach of conditions and his lack of respect for the “no contact order” order as well as the minimization or denial of spousal assault history and attitudes that support or condone spousal assault.
[55] With respect to the father, Dr. Worenklein stated p. 30, as follows:
In fact, what was also very problematic to the undersigned was the report that when Mr. F. discussed his offenses, he minimized his responsibility by stating that he was blocked from leaving and consequently violence ensued. He was also reported to have made an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. S. assaulted him. The lack of insight, despite his being cooperative, can be highly predictive of similar problematic behaviour. In fact, Mr. F. also completed the New Directions Program in the past and he reported to his probation officer that he did not see himself to be similar to the other men in the group.
[56] At p. 31 of his report, Dr. Worenklein continues:
In addition, as noted above, the results on the psychometric assessment indicated issues that can adversely affect Mr. F.’s partner and children, namely, “there is reason to believe that at least a moderate level of pathology characterizes the overall personality organization of Mr. F. The results suggest a less than satisfactory hierarchy of coping strategies as well as a failure to develop adequate internal cohesion. In fact, the results suggest a deficiency or incompetence with respect to socially acceptable interpersonal conduct as well as its foundation for effective intrapsychic regulation. In fact, the results suggest that Mr. F is subjected to the flux of his own attitudes and contradictory behaviour.
[57] With respect to the mother, Dr. Worenklein stated at p. 19:
Ms. S. was oriented in three spheres although a variety of concerns were raised by the results of the psychometric assessment, as will be noted. It did appear that she did tend to minimize the concerns that the CAS has and did not fully comprehend the potential effects on the child of B.’s age being exposed to conflict/violence. However, she did report that she was attending the assessment because she was trying “to fight for my son” and to this effect, she had been taking parenting classes. She was quite clear that when she was in the presence of her son she tried to understand his needs, although she recognized that B. was exposed to the conflict between her and Mr. F.
[58] Dr. Worenklein stated in his conclusions and recommendations at p. 30 of his report as follows:
In fact, the lack of insight noted above together with the “magical thinking” that the abuse will stop in the absence of follow-through with consistent and regular interventions for significant anger management difficulties on the part of Mr. F. does not bode well for the prognosis of the relationship nor for the provision of an environment free of violence for their child.
[59] With respect to the mother, the assessor concludes at p. 33 as follows:
… I am also quite concerned that Ms. S. requires counselling/therapy for herself in view of the results of her psychometric assessment, particularly with issues revolving around her emotional regulation, which was noted in two of the psychometric tools. In fact, the results also suggest a proclivity to be subjected to mood swings and problems in inhibiting the expression of strong emotions, including anger. She did score high on her affect dysregulation in terms of the instability of her emotions.
[60] The mother in her affidavit raises concern with the assessment report regarding the assessor drawing conclusions where the psychometric tests result indicates unscorable responses and underreporting on the validity of the protocol. Further, the mother argues that the assessor improperly drew conclusions from suggestions about her personality disclosed in the psychometric testing that are unsupported by the evidence.
[61] With respect to the observations by the assessor, the mother raises the issue of the lack of corroboration in his direct observations between the parent and the child with respect to personality conclusions indicated in the assessor’s report.
[62] Specifically the mother states at paragraph 109 of her affidavit March 1, 2016:
Dr. Worenklein’s entire conclusion is based on the results of the psychometric results. He makes no indication that those were results were corroborated in any way either in his interview of me, in his observation of my interaction with be, or even from collateral sources. Dr. Worenklein makes no comment with respect to my ability to protect B or make decisions in his best interests.
The Law
[63] Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 provides the court with the jurisdiction to make a final order without a trial on all or part of any claim made or any defence presented.
[64] Once the moving party makes a prima facie case for the relief sought, the responding party may not rest on mere allegations or denials but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specifics facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
[65] Finally, if there is no genuine issue in requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
[66] The court is to consider the evidence submitted by the parties and may weigh evidence, evaluate the credibility of the deponent and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence unless it is in the interest of justice that these powers only be exercised at a trial.
[67] In the event the court does not make a final order or make such an order for trial of an issue, the court may provide directions, impose conditions, specify what facts are not in dispute, state the issues and give directions about how and when the case will go to trial.
[68] The courts have interpreted the tests and powers set out in Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and provided guidance in determining a motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding as follows:
(a) Parties must put their best foot forward, they must lead trumpet or risk losing: see Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.K., 2015 ONSC 4623.
(b) The burden of proof is on the applicant to set out evidence of specific facts showing there to be a genuine issue requiring a trial. However once the applicant makes a prima facie case, the evidentiary burden shifts to the responding party: see Children’s Aid Society of Northumberland v. K.S., 2012 ONSC 6847, 32 R.F.L. (7th) 87 (Div. Ct.).
(c) The nature of the evidence, the reasonableness of any potential plans, and the statutory time frames are all relevant to whether or not there is a genuine issue for trial: see B. (F.) v G. (S.), 2001 CanLII 28231 (ON SC), 2001 CarswellOnt 1413, 16 R.F.L. (5th) 237, 199 D.L.R. (4th) 554 (S.C.J.).
(d) A genuine issue must relate to a material fact or facts: see B. (F.) v G. (S.).
(e) Taking into account the severity of the result, a summary judgment motion should never be a remedy as of course and must be considered by the justice hearing the matter with a great deal of caution: see Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.(L.), 2011 ONCJ 146, 2011 CarswellOnt 2068.
(f) The summary judgment motion is a tool to control a child’s drift in litigation and allow for the permanent home for the child within a timeframe that is sensitive to the child’s need. Considering the timelines set out in the CFSA, the legal process should not be used to “buy” a parent time to develop the ability to parent: see Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R. H., 2000 CanLII 3158 (ON CJ), 2000 CarswellOnt 6170 at para.15.
Analysis
Is the child in need of protection?
[69] The protection concerns of the Society are threefold:
(a) The father’s history of repeated partner violence and alcohol abuse;
(b) The conflictual “on and off” relationship between the parents and the related concern that the child will be exposed to adult conflict in domestic violence; and
(c) The mother’s capacity to parent the child and protect him.
[70] The burden is on the Society to prove on a balance of probability that the child is in need of protection. Subsection 37 (2) of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) states that a child is in need of protection where :
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
(g) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f)(i),(ii),(iii) or (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
[71] In the mother’s Answer and Plan of Care, dated January 13, 2016, the mother consents to a supervision order with a specific term requiring that the access between Mr. F and the child occur only at the Society or otherwise supervised access. She is prepared to attend individual counselling or therapy.
[72] Despite admitting in her Answer and Plan of Care that she is prepared to consent to a supervision order, the mother denies that the child is in need of protection and submits that there should be a trial on all the issues.
[73] The parties’ relationship is a serious factor in determining whether or not the child is in need of protection. Despite signing an affidavit on March 1, 2016 that the relationship was over, on March 3, 2016, the mother admitted that the parties were trying to reconcile although they were not planning on living together.
[74] The mother has taken efforts through the Society, community centres, and the Catholic Family Services to recognize the dysfunctionality of a relationship with the father and how it affects the child.
[75] The evidence of the access supervisor raises concern about her ability to monitor and to properly feed the child. There have been concerns raised by the mother’s counsel as to the proper use of the psychometric test results and their interpretation by Dr. Worenklein, however, there is no counter expert report provided or even a critique to contest the testing by Dr. Worenklein.
[76] The actions of the mother with respect to her relationship with the father as well as concerns raised by the child youth counsellor, the child protection worker, the paternal uncle as well as Dr. Worenklein provide significant evidence that this child is in need of protection.
[77] In my view, the evidence presented by the Society has met the onus of presenting a prima facie case. The evidence of the Society has shown a pattern of conflict, breakup and reconciliation and breaches of expectations and court ordered conditions which have put the child at risk both for his physical health and his emotional health.
[78] The evidence provided by the parents is restricted to one affidavit filed by the mother. The mother’s affidavit attaches a letter in support of an aunt and of a former next-door neighbour.
[79] The last independent verification of any efforts made by the mother was from Mary Clermont indicating that the parties last attended couples counselling on October 15, 2015.
[80] The mother indicates she is an excellent parent and has the ability to care for the child. As stated by the court in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H.(R) 2000 CanLII 3158 (ON CJ), 2000 CarswellOnt 6170:
The genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a parent’s heartfelt expression of his desire to care of the child; parents evidence must support that he faces better prospects than what existed at the time the Society removed the child from his care and that he is develop new parenting skills.
[81] In my view the nature of the evidence convinces me that there is no genuine issue for trial on the issue as to whether or not this child is in need of protection.
[82] Consequently, I find that the child is in need of protection pursuant to subsection 37 (2)(b)(i)(ii) and (g).
Should Crown Wardship be granted?
[83] The Society argues that the evidence supports a finding that there is no genuine issue for trial and that the child should be made a Crown Ward. The Society advances the following reasons :
(a) the child (2) has been in care past the legislative time table of one year for a child of his age;
(b) although the parents have engaged in some support services during the past year, there has not been any significant change in the parent’s behaviour or relationship to mitigate the risks of harm to the child as recommended by Dr. Worenklein before the return of the child to their care would be possible;
(c) the father’s probation officer has indicated he is at a medium risk of reoffending; and,
(d) it is in the child’s best interest to be made a Crown ward for the purposes of adoption by the paternal uncle and aunt where he will maintain his close relationship with his three half-brothers and where openness with his biological parent will be supported.
Legislative timetable
[84] The child was apprehended on February 18, 2015 and the trial will take place on March 29, 2016. While the disposition of the matter will not occur within the one year timeframe as required by the legislation, it is a factor that I am to take into consideration in adjudicating on what disposition is appropriate in this proceeding.
Parent’s behavior
[85] With respect to the parent’s plans, the father did not file an affidavit and did not provide any evidence other than his Answer and Plan of Care filed in this proceeding. The father was afforded the opportunity to file affidavit material and failed to do so. Based on the evidence provided by the Society in their affidavit material, the report of Dr. Worenklein and the fact that the father has not provided a detailed affidavit to respond to this motion, I agree with the Society that the father is not an option in this proceeding.
[86] The mother has filed a detailed affidavit and has provided evidence in her plan where she will remain in her current two-bedroom apartment with one bedroom for the child and one bedroom for her. She again states that Mr. F. will not live with her and the child. She has obtained employment at Tim Horton’s and has sufficient income to care for herself and the child.
[87] The mother has made efforts to rehabilitate herself and understand the dysfunctionality of the relationship of the father and its negative impact on the child.
[88] She has visited daycares close to her residence as possible placements. She is prepared to consent to a supervision order requiring her to attend individual counselling and therapy.
[89] The mother has attended group counselling at the Society’s offices, attended anger management course at a community health centre, began one on one counselling in April 2015 and took a second parenting course. This evidence indicates that the mother has made efforts to deal with the shortcomings identified by the Society to allow her to care for her child.
[90] The mother also raises concerns about the assessment report of Dr. Worenklein concerning the validity of the psychometric testing, his observations and his conclusions. She seeks an opportunity to raise these issues at trial.
[91] Finally in Dr. W’s report at page 33 he concludes his assessment with the following:
At the present time, be is reportedly doing well at the home of Mr. F.’s brother and sister-in-law and both parents need to continue with the interventions that were requested by the Society. In addition, I do believe that although they are going for couple counselling, they should also be receiving individual therapy\counselling in view of their own histories. I am concerned that in view of their strong desire to continue their relationship together, they may be overlooking some of the deeper issues emanating from their past history. Pursuing couple counselling without dealing with the triggers of poor anger management as well as the causes for difficulties in affect regulation would be similar to “treating the measles with makeup.” In the event of the underlying causes and triggers are not dealt with, I am concerned that the problems will not be resolved. Consequently, I am recommending that B. continue living in what was felt to be stable environment until there is clear indication that there are significant changes in the behaviours of the concern noted in the report.
Father likely to reoffend
[92] I agree that the evidence discloses that the father is a medium risk to reoffend.
Best interests for the child to be with his paternal uncle and three half-brothers
[93] As set out in section 1 (1) of the CFSA, the purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.
[94] Pursuant to section 1(2) of the CFSA, one of the purposes of the CFSA is 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.
Disposition
[95] In considering all of the evidence, in my view, Crown wardship is not a foregone conclusion. I find there is a genuine issue for trial with respect to what is the proper disposition for this child.
[96] I grant summary judgment only with respect to the following relief as follows:
(a) The child B. born […], 2013, is in need of protection pursuant to s. 37 (2)(b)(i) and (ii); and
(b) The findings with respect to the child’s birth, parentage and religion are made in accordance with the mother’s affidavit dated March 3, 2016.
Directions Regarding the Trial
[97] As part of my powers under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, I make the following directions regarding the conduct of the trial:
(a) The evidence in chief of any society witnesses such as CYC’s; child protection workers and or access supervisors shall be submitted by affidavit evidence;
(b) Any society witnesses who have filed an affidavit may be cross-examined;
(c) Any affidavit to be relied upon by the Society shall be served and filed no later than March 22, 2016.
Shelston J.
Released: March 11, 2016
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S., 2016 ONSC 1747
COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-321
DATE: 2016/03/11
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. F-S, born […], 2013
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
S.S., Respondent Mother
J.F., Respondent Father
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Shelston J.
Released: March 11, 2016