CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.D., 2017 ONSC 5335

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-628

DATE: 20170908

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.D., born […], 2011

Pamela Barron, for the Child, B.D.

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

Applicant

– and –

S.D., R.K., and J.P.

Respondents

Karine Jackson/Brian Fisher, for the Applicant

Kristen L. Robins, for the Respondent Mother, S.D.

Audra Bennett, for the Respondent Father, R.K.

Peter Stieda, for the Respondent Maternal Grandmother

HEARD: September 6, 2017

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Audet J.

Introduction

[1] This is a motion by the Children’s Aid Society (hereinafter “the Society”) for summary judgment seeking orders that the child, B.D., born on […], 2011, is in need of protection and that joint custody under s. 57.1 be granted to the father and the maternal grandmother, with supervised access to the mother.

[2] The respondent, S.D., is the child’s mother (hereinafter “the mother”). The respondent, R.K., is the child’s father (hereinafter “the father”). The respondent, J.P., is the maternal grandmother (hereinafter “the maternal grandmother”).

[3] It is the Society’s position that no genuine issue for trial exists and that the child is a child in need of protection pursuant to ss. 37(2)(b)(i) (failure to care for), 37(2)(b)(ii) (pattern of neglect) and 37(2)(g) (risk of emotional harm) of the CFSA. The Society is also of the view that it is in the best interest of this child to be placed under the joint care and custody of her father and maternal grandmother pursuant to s. 57.1 of the CFSA, subject to the terms set out in the parenting plan that was agreed to by the Society, the father and the maternal grandmother through mediation, and that no genuine issue for trial exists in that regard. The child would have her primary residence in Kingston, with her father, and would visit her maternal grandmother every second weekend from Friday to Sunday, in Ottawa. The father and the maternal grandmother support the Society’s summary judgment motion.

[4] In the parenting plan signed by the father and maternal grandmother, they propose supervised access to the mother for three hours, two Saturdays per month, as well as every Wednesday evening from 3:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. at a public facility near the father’s residence in Kingston. These parties are also of the view that there is no genuine issue for trial with regards to the mother’s access as proposed by them. In the alternative to the relief sought, these parties seek an order that any matters not resolved by way of this summary judgment motion shall be resolved by way of a mini trial pursuant to rule 16 (6.2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

[5] The mother is opposing the Society’s motion and is asking that the child be returned to her care. She is of the view that a genuine issue for trial exists with regards to both the finding that the child is in need of protection and the disposition that would be in this child’s best interests. She is seeking an order dismissing the Society’s motion for summary judgment and permitting this matter to be argued in a full-blown trial.

[6] The issues for this Court to determine on the Society’s summary judgment motion are as follows:

a) Is there a genuine issue requiring a trial that the child is in need of protection?

b) If not, is there a genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to the disposition that would be in the child’s best interests?

c) If not, is there a genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to access between the child and the mother?

Legal Considerations

[7] Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules sets out the principles applicable to motions for summary judgment:

RULE 16: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WHEN AVAILABLE

16. (1) After the respondent has served an answer or after the time for serving an answer has expired, a party may make a motion for summary judgment for a final order without a trial on all or part of any claim made or any defence presented in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 16 (1).

AVAILABLE IN ANY CASE EXCEPT DIVORCE

(2) A motion for summary judgment under subrule (1) may be made in any case (including a child protection case) that does not include a divorce claim. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 16 (2).

EVIDENCE REQUIRED

(4) The party making the motion shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

EVIDENCE OF RESPONDING PARTY

(4.1) In response to the affidavit or other evidence served by the party making the motion, the party responding to the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denials but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

EVIDENCE NOT FROM PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

(5) If a party’s evidence is not from a person who has personal knowledge of the facts in dispute, the court may draw conclusions unfavourable to the party.

NO GENUINE ISSUE FOR TRIAL

(6) If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly.

POWERS

(6.1) In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties, and the court may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

1. Weighing the evidence.

2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.

3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

ORAL EVIDENCE (MINI-TRIAL)

(6.2) The court may, for the purposes of exercising any of the powers set out in subrule (6.1), order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation.

[8] The test for when summary judgment should be granted is as follows:

There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows a judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, 1 S.C.R. 87, at par. 49.

[9] In Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K. (S.), 2015 ONSC 4623, Justice Parfett summarized the considerations relevant to the application of summary judgment to child protection cases as follows:

82 Other principles that courts have developed to determine the appropriateness of summary judgment include the following:

• A triable issue is one which is relevant to the issues to be decided. The test is whether the question at issue is a foregone conclusion. There may be a factual dispute on an issue, but that does not necessarily raise a triable issue if the balance of the admitted and undisputed evidence leads to an inevitable outcome. If, for example, it is a foregone conclusion, based on the admitted and undisputed evidence, that the best interests of the child require an order for Crown wardship, then there is no genuine issue for trial. While there may be issues to be decided, the question is whether they are issues that require trial.

• Parties must put their best foot forward; in other words, they “must lead trump or risk losing.”

• The moving party has the onus of establishing there is no genuine issue requiring trial. Once the moving party establishes a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the responding party to show that there is a genuine issue requiring trial. The determination of whether there is a genuine issue requiring trial is specific to the circumstances of a particular case including the nature of the order being made.

• While it may not be appropriate in the face of the child’s best interests and the new rules to suggest that the parent's position must be ‘untenable’ in order to resort to summary proceedings, it is clear that the nature of the evidence to be before the court, the reasonableness of any potential plans and the statutory time frames all have a role to play in the determination of whether there is a genuine issue for trial.

• The legal process is not to be used as a strategy to “buy time” to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a parent's heartfelt expression of his desire to resume care of the child; the parent's 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 has developed new parenting skills.

[10] More recently, Justice MacLeod, in CAS Ottawa v. S.H. & M.B., 2017 ONSC 3906, had the following words of wisdom with regards to summary judgment motions in the context of child protection proceedings:

3 Before turning to the merits and the evidence, it is important to emphasize that summary judgment is not intended as a means to deprive parties of justice. To the contrary, it is intended as a means to achieve justice in a more efficient manner if a fair and just decision can be made by the court without putting the parties to the expense, delay and hardship of a full blown traditional trial. As we are told by the Supreme Court of Canada, “a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve a fair and just adjudication, if it provides a process that allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to those facts, and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial.” Further, it is the law in Canada that simplified and proportionate procedures for adjudication can be fair and just and are no less legitimate than the conventional trial.

4 Consistent with this approach, Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules requires the court to grant a final order whenever the motion materials demonstrate that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or a defence. There will be no need for a trial when the facts can be determined by the evidence in the motion materials. A trial will only be useful if the fact finding exercise cannot fairly be accomplished without the judge having the opportunity to hear the witnesses give oral evidence and to observe how that evidence withstands cross examination within the structure of a classic trial.

7 It is important to understand that except in limited circumstances where evidence cannot be available for reasons outside the control of the responding party, it is not an adequate response to a summary judgment motion to argue that better evidence may be available when the trial arrives. This approach is either wishful thinking or it ignores the obligation on the responding party set out in rule 16 (4.1). That subrule states that the responding party may not rest on mere allegations or denials but must set out in an affidavit or other evidence “specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue for trial.” This principle is often referred to as the need to put your “best foot forwards.” If there is relevant evidence, the time for that evidence is now and not at a hypothetical trial sometime in the future. The court is entitled to assume that the evidence presented on the summary judgment motion is the best evidence the party can muster.

Facts Not In Dispute or Baldly Denied

Background

[11] The respondents, S.D. and R.K., are the biological parents of the child, B.D. who is currently five years of age. The child does not have native status; however, the father is First Nations and has Indian status. The mother is Metis. B.D. is apparently eligible for Indian status, although she is not currently registered as such. She is not of any particular faith.

[12] The parents were in a relationship for several years before B.D. was born, but the relationship broke down shortly after the child’s birth in 2011. Both parties characterized their relationship as one that was based on, and revolved around, a party lifestyle. The mother has been the primary caregiver to this child from the date of her birth until the date of her apprehension by the Society, and the father has had a minimal role to play in her upbringing up to that date. The evidence shows that the parties have always had a difficult and conflictual relationship as parents. During the first two years of B.D.’s life, the father had sporadic access with her. He states that the mother created many barriers for the child to enjoy a natural, consistent relationship with him. The mother denies this and states that after the parties separated, the father was not consistent in either requesting or exercising access with the child; his priority was with his new girlfriend.

[13] In 2013, the father began an application before the family court to obtain increased and consistent access to the child. The matter appears to have dragged on for some time. During that period, however, the father continued to have contact with the child, albeit on a very limited and irregular basis. The father says that he agreed to conditions like supervision or short time frames, even though he did not feel that those were necessary, to ensure continuity in his access with B.D. This is disputed by the mother who stated that her request for supervision was made necessary as a result of the father’s alcohol addiction.

[14] On October 14, 2014, the father consented to an order allowing the mother and the child to move to Nova Scotia where the maternal grandfather resided. At that time, the father moved to Thunder Bay to pursue a university degree. There was little, if any, access between the father and B.D. during that time. Despite the order allowing her to do so, the mother did not move to Nova Scotia. When the father returned from Thunder Bay, he established his residence in Kingston and later found out that the mother had not moved to Nova Scotia. Limited access was arranged between the parties to allow the father to see B.D., although not without problems. The evidence contains several police occurrence reports detailing conflicts that occurred during the father’s access between the parents and\or their extended family members, most of which occurred while the child was present.

[15] In December 2015, the father successfully brought a motion (without the mother being present in court) for an order precluding the mother from moving to Nova Scotia, and granting him regular and unsupervised access with B.D. The motion returned to court on February 11, 2016 at which time the father was granted access to the child every other weekend from Saturday at 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. as well as telephone access twice weekly. The mother’s inability to move to Nova Scotia was reaffirmed.

[16] The father readily admits that he has had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol since he was a teenager. At the time of the child’s apprehension, he had been taking steps towards long-term recovery for two years. Although he initially hid this fact from the Society, he later admitted to having had two relapses with alcohol following the child’s apprehension; the last of which occurred in May 2016. The father reported that he had been abstinent from alcohol since that date, “and that it had been the best it had ever gone in regards to remaining “dry.” He states that he has come to the conclusion that he could never consume alcohol again because of his previous pattern of use. He feels that something “clicked” the last time he used, and he has been committed to staying sober since. At the present time, he attends addictions counselling as well as alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous while also having a sponsor.

[17] Between October 2014 and until the date of the child’s apprehension, the child and her mother lived on and off with the maternal grandmother in her home, along with the mother’s other two siblings D.P. (maternal aunt) and R.P. (maternal uncle). When not living at the maternal grandmother’s home, the mother and the child lived in shelters or in apartments belonging to the mother or her friends.

Society’s Involvement with the Family

[18] There were six previous openings with regards to this child prior to the current opening; on April 25, 2012, January 9, 2014, April 23, 2014, August 2, 2014, August 25, 2014 and on April 11, 2015. Concerns related to inadequate supervision (father and mother), partner conflict (between parents), alcohol abuse (father), adult conflict (mother and her family members) and addiction to marijuana (mother). All six openings were closed at intake or shortly thereafter.

[19] The last and current opening relates to a number of events which led to the child’s apprehension. On November 10, 2015, the Society received a call from a physician at the General Hospital who had treated the mother following a physical altercation between her and the paternal grandfather which occurred on November 8, 2015, in the presence of the child. As stated earlier, this physical altercation resulted in criminal charges being laid against the paternal grandfather (later resolved with the paternal grandfather agreeing to keep the peace). On November 23, 2015, Mr. Alain Corriveau, a Child Protection Worker, attended at the mother’s home to discuss the referral and meet privately with the child to discuss the events which led to the altercation between the mother and paternal grandfather. However, the mother’s angry behaviour and refusal to allow the child to be privately interviewed caused Mr. Corriveau to leave her house hastily. The mother requested shortly thereafter that Mr. Corriveau be replaced as the Child Protection Worker on the file, which was granted. Ms. Josephine Parke replaced him.

[20] On January 13, 2016, the Society received a police occurrence report from the Ottawa police services following an event that took place on January 7, 2016. The police were called to the maternal grandmother’s home after a verbal confrontation between the mother and her sister, D.P., which followed a request by D.P. that the mother leave the home and not return. After the police intervention, the mother left the premises with the child.

[21] Ms. Parke attempted to contact the mother after this event but was unsuccessful. On January 26, 2016, she received a telephone call from the mother’s counsel and explained that she needed to review the latest referral and to speak privately with the child. She reports that the mother became upset and stated that this would not happen. Ms. Parke reiterated to the mother that she needed to call her back the following week with a plan to allow her to meet privately with the child.

[22] In the evening of March 28, 2016, the Society received a call from Constable Sharma of the Ottawa police services reporting that they were at the maternal grandmother’s home and that the police had been called as a result of the maternal grandmother trying to evict the mother from the home, which led to an altercation. The maternal grandmother believed that the mother was smoking marijuana in her room with the child present and had requested that the mother leave the premises immediately, leaving the child with her. In his occurrence report, which will be referred to in more details below, Constable Sharma indicated that the mother was yelling at them and at her family members through most of their meeting with her and was sobbing uncontrollably. When informed that her mother no longer wanted her in the home and asked what her plan was, the mother stated that she had no place to go and would likely stay with a friend for a couple of hours before staying in her car with the child.

[23] The officers on site had concerns regarding allowing the mother to leave the residence with the child, given her demeanour, lack of a plan, and, in their opinion, her incapacity to care for a child. As a result, the Society was called. The child was apprehended that night, and put into the maternal grandmother’s care where she continues to be to this day.

The Court’s Involvement

[24] On March 31, 2016, the Society filed a protection application seeking an order that the child be placed with her maternal grandmother for a period of six months under the supervision of the Society. On April 1, 2016, Justice Toscano Roccamo made a temporary without prejudice order placing the child with her maternal grandmother under the supervision of the Society, with access to the father as per the existing family court order, and access to the mother at the discretion of the Society.

[25] Shortly thereafter, the father filed his answer and plan of care seeking that the child be put into his care. On May 13, 2016, the mother filed her own answer and plan of care seeking the return of the child to her care.

[26] On June 29, 2016, Justice Ray granted an order that all parameters of the father’s access be at the discretion of the Society (who was then wishing to increase it). On the same day, Justice Ray refused to grant the mother’s motion to increase the frequency or duration of her access or to reduce the level of supervision.

[27] On August 3, 2016, after having assessed the father’s plan, the Society filed an amended protection application seeking an order that the child be placed with her father under the supervision of the Society for a period of six months, with access to the mother at the Society’s discretion.

[28] On August 23, 2016, the father brought a motion seeking a temporary placement of the child with him, pending trial. The father was hoping to have the child move with him to Kingston before the beginning of the school year. The Society was supporting the father’s motion, but the mother was resisting it, and asking once again that the child be returned to her care. At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Mackinnon dismissed the mother’s request. By way of oral reasons, she concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that there was a risk that the child was likely to suffer harm if returned to the care of her mother and that the child could not be protected adequately by a supervision order. By way of subsequent written reasons, she dismissed the father’s motion. While she was of the view that the father had a viable plan for the child, and since the maternal grandmother was not presenting a permanent plan for the child at the time, the ultimate outcome would require that the child either move to Kingston to be with her father, or relocate to Nova Scotia to be with her mother (which was the mother’s plan at the time). Justice Mackinnon was of the view that there was no indication that a change in the care and custody of the child was necessitated by reason of the care she was receiving at the time in her maternal grandmother’s home. She was of the view that the change in the child’s care would be premature, that she might have to move again in a year, and that it was in her best interests to continue in her current stable placement with her maternal grandmother until a final plan was made for her.

[29] In light of that result, and in light of the Society’s ongoing concerns with regards to the mother’s mental health and parenting abilities, the Society sought an order for an assessment.

[30] It is important to note that until February 2017, the maternal grandmother never intended to present a permanent plan for the child. On February 7, 2017, an order was made adding her as a party and allowing her to file an answer and plan of care of her own. She did so on February 15, 2017 and sought an order granting her custody of the child jointly with the father, with the child having her primary residence with her and access to the father every second weekend.

The Family Court Clinic Assessment

[31] On November 15, 2016, Justice Linhares de Sousa made an order for an assessment under s. 54 of the CFSA, to be completed by the Family Court Clinic (the “FCC”). Its purpose was to assess the parenting abilities of the mother and of the father including those attributes, skills and abilities most relevant to the child protection concerns. It was also to determine whether or not the mother or the father had any psychiatric, psychological or other disorder or condition that could impact upon their ability to care for the child. By order of Justice Roger dated February 7, 2017, the maternal grandmother was added as a participant in this parenting capacity assessment. Because she lived with D.P. (maternal aunt) at the time, who would have an important part to play in caring for the child, D.P. was also assessed by the FCC. The FCC’s assessment team was led by Dr. Wood, who provided a final assessment report on April 25, 2017.

[32] In preparing his assessment, Dr. Woods of the FCC had several individual meetings with the parents, the maternal grandmother, D.P. (maternal aunt), Ms. Parke (the Society worker) and the child, observed visits between the child and the various parties, conducted home visits, considered the results of psychological testing on all adult parties, obtained and considered a Social Work Assessment prepared by a FCC’s social worker, and reviewed significant medical records for the mother, father, maternal grandmother, D.P. and the child as well as the evidence filed in the continuing record by the various parties.

[33] In his assessment report, Dr. Wood expressed significant concerns regarding the mother’s ability to provide a conflict-free environment and place the child’s best interests ahead of her own. He commented on the behavioural difficulties of the mother, leading back to adolescence, and stated: “it appears that the mother has not been able to gain the stable sense of self and has struggled with interpersonal relationships because of her behaviours, which is suggestive of a personality disorder… specifically a Borderline Personality Disorder.” He was of the view that the mother had only minimally benefited from participating in multiple programs to address her emotional difficulties and that she was “entrenched in a victim stance.” Dr. Wood also concluded that, while pessimistic about the benefits the mother would garner from further treatment, she could possibly benefit from Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (“DBT”), but only if she seriously committed to this for a year or more. Additionally, he was of the view that the mother needed to participate in addictions treatment prior to DBT, which would be necessary prior to attending any treatment/therapy for mental health issues. He stated: “we would have serious concerns about the mother’s ability to provide the type of home environment the child will need over the longer term, which includes structure, nurturing, and a safe household where she is not subjected to any further conflict and allowed to foster the relationship with her grandmother and father.”

[34] Dr. Wood confirmed that the mother acknowledged to him her continued use of cannabis, which, according to him, appeared to have increased since the apprehension. He stated that there were reasons to believe that the mother had underreported her use of cannabis and that she may have exposed the child to second hand smoke or parented while under the influence.

[35] Dr. Wood observed that, during the assessment, “the child appeared to identify both her father and grandmother as parental preferences” and had reported to him that “she sometimes did not want her mother around and that she witnessed her mother getting into arguments with all her other parental figures while also stating other things that made her sad.”

[36] On a more positive note, Dr. Wood was of the view that the mother had shown an ability to relate positively to B.D. during the brief clinic interactions, and that she had shown that she loved B.D. and was committed to playing a role in her life. The mother had also shown a drive to maintain employment in the past, and she was currently employed. He also mentioned that she had previously shown insight into how her emotional dysregulation negatively impacted various areas of her life and had participated in treatment. However, at this point in her life, he concluded that she was blaming others for most of her difficulties and seemed “to have little insight into the role she has played in the current circumstances.”

[37] With regards to the father, Dr. Wood confirmed a long-standing history of depressive and anxiety symptoms that resulted in the father self-medicating with alcohol from an early age. Despite this, Dr. Wood was of the view that the father, who had multiple extended periods of abstinence from alcohol throughout the years, appeared to be leading a more stable lifestyle since late 2015, particularly since June 2016. Dr. Wood stated that it was possible that his more consistent access and seeing a progression with his relationship with the child might be a protective factor by improving his mood and anxiety symptoms and providing motivation to remain abstinent. He was of the view that the father showed an increased motivation than in the past to remaining sober. Dr. Wood had remaining concerns regarding the long-term stability of the father’s alcohol use, as his participation in the addictions program was fairly new and he needed to continue working on the underlying addictions issues, including his self-esteem and anxiety. Based on the above, Dr. Wood recommended that the father continued treatment for his alcohol abuse and dependence, and ongoing counselling to address his underlying self-esteem and anxiety issues. He suggested that the father would benefit from the use of an antidepressant now that he had been abstinent from alcohol for an extended amount of time, and then noted that the father had already taken this step, further demonstrating his commitment to improve his overall health and lead a more stable lifestyle. Dr. Wood stated that the father obviously cared about his daughter and had demonstrated a commitment to play a larger role in her life since being given the opportunity after the apprehension. Furthermore, his abstinence from alcohol was beneficial and showed his ability to access and receive support. Dr. Wood was of the view that the father’s abstinence from alcohol and the support from his family appeared to be positive factors with regards to his ability to properly care for B.D.

[38] With regards to the maternal grandmother, Dr. Wood found that she had demonstrated the ability to interact positively with the child, and that she enjoyed a close relationship with her. There was no evidence of substance abuse issues, and her medical difficulties were reported to be stable. Dr. Wood had no concerns about her ability to parent B.D., other than her inability to set proper boundaries with the mother. Dr. Wood stated: “One concern we do have is (the maternal grandmother)’s ability to maintain and set boundaries with (the mother) and protecting (the child) from this conflict, where it seems that the (maternal grandmother) is fearful to cast herself in a negative light to (the mother) and the resulting repercussions (e.g. (the mother)’s reactions). While collateral information suggests that (the mother) can be quite demanding towards her mother, the (maternal grandmother) will need to be able to consistently assert herself towards (the mother) and maintain boundaries without relying on CAS involvement.”

[39] With regards to the child, Dr. Wood found no evidence of any major psychiatric or developmental illness, or of any current special needs, although he noted potential signs and symptoms of ADHD in the school setting. Dr. Wood was of the view that this could also be the result of the ongoing conflict within her family and being somewhat unsettled in her living situation and access visits. Dr. Wood was uncertain as to whether or not B.D. had been affected by witnessing the conflict between her mother and the other family members in view of her age, but recommended that this be followed closely as she ages and that she receive a formal assessment if concerns were raised. It was Dr. Wood’s impression that the child had a healthy attachment to all her parental figures, including her maternal grandmother and aunt, based on the FCC’s own observations and information received by all parties. While she did interact well with her mother, the FCC observed the child to seem more temperamental with her mother, and stated that the child had expressed that she sometimes did not want her mother around and that she witnessed her mother getting into arguments with her grandmother, father, and paternal grandfather. Overall, however, Dr. Wood was of the view that the child appeared to be doing well, and he suggested that this would continue as long as she remained in a stable and consistent environment full of nurturance and support and with no exposure to adult conflict or information, or harsh discipline or speech.

[40] Dr. Wood concluded that the two most viable options for the child included remaining in the current home with her maternal grandmother and aunt or being placed with her father. While it was the assessor’s opinion that the child would benefit from remaining in the primary care of her grandmother with her aunt in the home, he was also of the opinion that the child could possibly benefit more by being placed with her father. Dr. Wood stated: “at the present time, we have significant concerns regarding the mother’s ability to provide a conflict free environment and place the child’s best interests ahead of her own. She also appears to express the intent to move to Nova Scotia, which would essentially remove the child from other important attachment figures in her life. Although the mother repeatedly stated that the child was invested in the move, the child did not appear to know about Nova Scotia or Halifax when explored by the writer. We also suspect that a move to Halifax would not improve the situation given the past history of conflict with most members of her family once she perceives a lack of support. Even if the mother were to remain in Ottawa, we would have concerns about her fostering a positive relationship between the child and her attachment figures.”

[41] While the FCC was recommending that the father take on a full-time parenting role with extensive access to the maternal grandmother, it was also of the view that this should take place under a supervision order. Dr. Wood cautioned that the FCC’s report was limited due to the fact that he had not had any contact with the paternal grandmother or grandfather, upon whom the father intended to rely somewhat in caring for the child in Kingston. As a result, Dr. Wood expressed the hope that the Society and the Court would have further information to help come to a conclusion about the role they should be allowed to play in caring for the child. Should the Court decide to have the child remain with the maternal grandmother and aunt with extensive access to the father, Dr. Wood suggested that the Society remain involved for a period of time to ensure that sufficient boundaries were maintained between them and the mother, and that the child would not be exposed to any further adult conflict.

[42] With regards to access between the child and the mother, Dr. Wood recognized that the child moving to Kingston would impede on the level of access that the mother could enjoy with the child. In his view, if the mother was able to make the visits a positive experience for the child while also working cooperatively with the Society, it would be possible that she may progress in her visits so that she could share the weekends with the maternal grandmother in Ottawa. Any changes to access should also, in his view, be conditional upon the mother demonstrating that she is willing to take ownership or responsibility for her issues including her personality difficulties which, in his opinion, impacted her parenting ability. This would include her accepting treatment and allowing the Society’s access to her counsellors or therapists in order to confirm her cooperation and progress. Should she lapse back into old behavioural patterns, Dr. Wood sees little option other than to further restrict her access to the child.

Relief Sought by the Society

[43] Following the receipt of the FCC’s assessment on July 10, 2017, the father, the maternal grandmother and Ms. Parke attended a mediation session. At that point, the father wanted the child to be put in his primary care while the maternal grandmother was seeking a joint custody order with the father, with primary care to her. Ultimately, they were able to reach an agreement providing that, if the Court so ordered, the father and maternal grandmother would share joint custody of the child and the child would reside in the primary care of her father with significant access to the maternal grandmother and supervised access to the mother. Further, the father agreed to work voluntarily with the Kingston Children’s Aid Society.

[44] As a result, the Society further amended its protection application seeking a joint custody order in favour of the father and of the maternal grandmother. This summary judgment motion was filed shortly thereafter. The Society continues to have ongoing concerns regarding the mother’s mental health and her inability to regulate her emotions, resulting in volatile, angry, upset behaviour in adult conflict in the child’s presence. There are also concerns with regards to inappropriate comments being made by the mother to the child during visits. For those reasons, the Society (supported by the father and maternal grandmother) is seeking an order for supervised access with the mother.

The Mother’s Position

[45] In her very able submissions, the mother’s counsel argues that a trial is required for this Court to be able to fairly and justly determine the issues in this case based on the following:

• Based on the evidence before me, I should be left with significant concerns as to whether or not I have a full evidentiary record before me to fairly and justly adjudicate the issues. Particularly, she submits that the Society has “cherry picked” the evidence that it submitted before the court so as to put the mother in the worst possible light, while leaving out evidence that shed a positive light on her. She argues that the Society showed bias in its consideration of the parties’ respective plans of care;

• There are serious issues of credibility that cannot be resolved based on the written evidence before me. More particularly, she argues that the Society’s evidence contains exaggerations, misrepresentations of facts, unsupported allegations, inconsistencies and outright lies;

• Based on the evidence before me, this Court cannot be satisfied that there is a proper basis for the orders that are being sought. In particular, she warns the Court against putting a heavy reliance on Dr. Wood’s opinion with regards to the mother at this stage for the purpose of granting a final order for custody to the father and maternal grandmother. Further, she submits that the Society’s assessment of the father’s plan of care was completely inadequate;

• The mother’s plan of care should not be dismissed at this stage because the evidence presented in this motion supports a triable issue in that regard, which merits full consideration based on tested evidence at trial;

• If this Court disagrees with the above, then at the very least there is a genuine issue for trial as it relates to access to the mother.

Finding the Child in Need of Protection

Legal Considerations

[46] The Society seeks a finding that the child is in need of protection pursuant to ss. 37(2)(b)(i), 37(2)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(g) of the CFSA. These sections read as follows:

Child in need of protection

(2) 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;

(f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,

(i) anxiety,

(ii) depression,

(iii) withdrawal,

(iv) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or

(v) delayed development,

and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of 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), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.

[47] The society has the onus, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that the child is at risk of harm.

Evidence Presented in Support of the Society’s Position

[48] The Society filed several affidavits in support of its summary judgment motion from various Society workers involved in this matter. I will only refer to those I consider most important here.

Mr. Alain Corriveau

[49] Mr. Alain Corriveau, the child protection worker who was initially responsible for this matter, related the events that transpired during his first contact with the mother on November 23, 2015 while investigating the protection concerns surrounding the altercation between the mother and the paternal grandfather. He stated that soon after he arrived at the mother’s home, the mother became argumentative and was yelling and screaming. She grabbed his paperwork out of his hands, continuing to yell and scream that “you guys always get it wrong.” The mother refused to return his paperwork to him despite his requesting it several times, and his attempts to calm her down were unsuccessful. When Mr. Corriveau requested to speak to the child alone, the mother refused, and when he took steps to leave the home, the mother went to the front door, blocking it and precluding him from leaving. When he was finally able to leave, the mother continued to yell and scream on the front steps. This entire incident took place in front of the child. The maternal grandmother, who was present during this altercation, confirmed these events in her own affidavit.

Ms. Parke

[50] Ms. Parke testified that the Society had the following concerns regarding the mother: her mental health issues and difficulties regulating her emotions, her history of drug use while caring for the child and the high conflict nature of her interpersonal and family relationships. She explains that her experience with the mother has been fraught with contact that has been less than positive.

[51] She stated that throughout her involvement with the mother, she had had difficulty regulating her emotions when interacting with her. Ms. Parke gave a detailed account of most of her contacts with the mother spanning over 16 months. She explained that in most of her interactions with the mother, the mother would become angry, raise her voice and use an angry tone. Ms. Parke constantly had to remind the mother to lower her voice. The mother would constantly hang up on her during telephone conversations; accuse her and the Society of kidnapping her child, of causing her psychological damages and of punishing her and the child. Throughout the Society’s involvement, the mother refused to provide the necessary consents for the Society to speak with third parties involved with her and\or the child. Most of the time, the mother refused to speak directly to Ms. Parke insisting that any communication be redirected to her lawyer. She accused Ms. Parke of being the reason for her strained relationship with her mother.

[52] Ms. Parke testified to the effect that at one point, it became a practice that a security guard would move to stand outside the meeting room door when she was meeting with the mother to ensure the safety of those within the room. At times, the mother escalated her voice and appeared angry, as evidenced by her tone of voice, facial gestures and pointing her finger at her. At times, she cried. Ms. Parke also testified that during most of the visits she had with the mother, she would refuse to provide answers when asked a question or would provide partial answers with very little detail. At times, she refused to engage with Ms. Parke during the entire meeting. When she did, she often appeared more focused on events that impacted her own life, rather than on how the child might be affected. On a number occasions, the mother eluded scheduled visits with Ms. Parke without providing reasons, or make it difficult to schedule new ones claiming that she had a busy schedule or that she would let her know the next day, and then not following up. The mother rarely notified the Society of her changes of residence.

[53] For long periods of time, Ms. Parke did not have a telephone number where she could reach the mother. Yet, Ms. Parke would discover that the mother had provided the child with a phone number during a visit. When Ms. Parke would try to reach her at that phone number, and left a voicemail message, the mother would not call her back.

[54] As a result of the mother’s behaviour as detailed above, Ms. Parke indicates that the mother has been resistant to any support that she or the Society could potentially provide to her in addressing her challenges. This being said, Ms. Parke stated that there was no doubt in her mind that the mother loved her daughter very much and that it was important to recognize this bond by ensuring that there was continued access between the child and her mother, and that such access had to be meaningful and positive.

[55] Ms. Parke’s testimony with regards to the maternal grandmother’s engagement with the Society is very positive. She indicates that the maternal grandmother has been receptive to the Society’s involvement in that she has remained engaged with all Society workers throughout their involvement. Generally, she has been reasonable during her conversation with Ms. Parke. There were no concerns noted by Ms. Parke with regards to the maternal grandmother’s ability to care for the child.

[56] Similarly, it was Ms. Parke’s testimony that the father had been very cooperative with the Society, even at times when he was seemingly frustrated with the legal process and his ability to have more parenting time with the child. He appeared to recognize the importance of maintaining meaningful contacts between the mother and the child and never took issue with extra access time being granted to the mother. Ms. Parke noted a close relationship between the maternal grandmother and the father where they were able to communicate directly with one another to arrange alternate visit plans with the child when something came up. Both supported the other’s requests for extra time with the child to accommodate special occasions in their respective extended families.

[57] Ms. Parke also provided details of her follow-ups with the father with regards to weekends and overnight visits between him and the child from July 2016 to July 2017, all of which were very positive and occurred without any concerns with regards to the father’s ability to care for the child.

[58] At the end of her July 27, 2017 affidavit, Ms. Parke states that the father “has been open and cooperative throughout the Society’s involvement. He has provided me with information as requested and in a timely manner. He has identified supports (both formal and informal) who he has already accessed and will assist him in the event that (the child) is placed in his care. He has expressed a commitment to working cooperatively with (the maternal grandmother) as recently evidenced by the mediated agreement. What has impressed me, has been the (father’s) acknowledgement and awareness of (the child’s) emotional needs, now and potentially in the future. He appears to have a good recognition on how the conflict that (the child) has experienced, has impacted on his daughter.”

Mr. Kelly Lawrence, Ms. Natalie Bosc, Ms. Michelle Claros, Ms. Emma Halpin, Ms. Brittany Carter, Ms. Allysun Lowe and Ms. Kassandra Neill

[59] All of these Society workers are child and youth counsellors employed by the Society. They all swore affidavits describing the events that took place during visits between the mother and the child that they were called upon to supervise. Their testimonies echo one another with respect to the positive interactions between the child and the mother during visits. They all agree that the mother arrives on time for the majority of her access visits with the child, that she is affectionate with her throughout the visit, that she supervises the child adequately during visitation, and that she engages her in various appropriate activities.

[60] This said, their testimonies also all echo one another when describing their strained relationships with the mother, their difficulties in interacting with her, her complete lack of cooperation (most of the time), and her angry and emotional outbursts and behaviours during those visits towards them and others.

[61] Mr. Lawrence reported several concerns about the visits that he supervised. Among others, he observed the mother making inappropriate comments to the child such as telling her that “she’s jealous of grandma because she gets to see the child every day” and comments leading the child to believe that she would be returning home to her mother soon. He observed the mother providing the child with written notes to be delivered to the maternal grandmother.

[62] Mr. Lawrence testified to his ability to effectively engage in conversation with the mother. He stated that he found the mother’s mood to be unpredictable and therefore difficult to gage her reaction. He often had to remind the mother to keep her voice down and she was often rude in her tone and abrupt. On one occasion the mother became very defiant in her attitude when advised that the visit had to be cancelled as the child was sick. She was uncooperative with Mr. Lawrence’s attempt to schedule a makeup visit. The mother often spoke to him in a raised tone, would get frustrated when having to deal with changes in the schedule, required that requests be directed to her lawyer, and abruptly end conversations when not getting what she wanted. He observed the mother yelling at a Society drive clerk and had to be warned that security would intervene if she did not stop yelling. Mr. Lawrence reported several occasions where the mother complained about Ms. Parke’s conduct, her lies, and her unwillingness to assist her and the child.

[63] Mr. Lawrence did state, however, that he had observed a positive change with respect to the mother’s mood over the past couple of months, whereby she had been more approachable and open to conversations. There were also times where she remained calm and polite. At the end of his affidavit, he states “I worry about (the mother’s) ability to care for (the child) in a less structured environment for an extended period of time.”

[64] Ms. Bosc partially supervised a community access visit between the mother and the child on February 7, 2017 at a shopping centre. She explained that at the end of the visit, the mother noticed that one of the child’s mittens was missing and asked to go find it in the mall. When Ms. Bosc suggested that she bring the missing mitten at her next visit with the child, the mother became angry and started to yell in front of the child and the other patrons of the mall. She eventually returned with the missing mitten and was thereafter observed to exchange positive affection with the child before departure.

[65] Ms. Claros supervised a three-hour visit between the mother and the child on February 11, 2017 at an outdoor festival. While her observations of the mother’s interactions with her child were all very positive, she explained that the mother arrived late and began yelling in front of the child and community members. She took the child by the hand and began walking quickly in the direction of the festival without greeting the child. When Ms. Claros followed them to attempt to set a time and meeting location for the end of the visit, the mother continued to yell loudly saying that now they only had an hour left for their visit (which she said was not true). Eventually, the mother agreed to the meeting location and time but continued yelling in front of her daughter and other community members.

[66] Ms. Carter related in detail some of the meetings that she had with the mother before or after visitations. Her affidavit is replete with events where the mother was behaving in an angry manner, was hostile, was angrily giving demands, and was speaking ill of other Society workers, especially Ms. Parke. She reports that security was routinely called upon during her meetings with the mother, resulting in the mother becoming more volatile and angry. She reported having been told by the mother that she was going to physically charge Ms. Parke when this was all done, and threatened to run her over if she saw her on the street. She reports that the mother had to be escorted out of the Society’s building on a few occasions by security guards as she was becoming too agitated. Ms. Carter also explained that on July 27, 2016, during a visit between the mother and the child that she supervised at the mall, she was the witness of an angry outburst by the mother towards the cashier at the fast food restaurant where she was purchasing her and the child’s meal. The mother considered $20 to be expensive to feed herself and her daughter and proceeded to voice her objections to the cashier in an angry and loud manner in front of her daughter, which drew the attention of several customers standing nearby. When Ms. Carter attempted to discuss these events with the mother to try to get her to understand that a different approach would have been preferable, the mother got agitated and angry and stormed out.

[67] Most of these access supervisors have reported a strong marijuana smell coming from the mother on some of the visits they supervised.

Ms. Michaela Ferguson

[68] Ms. Ferguson is a child protection worker employed by the Society. She has been involved with the maternal grandmother as her kinship worker since May 25, 2016. In her testimony, she relates, in detail, her observations of visits or telephone contacts between the mother and the child, most of which were positive, except on a number of occasions where she observed inappropriate comments being made by the mother to the child (asking the child to carry messages to the maternal grandmother or making plans for visits which the mother knew or ought to have known could not occur).

[69] She also testified to difficulties reported by the maternal grandmother with respect to her relationship and communications with the mother. Her account of those difficulties related to her by the maternal grandmother is supported by the maternal grandmother’s own affidavit. Ms. Ferguson also testified to the support she provided the maternal grandmother when she had to attend court. She stated that the mother often tried to engage the maternal grandmother before, during, and after court proceedings and that this was very unsettling for the maternal grandmother.

[70] Ms. Ferguson further testified to her observations of interactions between the child and the maternal grandmother as well as between the child and her father. She had only positive things to say about both. More particularly, she testified to the cooperative and amicable relationship between the father and the maternal grandmother, how they had been able to work very well together over the past year and intended to continue to do so, and how both agreed that the child’s needs could be met if the other were the primary caregiver.

The Father

[71] The father filed an extensive affidavit in which he related his difficulties in obtaining regular access to his daughter prior to December 2015, which he blames on the mother’s intentional attempts to make such access as difficult as possible. He expressed his long-standing concerns about the poor judgment shown by the mother, particularly in exposing the child to adult conflict on several occasions, and failing to realize the impact that this conflict could have on the child. He expressed concerns about the mother’s continued use of marijuana while in the presence of the child and about the mother’s alleged mental health issues resulting in her inability to regulate her emotions.

The Maternal Grandmother

[72] In her affidavit, the maternal grandmother relates the events of March 28, 2016 which led to the child’s apprehension. She explained that the incident started when she went to use the washroom in her home in the morning and smelled marijuana coming from the mother’s room. The mother was in her bed and the child was in the bedroom with her. The maternal grandmother was extremely upset with her daughter for smoking marijuana, as well as tobacco, in her home, and particularly in the presence of the child. As a result, she told the mother that she had two hours to get out of the house. Because the mother was consuming drugs, the maternal grandmother told her that the child would remain with her.

[73] When told that she was being kicked out of the house, the mother fell into a rage. According to the maternal grandmother, she started screaming at her and pushing her in the presence of the child. The child became very upset, and began crying uncontrollably. As a result of this altercation, the mother’s siblings called the police. This led the mother to become angry at her pregnant sister, and the mother apparently attacked her and kicked her in the stomach. The maternal grandmother said that when that sister was due to deliver a number of months later, the mother left a voicemail on the maternal grandmother’s telephone telling her that she hoped her sister’s baby would die before or after birth.

[74] The maternal grandmother states that this event was the breaking point in a series of events where the mother had acted in a manner that exposed the child to emotional harm and that she was thankful that the Society had gotten involved.

[75] She provided many examples of how the mother’s behaviour had negatively impacted on the child. When the two of them were living under her roof, she witnessed her daughter consistently yelling, screaming and swearing at the child. She often directed the “F” word against her, and used many other profanities aimed at her. She reported that the child appeared to never know when her mother would lose her temper which caused her to be constantly afraid of doing anything. She reported the child engaging in strange behaviours such as taking food when she was hungry and hiding it somewhere to eat it. She reports that the child continued to do this at her home for a short period of time after she was apprehended and put into her care.

[76] She stated that when the mother and the child were living with her, she would find the mother fast asleep in bed most mornings still in her clothes from the day before. The mother would usually leave the television on at night so that the child could watch television first thing in the morning while the mother slept on. The maternal grandmother was of the view that the mother often neglected her daughter which taught the child to fend for herself. This included finding food for herself and hiding to eat while her mother slept, spoke on the phone or used the computer.

[77] The maternal grandmother explains that because the mother was more focused on her own needs rather than the child’s needs, B.D. would often have to fend for herself by getting dressed in the morning to get ready for daycare. The grandmother would often be called upon to pick up the child to bring her to daycare because the mother was running late for work. When she would arrive at the mother’s home to pick up the child, the mother would often be found screaming at the toddler for her to hurry up. The child was often crying when the grandmother would arrive. According to the maternal grandmother, events such as these started to occur when the child was two years of age.

[78] She reports that when the mother and the child lived with her, she was often solely responsible for her care as the mother would leave the child with her pretending to go out to run an errand only to return past midnight. The maternal grandmother explains that in the context of a prior involvement with the Society, she had been called upon by the mother to come to her apartment to help her clean it up before the Society worker showed up. The maternal grandmother explains that she spent two hours cleaning the kitchen and that the home was a disaster.

[79] The maternal grandmother also reported her concerns about her daughter’s use of marijuana on a regular basis. She states that she strictly forbade the mother from consuming tobacco and marijuana in her home, a rule that the mother did not respect. She reported several incidents during which the mother verbally yelled at her, threatened her, or left her rude and hateful voice messages. She testified to the effect that the mother often used the child as a messenger for the purpose of asking her for favours. It was the grandmother’s evidence that the mother is only focused on her own needs and that she is completely oblivious to the needs of her daughter. The mother allows herself to vent to her daughter, and finds this entirely acceptable.

[80] The maternal grandmother further reported on the mother’s long history of conflict with others, including with herself and her siblings, and her long-standing difficulties in managing her daughter’s personality, angry outbursts, and impulsive emotional reactions. She related that she had to evict her daughter from her home on several occasions as a result of her angry behaviours.

Police Occurrence Reports

[81] In the Ottawa police occurrence report relating to the April 11, 2015 altercation between the mother and the maternal grandmother, the officer reports that, upon his arrival, the mother was observed to be on the phone, crying heavily, unable to catch her breath, and practically hysterical. The mother was unable to calm herself down throughout the officer’s entire two hour visit.

[82] In the Ottawa police occurrence report produced following the events of March 28, 2016, which led to the child’s apprehension, Constable Sharma states that when he met with the mother upon arriving at the scene, she yelled at officers, as well as at her mother, through most of (his) meeting with her. He adds that when she was not yelling at officers, her mother, or her brother, she was crying, and at times, sobbing uncontrollably. He further states that “Cst. Oakley and I both had concerns regarding allowing (the mother) to leave the residence with four-year-old B., given her demeanour, lack of a plan and, in our opinion, incapacity to care for her child. (the mother), despite being asked to calm down and be mindful of B.’s presence, continued to yell, cry uncontrollably, and blame her family for the unfolding situation. She ordered the child not to “talk to grandma”: told B. that they had to leave and she did not know why, and, made accusations against her brother regarding being a “stalker” and having “child porn on the computer” with B. standing by.”

[83] Constable Sharma was also witness to the events which followed the arrival of Ms. Diana Payne, the after-hours child protection worker who attended the paternal grandmother’s home that night. He said that when she arrived at the home, she asked to speak privately with the maternal grandmother. The mother immediately started to yell at Ms. Payne that she objected to her meeting occurring so close to the child’s bedroom and that she wanted to be with her daughter. Despite being told by police officers and Ms. Payne that she could not be with the child at that moment, the mother began yelling at the child to come and join her in the living room and, when informed that that was not permissible, started crying loudly. Constable Sharma stated “she consistently demonstrated an inability to recognize the inappropriate environment she was creating and exposing her daughter to.”

[84] On August 20, 2016, while working general patrol downtown, Constable Hawkins was witness to the mother driving over the curb of the road and stopping. He reports being able to smell alcohol on her breath and asked her to perform an “Alcotest.” She failed the test, was arrested, and brought to the police station. Constable McCulloch, who attended the scene shortly therafter, observed that the mother was struggling to follow Constable Hawkins’ instructions. He stated that “her speech was slightly slurred and her head was bobbing up and down.” As the tow truck arrived, Constable McCulloch did an inventory search of the mother’s vehicle and stated “it appears as though she has been living in it” and “The vehicle had the distinct odour of cigarettes and marijuana.” A small bag of marijuana was later found in the car. As the mother only blew a .62, no criminal charges were laid; but the mother received a three-day suspension of her driver’s licence. This event was not disclosed by the mother to the Society.

The Mother’s Evidence

[85] The mother’s evidence, in its essence, can be summarized as follows.

[86] With regards to the interview with Mr. Corriveau on November 10, 2015, the mother denies having grabbed his papers out of his hands. She says that “he proceeded to present her with all kinds of information that was completely wrong” and that when she corrected him he spoke to her “in a condescending manner which frustrated her.” She says that as their interview progressed, she noticed that he was writing only certain things down and ignoring other important pieces of information she gave him, further frustrating her given his “clear lack of understanding of what had been going on.” She said that she asked him to review his paperwork to ensure its accuracy and that she did not grab them from him. She acknowledges that she refused to allow him to speak privately with the child as she felt that it was not appropriate for her to be involved in/exposed to what was going on. She does not respond to the allegation that she physically blocked Mr. Corriveau when he tried to exit the home.

[87] With regards to the events that led to the apprehension, the mother’s version of events that transpired that night is not significantly different than the version of other witnesses who related their perception of those events, although the mother minimizes the extent of her emotional outburst as well as the child’s exposure to them.

[88] The mother acknowledges that she has had difficulties interacting with the Society staff in a pleasant manner. However, she justifies her behaviour on the basis that she “was (and continues to be) very upset about the way the Society has handled (her) file”, and that she finds it quite difficult to be pleasant with the people who have “taken (her) daughter away from (her) and who (have) made completely unreasonable decisions that have affected (her) relationship with (her) daughter.”

[89] The mother acknowledges that she has had a very difficult relationship with Ms. Parke. In her affidavit, she maintains that Ms. Parke has made no effort to support her or to reunite her with her daughter. She states that she is convinced that Ms. Parke is biased towards the father, despite her voiced concerns about him, and that from the beginning her plan of care was completely ignored without consideration. Her affidavit is replete of derogatory comments towards Ms. Parke, including several examples of how “unreasonable” and “ridiculous” she has been throughout this process.

[90] The mother explains that she never said that she would run over Ms. Parke if she saw her on the street; she said that “it would take every ounce of my being to not want to run her over if I saw her walking down the street.” She acknowledges that her comment was not appropriate.

[91] While the mother acknowledges that she refused to provide consents as requested by the Society to speak to professionals involved with her (her doctor, CMHA and Cornerstone), she indicates that she provided letters from those professionals confirming the information she gave the Society which is the equivalent of providing consents; a fact that she says was omitted in the Society’s evidence.

[92] The mother acknowledges that she refused to return the child’s health card to the Society, but claims that she was advised that she would be allowed to attend her medical appointments with her. Further, she states that if the child ever required emergency medical attention, she could be called and she would attend with the health card. She stated that the child “would never be turned away at a hospital if she required urgent medical attention.”

[93] The mother was of the view that her communications with the child and youth counsellors, who have supervised her visits, have generally been far more positive than it has with Ms. Parke. Later in her testimony, she acknowledges that her relationship with some of those workers was difficult at times, but blames those difficulties on workers being inconsistent in their messages as to what their role was in her file.

[94] With regards to the Society’s allegation that the mother is unable to regulate her emotions, and in light of the detailed evidence by several witnesses of specific events during which that was the case, the mother’s evidence is that “this is not true. I acknowledge that I have, at times, been upset and frustrated with the Society, and that I also have difficulties with my relationship with my family.” The mother’s evidence does not deny the events themselves, but generally disputes that she was as angry, loud or emotional as stated by the workers. Alternatively, she had good reason to be.

[95] The mother is of the view that the Society never suggested that she seek an assessment or counselling with regards to her mental health or emotional regulation, contrary to what the Society’s evidence would suggest.

[96] The mother admits that there is conflict between her and her family members. However, she explains that this conflict results from her family fluctuating between supporting her when they are getting along, to speaking negatively about her when they are not. She alleges that her mother and sister have an unhealthy relationship and that they always take each other’s side in disagreements regardless of the facts.

[97] In response to the maternal grandmother’s lengthy affidavit relating to several events that took place between her and her daughter, the extent of her care towards the child while living with her and on her own, and her concerns about her daughter’s emotional regulation, the mother’s response is mostly general statements to the effect that that it is not true, that her mother is lying, and\or that she is telling the Society (and this Court) what she thinks they want to hear.

[98] With regards to the many Society worker’s testimonies in which they provided detailed accounts of events that they witnessed during supervised visits, the mother’s evidence is either that she did not yell or scream as alleged, although she may at times have used a “firm tone”, or that her reaction was entirely justified based on her perception of those events.

[99] The mother admits to smoking marijuana at times, but indicates that she has never and would never smoke while in a caregiving role to the child.

[100] While the mother is of the view that Dr. Wood made numerous factual errors in terms of what he claims that she reported about her childhood, as well as other historical information, and mistakenly relied upon information given to him by the Society, the father and her family, which she disputes, the mother states in her affidavit that she “fully accepts the diagnosis and recommendations that Dr. Wood has made”, and that she is “committed to engaging in the recommended therapy to better herself.”

Analysis

Has the society established on a balance of probabilities, that the child is at risk of harm?

[101] I am satisfied that the Society has established a strong prima facie case that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial in relation to this issue. The evidence presented by the Society is overwhelming in this regard. I find that the child has been, and continues to be, at risk of suffering emotional harm if she is returned to her mother’s care. This is the direct result of the mother’s long-standing personality difficulties, conflictual relationships with others including her immediate family members, her inability to regulate her emotions, her unwillingness to cooperate with the Society and her unwillingness to take ownership or responsibility for those issues, which have a direct impact on her parenting ability. There is ample evidence confirming that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of the CFSA if she is returned to her mother’s care at this time. Further, I find that there is ample evidence before me showing that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm if returned to her mother’s care based on her aggressive and conflictual behaviour with others in front of the child, her lack of insight as to the impact of her behaviour on the child, and her long-standing use of marijuana.

[102] Having established this, the onus is on the mother to show that there is a genuine issue requiring trial. A triable issue is one which is relevant to the issues to be decided. The test is whether the question at issue is a foregone conclusion. There may be a factual dispute on an issue, but that does not necessarily raise a triable issue if the balance of the admitted and undisputed evidence leads to an inevitable outcome. Parties must put their best foot forward; in other words, they “must lead trump or risk losing.” While there may be issues to be decided, the question is whether there are issues that require trial (Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K. (S.).

[103] I find that the mother has not raised a genuine issue requiring a trial on the issue of whether or not the child is in need of protection. While I agree with the mother’s counsel that some of the evidence that may have shed a more positive light on the mother may not have been fully elaborated in the evidence presented by the Society, whatever was missing was brought to the attention of the court by the mother herself or by other witnesses; and I find that none of that evidence has shed any doubt on this Court’s conclusion that D.B. is a child in need of protection. I find that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial on this issue based only on the evidence before me, without using the judge’s new fact-finding powers set out in Rule 16. I find that the evidence before me allows me to fairly and justly determine this issue without the need for a trial, and that the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Disposition

[104] Having found that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to the child being in need of protection, I must now turn to the question as to whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to the disposition that would be in the best interest of this child.

Legal Considerations

[105] The Court’s disposition options under the CFSA are set out in subsection 57 (1) and in s. 57.1 of the Act. These sections read as follows:

Order where child is in need of protection

57.(1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 57.1, in the child's best interests:

Supervision Order

1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.

Society wardship

2. That the child be made a ward of the society and be placed in its care and custody for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

Crown wardship

3. That the child be made a ward of the Crown, until the wardship is terminated under section 65.2 or expires under subsection 71 (1), and be placed in the care of the society.

Consecutive orders of Society wardship and supervision

4. That the child be made a ward of the society under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding an aggregate of twelve months. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (1); 2006, c. 5, s. 13 (1-3).

Custody Order

57.1(1) Subject to subsection (6), if a court finds that an order under this section instead of an order under subsection 57(1) would be in a child's best interests, the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.

Deemed to be order under Children's Law Reform Act

57.1(2) An order made under subsection (1) and any access order under section 58 that is made at the same time as the order under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be made under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act and the court,

(a) may make any order under subsection (1) that the court may make under section 28 of that Act; and

(b) may give any directions that it may give under section 34 of that Act.

[106] In determining what disposition would be in the best interests of this child, I am required by virtue of s. 37(3) of the Act to take into consideration the following circumstances:

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 child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

6. 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.

7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

8. The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.

9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.

12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

13. Any other relevant circumstance.

[107] While D.B. does not have native or Indian status under the relevant legislation, her First Nation, Indian and Metis heritage is an important factor as well.

[108] In this particular case, and in light of the positions taken by the various parties, the following options are being considered in the context of this summary judgment motion:

1- A supervision order to the mother;

2- A joint custody order to the father and maternal grandmother.

Analysis

Supervision Order to the Mother

[109] I am of the view that the evidence before me makes it abundantly clear that a supervision order to the mother, at this time, is not a viable option; and that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial in that regard.

[110] The mother agrees with the conclusions and the recommendations of Dr. Wood. In his assessment report, Dr. Wood concluded that the mother has struggled with interpersonal relationships because of her behaviours which are suggestive of a personality disorder of a cluster B type, specifically a borderline personality disorder. He concluded that despite participating in multiple programs over the years to address her emotional difficulties, she appeared to minimally benefit from these programs and continued to be entrenched in a victim’s stance. While pessimistic about the mother’s ability to benefit from further treatment, the FCC opined that she could possibly profit from participating in dialectical behaviour therapy but that this could typically require serious commitment for a year or more. In addition to there being long waiting lists for this type of therapy, the FCC noted that she would first need to successfully complete an addictions counselling program.

[111] It is clear that, even assuming the mother is genuinely committed to engage in this process, which I very much doubt based on the evidence before me, the mother would need significant time to complete these programs before any plans of care by her could be assessed. As stated in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K. (S.):

The legal process is not to be used as a strategy to “buy time” to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a parent's heartfelt expression of his desire to resume care of the child; the parent’s 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 has developed new parenting skills.

[112] The evidence presented in the context of this summary judgment motion makes it abundantly clear that the mother has not cooperated with the Society and leaves very little hope that she ever will within a reasonable amount of time. The mother’s evidence falls short from establishing that she faces better prospects at this time than what existed at the time the Society removed the child from her care. There is simply no evidence that would suggest that the mother has made any progress in addressing her challenges. Unfortunately, time has run out for B.D. She was apprehended from her mother’s care on March 28, 2016, more than 17 months ago, and there is still no permanent plan in place for her which far exceeds the statutory limits imposed by the Act. She can no longer wait.

[113] I have given due consideration to the mother’s arguments and submissions with regards to the credibility of some of the witnesses which, in her view, needs to be tested at trial. In particular, I have carefully considered the mother’s arguments to the effect that the Society’s evidence contains exaggerations, misrepresentations of facts, unsupported allegations, inconsistencies and outright lies. Without reviewing all of those submissions in detail here, I do not find any such exaggerations, misrepresentations of facts, inconsistencies or lies in the evidence. If there are some, I am of the view that they are not material and would not have had an impact on my findings.

[114] As an example, the mother noted that one of the Society’s concerns from the beginning was that the mother was “a flight risk”, concern that was supported by the mother’s expressed wish on many occasions to relocate to Nova Scotia with the child, and as evidenced in Ms. Parke’s many affidavits. In her affidavit, the mother explained that in September 2014, she had obtained an order allowing her to relocate to Nova Scotia with the child, confirming her long-standing and continuous intention to do so. In the mother’s argument, this also revealed that she was not a flight risk since she had taken proper steps before the Court to obtain permission to relocate with the child at the first available opportunity in the past. Ms. Parke’s evidence filed with the Court failed to make any mention of that background which, in the mother’s view, was a misrepresentation of the facts or an exaggeration which showed questionable credibility on the part of Ms. Parke. However, the uncontested evidence reveals that subsequent orders obtained by the father in the family proceeding specifically precluded the mother from relocating to Nova Scotia. Although she did omit the historical background, I find that Ms. Parke did not misrepresent the facts in her affidavits. The fact was that, at the time the Society became involved, the mother was refrained from relocating to Nova Scotia and the mother had expressed on several occasions that her plan was to do so as soon as her daughter was back in her care. The mother herself admitted as much during her interviews with Dr. Wood.

[115] As stated by the court in CAS of Niagara Region v. S.J.W., 2011 ONSC 5842:

Not every disputed fact or question or credibility gives rise to a genuine issue for trial. A genuine issue for trial must relate to a material fact or facts. It must be an issue that is real and authentic, is not spurious to the case and is substantial and sufficiently important to warrant judicial determination. In addition, the issue must be relevant, in the sense that it must relate to material facts that are critical to the determination that the court is called upon to make. Disputed facts, the existence or non-existence, of which will not affect the outcome of the case, do not raise a genuine issue for trial,

I find that the evidence as a whole supports the inevitable conclusion that a supervised order to the mother is not an option at this time.

Joint Custody Order to the Father and Maternal Grandmother

[116] Having concluded that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to the mother’s plan of care, I must decide whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial with regards to the Society’s request for a joint custody order in favour of the father and maternal grandmother, with primary residence to the father. I find that there is not.

[117] Nobody has challenged the maternal grandmother’s ability to properly care for this child. There is no evidence before me that would suggest that there is any concern whatsoever about her ability to care for this child. Any need for a supervision order, as suggested by the FCC, if the child was put in the maternal grandmother’s primary care, results from the maternal grandmother’s difficulty in establishing proper boundaries with the mother. This is no longer a day-to-day concern if the child primarily resides with her father in Kingston.

[118] The mother is of the view that the Society’s assessment of the father’s plan of care was completely inadequate. Among other things, she is of the view that the concerns about the father’s ability to care for the child, in light of his long-standing history of alcohol addiction, are still very much present. She states that the Society has not assessed whether or not the paternal grandparents, who will have a role to play in supporting the father in his newly acquired parenting role, present a risk for the child in light of the paternal grandmother’s past addiction to alcohol and the paternal grandfather’s violent behaviours including towards the mother.

[119] It is undisputed that there has been no concern whatsoever during the father’s increasing time with the child over the past 17 months. On the contrary, all of the witnesses who have provided evidence in that regard confirm that there were no issues during the father’s visits and that the child is comfortable, happy and doing well in her father’s care.

[120] As stated above, it is undisputed that the father has struggled with alcohol addictions in the past. However, the undisputed evidence confirms that he has taken positive steps in order to address these challenges to become a healthy and emotionally stable parent to B.D. Since 2014, he has continuously participated in treatment programs and counselling. In May 2014, he completed a 28 day residential program at the Sobriety House to help him overcome his consumption habits. He participated in their aftercare program for one month. He readily admits that managing his negative alcohol consumption has been an ongoing progression and that his journey to become permanently sober has had some challenges. He admitted (although he was not honest with the Society in that regard initially) that on May 21, 2016, he relapsed in his drinking habits which required hospitalization. Understanding, based on past experience, that he would be unable to attempt sobriety on his own, on June 3, 2016, he voluntarily returned to the hospital in the hope of securing a bed at a detoxification centre. He entered the Oshawa Detoxification Centre on June 4 and stayed there for three days. He states that he did not consume alcohol since. He has recently completed a three week program to learn grounding techniques to control anxiety. He has continuously indicated that he is open to surprise visits by the Society, should they have any concerns about his sobriety. His recognition of his limitations with regards to his alcohol addiction and his continued efforts in achieving permanent sobriety, which are supported by the evidence including the testimonies of many Society workers as well as Dr. Wood, are persuasive and compelling.

[121] The evidence before me makes it clear that the father has demonstrated an increasing ability and desire to parent B.D. and to provide a permanent and stable home for her. This is reflected in the evidence filed by Society workers, and is supported by the lengthy assessment report produced by the FCC. Further, it is supported by the maternal grandmother who has been the child’s full-time caregiver for well over a year. Her decision to step aside as the child’s primary caregiver to make room for the father to take on that role, despite her own desire to remain the child’s primary caregiver, speaks volume about her trust in his parenting abilities.

[122] The father currently resides in his own apartment which has two bedrooms including one for B.D. He is optimistic that his employer will be flexible in transitioning him to a daytime position with regular hours. The uncontested evidence is that he has obtained confirmation from his employer that he can access parental leave for three months in order to assist adjusting B.D. to her new surroundings. He is prepared to terminate his employment to seek other opportunities if his employer is unable to adjust his schedule to accommodate his parenting obligations. He has taken steps to investigate counselling options for B.D. should she require counselling in Kingston. He has already chosen a school which is at walking distance from his apartment and also plans to enroll her in swimming lessons and other extracurricular activities. It is undeniable that the father intends to foster B.D.’s understanding and knowledge of her Native heritage. Among other things, he has sought support from his Band and has also identified counselling for the child through the Métis Centre in Kingston. The uncontested evidence makes it clear that the father intends to continue to nurture the child’s relationship with the maternal grandmother and her extended family, including the mother herself.

[123] With regards to the alleged risks presented by the paternal grandparents taking on a secondary role in caring for the child, it is important to note that the maternal grandmother will continue to play a large role in monitoring the child’s well-being by having joint custody and extensive access to her. I find that any concern in regards to the paternal grandparents will be addressed by the maternal grandmother retaining such a large role in the child’s life. Further, the Kingston Child Protection Agency will continue to be involved in monitoring any protection concerns under the Voluntarily Service Agreement entered into by the father. While I am mindful that Dr. Wood, in his assessment, suggested a supervision order to the father or the maternal grandmother, it is important to note the context in which he expressed that opinion. He suggested that “CAS continue to be involved (with the father) during this transition by doing unannounced visits in the home and continuing to have ongoing contact with his treatment providers to ensure stability and his mental health and alcohol use.” As stated above, this goal is achieved by the father entering into a Voluntary Service Agreement allowing for continued monitoring by the Society.

[124] On a final note, I wish to address the mother’s argument to the effect that the Society showed bias in its consideration of the parents’ respective plans of care. While it may very well have been perceived that way by the mother, I find that the Society came to the conclusion, as does this Court, that the mother’s plan of care was simply not viable and as a result, focused on the father’s and the maternal grandmother’s plans instead. Further, I find based on the overwhelming evidence before me that the mother significantly contributed to this result by her continued lack of cooperation with the Society in addressing its concerns and by refusing to provide consents allowing the Society to further assess her plan of care.

Access to the mother

[125] I find that there is a genuine issue for trial with regards to the extent of the access that the mother should have with the child, as well as with regards to the level of supervision that should be imposed, if any, on her access.

[126] The uncontested evidence is that it is in the child’s best interest to continue to have access to her mother, and the mother has committed to access visits. She is affectionate with her child, she supervises her adequately during visitation, and she engages her in various appropriate activities. Most visits appear to have been positive experiences for the child and the undisputed evidence is that they are meaningful to her.

[127] The concerns expressed by the Society, the father, and the grandmother which, in their view, support a need for supervision at this time are the following:

a) The mother makes inappropriate comments to the child during visits or during telephone conversations (including about moving to Nova Scotia, visiting her new apartment when knowing that she could not take the child there, about being jealous of grandma because she gets to see the child every day, asking the child to keep things secret, etc.);

b) The mother engages the child in adult discussions;

c) The mother uses the child to pass messages along to the maternal grandmother.

Those allegations made by various Society workers, as well as by the father and grandmother, are disputed by the mother and the evidence before me suggests that those events have become scarce in the recent past.

[128] In his assessment report, Dr. Wood does not specifically make a recommendation about supervision. He stated that if the mother was able to make the visits a positive experience for the child while also working cooperatively with the Society, it is possible that she may progress in her visits so that she can share the weekends with the maternal grandmother, where they could each have one overnight during those weekends or each have one weekend per month with the child. Should the mother chose to move to Kingston to favour more frequent visits, Dr. Wood was of the view that such visits should be limited (but still ongoing) during the first few months to allow the child to adjust with the move into her father’s home. Subsequently, the mother could be rewarded by having increased frequency and/or duration with decreasing levels of supervision if she is able to make the visits a positive experience. Dr. Wood was of the view that any change in the mother’s access should be conditional on the mother taking responsibility for her issues, accepting treatment, and allowing the Society access to her treating therapists. Finally, supervised access change-overs were recommended given the level of conflict between the mother, the father and the maternal grandmother.

[129] Despite all the above, the evidence reveals that the mother’s current access with the child is not supervised, although the Society will make surprise pop-ins from time to time.

[130] I find that I am not able to fairly and justly adjudicate this issue without proper evidence being presented and tested in the context of a full hearing.

Orders

[131] In light of the above, the Society’s summary judgment motion is allowed in part. The following order shall issue:

1. I find that:

a. The child, B.D., is in need of protection pursuant to ss. 37(2)(b)(i), 37(2)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA);

b. The respondents, S.D. and R.K., are the biological parents of the child, B.D.;

c. The child does not have native status, however, the father is First Nations and has Indian status, and the mother is Metis;

d. B.D. is eligible for Indian status, although she is not currently registered as such;

e. The child is of no particular faith.

2. On a final basis, I order that:

a. The maternal grandmother, J.P., and the father, R.K., shall have joint custody of the child, B.D., born […], 2011, pursuant to s. 57.1 of the CFSA;

b. The child shall primarily reside in Kingston, Ontario, with her father;

c. The order shall be subject to the terms set out in the parenting plan signed by the maternal grandmother and the father on July 10, 2017, a copy of which is attached to this decision, with the exception of paragraphs 8, 17 and 18.

3. On a temporary basis, I order:

a. Until the child relocates to Kingston to be with her father, the mother shall have access to the child as per the access schedule currently in place;

b. Once the child relocates to Kingston, the mother shall have temporary access as follows:

i. In Ottawa: every second weekend, to coincide with the maternal grandmother’s weekend access, for a period of three hours on Saturdays, unsupervised but to be exercised in the community. Access exchanges in Ottawa shall occur at the offices of the Society.

ii. In Kingston: if the mother chooses to travel to Kingston to exercise access to the child, every second weekend, to coincide with the weekends that the child is in her father’s care Kingston, for a period of three hours on Saturdays, as well as every Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., unsupervised but to be exercised in the community. Access exchanges in Kingston shall occur at the offices of the Kingston’s Children’s Aid Society or such other supervised access facility.

iii. The father shall initiate and facilitate weekly telephone access between the mother and the child every Tuesday and Thursday at 7:00 p.m. for period of 15 minutes.

iv. The mother is not allowed to leave the Ottawa or Kingston regions with the child. Should she do so or attempt to do so, the police force having authority in the jurisdiction where the child is located shall intervene, apprehend the child and return her to the father or the maternal grandmother, as the case may be.

c. The issue of the extent of access between the child and the mother, on a final basis, as well as the need for supervision shall be resolved by way of a mini-trial pursuant to rule 16 (6.2) of the Family Law Rules.

d. The parties are to arrange and participate in a trial management conference to decide how the mini-trial shall proceed and schedule the trial date.

Madam Justice Julie Audet

Released: September 8, 2017

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.D., 2017 ONSC 5335

COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-628

DATE: 20170908

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.D., born […], 2011

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

Applicant

– and –

S.D., R.K., and J.P.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Audet J.

Released: September 8, 2017