BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-826

DATE: 20180706

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: The Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe, Applicant

AND:

K.W., Respondent

AND:

H.G., Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice R.T. Bennett

COUNSEL: T. Nazerali, Counsel for the Applicant

E. Venhola, Counsel for the respondent K.W.

B. Lynn, Counsel for the respondent H.G. Sr.

C. Rogers, OCL counsel for the child H.P.A.G.

D. Manning, OCL counsel for the child H.G.

S. Paterson, Agent for L. Aylwin, OCL counsel for the remaining children

HEARD: May 14, 22, 23 and 24, 2018

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

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

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

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

ruling on summary judgment motion

The Motion

[1] The Simcoe Muskoka Child and Family Services hereinafter called (“the Society”) brings a summary judgment motion seeking to have the children H.P.A.G. and H.G. found in need of protection and placed in extended Society care (formerly Crown wardship).

[2] In addition, the Society seeks an Order of no access by the respondent parents but access between the children and their step-siblings.

[3] H.G. and his half-brother Z.G. were apprehended by the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society June 11, 2016. He has been in Society care since that time.

[4] H.P.A.G. and her step-siblings J.B., A.B., B.B., E.W., and M.B. were apprehended by the Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services on June 13, 2016. She has been in Society care since that time.

[5] With respect to H.G., the Society alleges that he had been physically harmed by both his parents and his older step-sibling J.B.

[6] With respect to the allegations against the respondent mother and respondent father, it is alleged that H.G. was physically restrained for long periods of time and physically assaulted repeatedly. It is further alleged that his mother washed his mouth out with dish soap. In addition, it is alleged that he was subjected to alternating hot and cold showers.

[7] It is alleged that his parents socially isolated him.

[8] It is alleged that he had to sleep in a windowless basement room.

[9] So far as the physical assaults are concerned, it is alleged that he was hit by his father and step-mother with a belt and a cord from a vacuum as well with their hands. So far as the assault by his step-sibling, it is alleged that he was hit with a shoe by J.B.

[10] In addition to these physical assaults, it is further alleged that he was restrained for periods of time to a kitchen type chair by a rope tied by his ankles. At times, in addition to his ankles being restrained, he was also restrained by a rope around his hands, either tying them in front of his body and sometimes to his waist or tying his hands behind his back.

[11] In addition, at times it is alleged that while also being tied to the chair, he was restrained by a rope around his neck and at other times by a rope around his waist.

[12] While in the chair, he was forced to face the wall.

[13] The restraints in the chair allegedly occurred from a period of minutes to hours during the day.

[14] For the five to seven days leading up to the apprehension, it is alleged that he was restrained in the chair overnight.

[15] On at least one occasion, while restrained, the chair fell. The noise of him falling alerted his step-brother J.B. who came and uprighted the chair.

[16] On the last night of the restraint in the chair, it is alleged that he urinated himself. He managed to extricate himself from the restraint and went into one of his step-sibling’s bedrooms to retrieve clean pyjamas. He was allegedly found by the respondent step-mother at a time when he was even, by her allegations, innocently touching one of his step-siblings.

[17] It is alleged that at that time his step-mother “lost it” and determined that he could no longer remain living in that household.

[18] It is further alleged that as a result of his restraint to the chair he soiled himself and was then required to put on the pajamas in which he had urinated.

[19] It is further alleged that he was bound to a chair in the bathroom.

[20] It is further alleged that he was told that he was not wanted.

[21] It is further alleged that all of the step-siblings took part in his shaming.

[22] In addition to the physical harm caused to him, it is alleged by the Society that he is a child in need of protection as a result of the emotional harm caused by the actions of the respondent parents.

[23] With respect to H.P.A.G., it is alleged that she was required to sleep on garbage bags on a bed in the basement beside him while he was bound to a bed. The room in which H.P.A.G. and H.G. were required to sleep was in the basement with concrete walls or unfinished drywall and a concrete floor.

[24] It is further alleged that H.P.A.G. was required at times to tie and untie H.G. during the night to allow him to go to the washroom.

[25] Although other step-siblings were also allegedly required to participate in the tying and untying, the Society distinguishes between them and H.P.A.G. for two reasons. H.P.A.G. is the biological sister of H.G. and it is therefore alleged that the emotional effect of participating in and viewing the restraint and other physical assaults on H.G. was more significant to her emotionally than to the other siblings.

[26] Further, the distinction between H.P.A.G. and the other step-siblings is that H.P.A.G. was required to sleep in the basement with H.G. and was therefore treated differently by the respondent father and respondent step-mother than were the other children.

[27] The other children in the family had “normal” bedrooms in the upper level of the home.

Family Constellation

[28] H.P.A.G., born […], 2007 and H.G., born […], 2011 are the biological children of the respondent father H.G. Sr. and H.R. who is now deceased. The evidence is that their biological mother died when H.G. was approximately six months of age.

[29] The respondent mother, K.W. and the respondent father have two biological children namely: Z.G. born […], 2015 and A.G. born […], 2017.

[30] A.G. was born after these child protection matters commenced and after H.P.A.G. and H.G. had been taken into Society care.

[31] Not that it relates particularly to the summary judgment motion before this court, but it is noted that neither the respondent parents nor the other children disclosed to the Society that the respondent mother was expecting another child. The Society only learned of A.G.’s birth after the fact.

[32] The respondent mother and a M.B. are the biological parents of:

J.B., born […], 2002

A.B., born […], 2005

M.B., born […], 2010, and

B.B., born […], 2011.

[33] The respondent mother and a P.M. are the biological parents of E.W. born […], 2007.

[34] At the time of the apprehension of the children earlier referred to, the respondent parents and the then eight children collectively lived together in a home in Barrie Ontario.

Protection Issue

[35] Pursuant to a Statement of Agreed Facts that became an Order of Justice Eberhard dated February 12, 2018 there was a partial summary judgment finding that H.P.A.G. and H.G. are children in need of protection; H.G. pursuant to section 37(2) (a), (f) and (g) and H.P.A.G. pursuant to section 37(2) (g) of the then Child and Family Services Act.

[36] That Order was based on Final Minutes of Settlement signed by counsel for the respondent mother and father and the Society. As well, on February 12, 2018, all parties represented at this summary judgment motion were represented at that time.

[37] Those Final Minutes of Settlement provided for the following among other terms:

(a) disclosure to be provided by the Society;

(b) an adjournment of the summary judgment motion to the May 2018 trial sittings; and

[38] The Order of February 12, 2018 provided for the following:

(a) an adjournment of the summary judgment motion to the May 2018 sittings due to disclosure issues;

(b) a timeline for delivery of affidavits and facta for the summary judgment motion;

(d) the Society and OCL to argue at the summary judgment motion that the parents not have access to the subject children; and

(e) the parents to argue that there is a triable issue about what could be done to reintegrate the children into the family and should have already been done by the Society to assist.

[39] There was a further Order made March 26, 2018 pursuant to which the Society withdrew its Protection Application with respect to the youngest child, A.G. Attached to that Order was a voluntary service agreement entered into by the parents with the Society dated March 6, 2018 pursuant to which the parents agreed to terms with respect to A.G. that mirrored the terms with respect to the other children (save and except H.P.A.G. and H.G.).

[40] As a result of an Order made by this court May 14, 2018 at the commencement of the trial sittings, the summary judgment motion was scheduled for a period of two to three days to commence May 22, 2018.

Current Order with Respect to Other Children

[41] Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement entered into in November 2017, the other (J.B., A.B., M.B., B.B., E.W. and Z.G.) children were found to be in need of protection and are in the care of the parents subject to a 12 month supervision Order.

[42] Among other terms, the Minutes of Settlement which formed the basis for the consent Order, provided that:

(a) the children were found to be in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2) (f) of the Child and Family Services Act (as it then was);

(b) the children were placed in the care of the respondent parents for a period of 12 months subject to supervision by the Society. The Society would review the plan of care including the need to continue supervision or to change the supervision conditions, after six months and shall do so in consultation with the parents and/or parents’ counsel and the OCL appointed for the children;

(c) the children have a right to access with their siblings H.G. and H.P.A.G., that access to be determined in the proceedings relating to H.G. and H.P.A.G. and access not to occur until final disposition is made in relation to H.G. and H.P.A.G.;

(d) if matters relating to H.G. and H.P.A.G. are not resolved by summary judgment during the November trial sittings as was then currently planned, the issue of the terms of access was to be addressed between all counsel and the Society in December 2017;

(e) the parents were to continue to use only positive parenting techniques and discipline and to refrain from all forms of corporal punishment including physical discipline;

(f) the parents were to continue to work with a Family Resource worker as recommended by the Society which work would include aspects of Triple P parenting and other positive parenting strategies;

(g) the parents were to follow through with the recommendations made by Dr. Amitay for therapy and parenting education including the family participating in family therapy to assist the parents to maintain healthy boundaries and expectations and to give the children an opportunity to express their feelings in a safe and productive manner and that H.G. Sr. attend parenting training or education to address deficiencies in his childcare knowledge and abilities;

(h) the Society was to pay for therapy/services of the type recommended by Dr. Amitay if those services are not available to the parents at no cost;

(i) the parents were to continue to participate and follow through with the recommendations made by Healthy Babies Healthy Children with respect to the child Z.G.;

(j) parents were to continue to collaborate and participate with the Simcoe County District School Board regarding the children’s specific behavioural and learning needs;

(k) parents to continue to allow the Society access to their home on a scheduled and unscheduled basis including private contact with the children to occur at a minimum monthly;

(l) no child under 12 would be permitted to have a bedroom in the basement without the Society’s prior consent; and

(m) those Minutes of Settlement were signed by the Society, the parents and their respective counsel and the OCL for the children, J.B., A.B., and E.W., M.B. and B.B. and the OCL for H.P.A.G. with respect to paragraphs dealing with access to H.P.A.G.

[43] There was also a consent Order made December 18, 2017 with respect to Christmas access for the children H.P.A.G. and H.G. with the other children.

Circumstances Resulting in the Apprehensions

Events in the Home in the Days Leading up to the Apprehension

[44] As earlier referred to, due to what the parents alleged was a need to deal with H.G.’s behavioural issues, and to protect him from self-harm and to protect the other children from harm by then 4 year old H.G., the parents had restrained H.G. both initially to his bed and then to a chair. The restraint in the chair had allegedly occurred for a number of overnights prior to the apprehension.

[45] The “last straw” for the respondent mother apparently was when H.G. had urinated in his pyjamas while restrained to a chair overnight. He then apparently extricated himself from the restraint, had gone to one of the step-siblings bedrooms and removed his soiled pyjamas putting on clean pyjamas. He was allegedly found by the respondent mother in the sibling’s bedroom, innocently touching the sleeping step-sibling.

[46] At that point, the respondent mother apparently made the decision that H.G. could no longer remain living in their home.

[47] Contact was made with his (deceased) biological mother’s mother (maternal grandmother) who was then residing in London Ontario.

[48] The respondent father and respondent mother took H.G. to the maternal grandmother’s residence in London. Apparently however, for unknown reasons, she had a change of heart and was not willing to have H.G. reside with her.

[49] The respondent mother had been in contact by text and telephone on a regular basis with her sister J.O. who resided in Hamilton. Contact was made with her. As a result H.G. was left with the respondent mother’s sister.

[50] Although he had a bath the evening that he was dropped off by the respondent mother, which bath took place in the presence of the aunt and the respondent mother, the aunt indicates that due to the fact that she was talking to the respondent mother and not paying attention to H.G., she did not notice any bruising on him that evening.

[51] On June 11, 2016 H.G.’s aunt, J.O. while bathing H.G., who was then 4 years of age, noted bruising on his body. He reported to the aunt and her daughter that the injuries were as a result of being hit and tied up by his parents.

[52] The aunt confronted her sister about these injuries (the aunt intended to take H.G. to her family doctor apparently anticipating that this would result in the doctor reporting those injuries to the Society).

[53] When the sister’s reaction was to indicate that she would attend to pick up H.G., his aunt contacted the Hamilton police.

[54] As a result of the investigation, criminal charges were laid against the respondent mother and the respondent father.

[55] The respondent parents were charged with assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

[56] H.G. reported having been tied to a chair. He further reported being hit on the buttocks, the back, legs and stomach. He reported that his mother hit him with a belt and a vacuum cord and his father pinched his ear and hit him with a belt.

[57] As a result of the telephone call between the respondent mother and her sister, the respondent mother and respondent father attended (with Z.G. who was with them) at the Hamilton police station where the respondent mother’s sister was in attendance with H.G.

[58] The respondent mother in part admitted the allegations.

[59] H.G. and Z.G., (who was in attendance with the parents), were then apprehended by the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society.

[60] The other six children, including H.P.A.G., while at the home in Barrie, were apprehended by the Simcoe Muskoka Child and Family Services two days later (June 13, 2016).

[61] There were no allegations of specific abuse of any of the other children, save and except the allegations of their exposure and participation in the restraint (and in the case of J.B., assault) of H.G.

Police Interviews

[62] As part of the evidence before this court on the summary judgment motion, the court received, on consent, the video recording evidence of the interviews by the police and the Society with all of the children (save and except Z.G. who was then less than one year of age and obviously not capable of being interviewed). In addition, the court received and reviewed the interviews of the respondent parents and the interview of the respondent mother’s sister, J.O.

[63] As a result of a malfunction in the recording equipment, the audio of the interview of June 13, 2016 by the police and the Society with A.B. did not function and a transcript of that interview was provided to the court.

[64] The following represents the court’s synopses of those interviews:

1. M.B. (who was then six years of age, date of birth […], 2010)

(a) not very talkative;

(b) claims H.G. “lies all the time”;

(d) says H.G. gets tied to a chair with a rope that is blue, red and white and that the chair is black;

(e) says that he saw H.G. tied up at the neck. He believes he was tied up because he was “bad” and was stealing cookies and bread;

(f) H.G. was tied up for a long time; and

(g) when M.B. is “bad” he gets sent to his room.

2. A.B. (then almost 11 years of age, date of birth […], 2005)

(a) mom would tie H.G.’s foot to the chair because he steals food at night and had painted his face with nail polish;

(b) it is a kitchen chair and he is made to face the wall. She ties both his legs;

(d) says he is tied to the bed at the same time every night at about 7:00;

(e) sometimes his father unties him so that he can “go pee”;

(f) H.G. was required to start sleeping in a chair after he took something out of the freezer. The chair is a wooden chair with no arms. His hands are tied as well as his feet;

(g) “when we get a treat he doesn’t”;

(h) mom spanked him with a belt; and

(i) he screamed when dad spanked him with a belt because he peed on things.

3. B.B. (then almost five years of age, born […], 2011)

(a) says nothing scares him in the home;

(b) when he gets into trouble he gets “beat by his mom” who slaps him; and

4. J.B. (then 13 ½ years of age, born […], 2002)

(a) he had been living with his father until two years ago when he came to Barrie to live with his mother and step-father;

(b) sometimes he gets along with H.G. Sr. (his step-dad);

(c) he describes the family. He, A.B., M.B. and B.B. have the same mother and father. E.W. has the same mother but different father. Z.G. has the same mother and H.G. Sr. is her father. With respect to H.P.A.G. and H.G., his mother is their step-mother and H.G. Sr. is their father;

(d) says there was stress in the family as a result of H.G.;

(e) says “we” used to tie him because he stole stuff and hit my brothers and sisters. Also because while in the basement he went to the water tank to try to turn off the hot water;

(f) says “we” would tie him to the bed. H.G. was in the basement with his sister;

(g) H.G. “threatened to kill us”;

(h) he was tied to his bed at about 8:00 p.m.;

(i) he was also tied to a chair upstairs to sleep. It was a “cheap metal chair with no arms”;

(j) one night while tied to the chair he peed himself and his father said go ahead and pee yourself;

(k) another night while tied to the chair he peed himself and H.G. Sr. saw him in his brother’s room. Apparently he peed on the floor. His mother “snapped.” H.G. was naked. She slapped him with her hand on his legs. She was crying because she could not “handle it”;

(l) H.G. was taken to his grandmother in London;

(m) the grandmother however said she did not want to take him so he was driven to J.B.’s mother’s sister in Hamilton where he was left for four days;

(n) the aunt bought him “good things.” We thought that was bad. She bought him Batman clothes. Apparently he “acted like a normal kid with her”;

(o) says his mom’s sister does not like H.G. Sr. or any of his family;

(p) the aunt took H.G. to the police and they took him and Z.G. from his mom;

(q) J.B. says that he moved with his mother to Hamilton from Toronto. When she first moved in with H.G. Sr. J.B. was confused and did not like him at first;

(r) H.G. was a baby when H.G. Sr. and his mom got together;

(s) J.B. then moved to his father’s but visited on weekends with his mom. He says that H.G. “didn’t do anything bad” at first;

(t) H.G. started running away into the forest;

(u) says at one time H.G. touched J.B.’s friend’s genitals when they first moved to Barrie; and

(v) J.B. says that he was in the basement at first. It was dark and cold. Then he moved upstairs and H.P.A.G. and H.G. moved to the basement about two months ago. Says they move rooms around sometimes every two months.

5. H.P.A.G. (then almost nine years of age, date of birth […], 2007)

(a) H.P.A.G. was in grade 3 at the time of the interview;

(b) she does not like it at home when she fights with her sister. She and H.G. sleep in the basement. Each of them has a bed;

(d) she sometimes gets in trouble for hitting her brothers and sisters and when she does, she gets hit with a hand on the bum by her mom or she is sent to her room;

(e) she says when H.G. gets in trouble, he gets hit on the bum or sent to his room;

(f) when asked about the chair, she said that H.G. was tied to the chair by his step-mom because he gets in trouble a lot. She says he was tied three or five times to the chair with his hands either behind his back or in front of him. He was tied to the chair with a rope;

(g) to allow him to eat, either she or her sister or her oldest brother would untie him;

(h) a long time ago, he got hit with a belt and one time, her brothers and sisters were also hit with the belt and last year they were hit either on the bum or on the side;

(i) says that H.G. was okay when they lived with her father alone;

(j) says father ties H.G. to his bed and sometimes H.G. wakes her up to go pee. She knows how to tie and untie H.G. because she watches her father. She ties a double not the bow. H.G. cannot take it off because he does not know how to;

(k) H.G. used to steal food from the freezer;

(l) she describes the type of rope and length of rope that the father used to tie H.G.;

(m) she and H.G. sleep in the basement. There is a big bed and a small bed in his room;

(n) she is not certain how many times H.G. was tied to the his bed but A.B. said it was six times;

(o) one time when he was tied to the bed, he get out and got in the freezer and took some food. She says A.B., E.W., H.P.A.G. and H.G. Sr. would untie him when he had to go to the bathroom; and

(p) H.G. would hide matches under his bed.

6. H.G. (4 ½ years of age at the time, date of birth […], 2011)

(a) the single biggest factor that struck the court while watching the video of his interview is that it lasted for approximately 45 minutes and that H.G. sat still for virtually all of the interview. He fidgeted somewhat but did not move except when the police officer asked him about the teddy bear he was holding and he readily gave that to the police officer because he thought the officer wanted it because he was sleepy;

(b) he said that he knew that his mom did not want him in the house anymore because he was “bad”;

(d) he explained that he could not get up in the night to go to the washroom because he is tied up with a red, blue and white rope (which he describes); he is tied to the wheel of the bed and it makes them feel sad. He indicates that he is tied every night to the bed and sometimes he is tied at the neck as well;

(e) his mom ties him to a chair. He went on to describe the chair as being black and described that same type of rope. He is not sure why he is tied to it;

(f) the chair is put in the bathroom;

(g) sometimes his hands are tied behind his back and other times they are tied to his stomach;

(h) one time when he was tied to the chair he wanted to go to his bed but they would not let him even though he cried. He peed himself in the chair and was crying calling his father’s name asking him to let him go;

(i) sometimes he can get out of the rope if it is not too tight;

(j) he was tied to the chair at least twice;

(k) he does not feel scared at home and feels safe at home with his mother and father;

(l) at the time of the interview he is now at S.’s House where he feels safe. He likes being there (the court presumes that S. is the foster mother);

(m) sometimes he goes to school and sometimes he does not and when he does not, it is because his dad does not want him to go to school;

(n) dad ties him to the chair;

(o) dad has a belt that he hits him;

(p) mom hits him with a vacuum cord;

(q) M.B. also hits him with the vacuum cord;

(r) she hit H.P.A.G. and him;

(s) says he gets hit everywhere on his body;

(t) says that his brother J.B. hit him with a new shoe, being a silver and red shoe;

(u) when asked if he wanted to go back with his mother and father, he said no he does not want to go back with his mother because she “hits me a lot and put soap in my mouth and makes me drink it.” He described the soap as dish soap that was in the yellow bottle. She does not make anyone else drink it and he is not sure why he has to;

(v) mom gives him a hot shower and a cold shower but he likes a warm shower;

(w) he demonstrates where his neck is when asked to do so;

(x) no one else in the house gets tied up or has soap in their mouth or has hot or cold showers. He does not know why he does; and

(y) says he never opened the freezer downstairs.

Courts Observations with Respect to Children’s Statements to CAS and the Police

[65] The court makes the following general observations with respect to the children’s interviews.

[66] Based on the questions asked by the police officer, the court is satisfied that the children do understand the difference between “truth” and a “lie.”

[67] When discussing H.G. being tied up and discussing the corporal punishment that he received, there appears to be a common thread to the demeanour of the children and the answers given by them.

[68] Although there are some differences between what each child has said, the court finds that this makes the statements more rather than less credible. The differences in the details are in the court’s opinion not significant or material.

[69] This would indicate to the court that there had been no collusion and no “coaching” with respect to the answers.

[70] The court notes that save and except H.G., none of the children had spoken recently to the respondent mother’s sister and therefore, there appears to have been absolutely zero opportunity for the children to have been influenced by her with respect to their answers.

[71] Another factor that struck the court with respect to their answers and their observations with respect to H.G. was the “desensitization” of what had occurred to H.G. When the children described him being tied to the bed and being tied to the chair, and when the children described him being corporally punished by the parents, they do so in a “matter of fact” mannerism. There is nothing to indicate that they are alarmed by this behaviour of their parents. In fact, it seems to this court that they are accepting that such behaviour by their parents is “normal.” None of the children appear the least bit phased or shocked by the fact that H.G. was tied to a bed each night and subsequently tied to a chair for the night.

[72] The court takes into account of course the ages of the children. Particularly with respect to B.B., and M.B. given their ages and maturation, they appear to be almost disinterested in the issues being asked of them.

[73] As earlier mentioned, the fact that H.G. was able to sit still and appropriately respond to questions for 45 minutes speaks volumes to this court. He is described by his parents in their affidavits as having severe behavioural issues. They claim that this is a reason why they had to remove him from school and why they felt it necessary to discipline him corporally, not only with their hand, but with a belt and with a vacuum cord.

[74] With such behavioural issues, the court would not have expected that he would be able to sit still and appropriately answer questions for about 45 minutes.

[75] The court does not read a great deal into his statement that he feels safe with his mom and dad and “does not feel scared.” No evidence was led with respect to any “battered child syndrome” but the actions that he describes, in a matter of fact manner, are certainly not consistent with a four year old child being, by any objective standard, in a “safe environment.”

[76] Pictures are said to be worth one thousand words and the video of this young child certainly attests to that.

[77] He does not exhibit any obvious behavioural issues and appears to be totally without affect and desensitized when describing what he has endured.

[78] On the other hand, his descriptions are detailed, for example with respect to the rope used to tie him. Further, given the consistency with respect to the accounts given by the other children, this court has no doubt as to the veracity of his description as to what occurred.

7. Police and CAS Interview with the Respondent Mother’s (K.W.’s) Sister J.O.

(a) statement was taken July 13, 2016;

(b) says that on the previous Wednesday her sister brought H.G. to her at about 10:30 or 11:00 at night. She gave him a bath while her sister was there but did not really pay attention to him while he was taking a bath and did not notice any bruising;

(c) the next day she took him shopping, bought him a car seat and some toys and new shoes, clothes and pyjamas and got his hair cut;

(d) that night he had a bath again and this time as he played in the bathtub she noticed marks all over him. She took pictures and showed those to the police. There was bruising on his back, on his bum, on his left thigh and on his left knee;

(e) this combined with the fact that he had talked to her nine year old daughter (she believes on Saturday) and told her without being prompted, that he had been tied up by his parents and also that he had been hit by his parents. The rope used to tie him up was red, blue and either white or yellow (consistent with the other children’s description);

(f) based on the information received, she decided to take him to her family doctor. The purpose of doing that was that she suspected abuse based on what the child had told her and what she had seen and what her sister had been telling her. She assumed the doctor would report this to the CAS which would be better for her family dynamic than her reporting it to the CAS;

(g) as soon as she told her sister that she was going to take H.G. to the doctor, her sister said that H.G. Sr. was coming to get him. At first she believed that H.G. Sr. was coming by bus, but then during a telephone call, she realized that he was in the car with her sister. At that time she decided to go to the police station and told them to meet her there which they did;

(h) she was worried about sending H.G. back with them given the way he had been treated;

(i) in response to the police officer’s questions, she referred back to a series of text messages starting March 16, 2016 between she and her sister;

(j) the thrust of the more recent messages in June was that her sister said she did not want H.G. to be at her home anymore. H.G. Sr. had said he was going to send H.G. to Barbados; he was just waiting for H.G.’s Passport. Prior to bringing him to her place, her sister and H.G. Sr. had taken him to his maternal grandmother’s (deceased mother’s mother) in London but she was not willing to keep him;

(k) previously her sister and H.G. Sr. had talked to her about keeping H.G. When she questioned how long, H.G. Sr. suggested that if she kept him a year and his behaviour improved then they would take him back. She was concerned about the impact this would have on H.G.;

(l) she says that for about one year (since she was pregnant with Z.G.), her sister had said he was going to send H.G. to Barbados; and

(m) in one of the recent text messages between she and her sister, her sister said that H.G. was up all night tied to a chair.

[79] The remaining children were consistent with respect to their recount of H.G.’s parents tying him up. H.P.A.G. had been responsible for untying and re-tying him pursuant to her parent’s direction. According to the Society, none of the children showed distress about what had occurred save and except H.G.

[80] According to the Society evidence, J.B. said that H.G.’s mother was “bad” and he did not want them in the family.

[81] Even though the respondent parents and the children report H.G.’s “bad behaviour,” the school principal found that he was a “normal child.”

[82] Dr. Baird who examined H.G. confirmed bruising on his ears, back and buttocks. He further noted that H.G. was extremely constipated.

Statement of Agreed Facts for Criminal Proceedings (SAF)

[83] As a result of the police investigation, the respondent father and respondent mother were both charged with forcible confinement with respect to H.G. and assault with a weapon with respect to H.G.

[84] Presumably, as a result of negotiations between defence counsel on behalf of the respondent mother, defence counsel on behalf of the respondent father and the police and Crown attorney, a Statement of Agreed Facts with respect to a charge of forcible confinement contrary to subsection 279(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada was agreed to. That Statement of Agreed Facts was signed by the respondent mother and witnessed by her criminal defence counsel, was also signed by the respondent father and witnessed by his criminal defence counsel and signed by the assistant Crown attorney. It is dated at Barrie August 30, 2017. It can be found at Volume 1, Tab 17, Exhibit G of the Continuing Record.

[85] The following represents the salient admissions in that SAF.

[86] The respondent father and respondent mother admit to the following:

(a) they found H.G.’s behaviour after March 2014 to the difficult, unpredictable and disruptive;

(b) they had traditionally disciplined him by means of loss of privileges and sometimes corporal punishment;

(c) when they found this inadequate, they began to discipline him by seating him in a chair and binding his lower legs to the chair with a soft rope of 3/8 inch diameter. This began sometime between mid-April and mid-May 2016 and it occurred several times (emphasis added);

(d) he would be left bound to the chair facing a wall in the living room for a period of several minutes to a few hours;

(e) at night during this period he slept in the basement and one night frozen food had been removed from the freezer in the basement and found under his bed. As a result of this, the respondent mother and respondent father began to tie H.G.to his bed at night tying a rope around one of his ankles and the other end to his bed frame; this was done nightly for roughly two weeks;

(f) one morning the respondent mother and respondent father awoke to a loud thump caused by H.G. jumping or falling off the kitchen counter (having freed himself from the bed to which he was tied overnight). As a result, the respondent father and respondent mother began to tie him to a chair each night; commencing the beginning of June 2016;

(g) he was tied to a kitchen type chair EACH NIGHT. His legs were bound to the chair legs and his hands were tied either in front or behind his body to the chair which was placed upstairs either in the small hall at the top of the stairs or in the upstairs bathroom. He would be there overnight. This went on for about FIVE TO SEVEN days until he was taken to stay with J.O., his step-mother’s sister;

(h) one night while tied to the chair and trying to free himself, the chair fell over causing him while still bound, to land face first on the floor. His step-brother J.B. went to his assistance fearing he might have been injured. Fortunately he was not;

(i) on the night of June 7–8, 2016 while tied to the chair he urinated himself. Ultimately he managed to free himself and went into his step-brothers (M.B. and B.B.’s bedroom) where he removed his soiled clothing, left them on the floor and put on fresh clothing. He was subsequently discovered on one of the beds touching his sleeping step-brothers on the nose. Believing that he may have urinated on the bedroom floor, the respondent mother “snapped” leading her and the respondent father to decide that H.G. should no longer remain in their home;

(j) the respondent mother and respondent father arranged to take him to his deceased mother’s mother (biological maternal grandmother) in London Ontario. Initially she had agreed to this, but by the time they arrived, she changed her mind;

(k) the respondent mother then contacted her sister who lives in Hamilton who agreed to take H.G. based on a temporary arrangement lasting until the respondent mother and respondent father could arrange for him to be sent to stay with relatives in Barbados; and

(l) over the next few days tensions developed between the respondent mother and her sister, mainly regarding the treatment that H.G. had received in the respondent mother’s home. On June 11, 2016, Ms. J.O. attended at the Hamilton Police Services with H.G. and reporting, among other things, that he had been tied up by the respondent mother and respondent father. This resulted in police and CAS investigations.

Report of Dr. Burke Baird, Pediatrician of the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) of McMaster Children’s Hospital

[87] Received as evidence is the report of Dr. Baird (Exhibit D to an affidavit of Leah Friesen dated October 30, 2017.

[88] The report is dated June 29, 2016 based on an assessment of H.G. conducted June 11, 2016.

[89] The purpose of the examination was to make an assessment of concerns that H.G. may have experienced inflicted injuries and emotional abuse. The child was brought there by an after-hours worker of the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society.

[90] The information was relayed to Dr. Baird. Based on H.G.’s interview with Teresa Michell H.G. had indicated that when he is “bad” he is tied to a chair, his hands tied up. As well he reported being struck with a belt on the buttocks and back.

[91] Dr. Baird found H.G. to be “bright, alert, playful and interactive.” He found him to be “completely compliant with all requests.” He noted that there was no angry outbursts or difficult behaviour.

[92] Physical examination revealed:

(a) three distinct round areas of purple bruising on the inner helix of the right ear;

(b) two areas of round purple bruising on the posterior aspect of the mid-portion of the left ear;

(d) a 2.5 x .5 cm rectangular linear area of bruising on the thumb side of the right wrist;

(e) on the lateral aspect of the right side of the neck three vertically oriented linear white scars;

(f) on the midline of the upper chest two small triangular scars;

(g) on the lower part of the back to the left of the midline a large linear curved brown bruise generally the shape of a large backwards J; and

(h) at the junction of the left lower area of the buttock and the upper left thigh a curvilinear brown bruise approximately 2 cm in length.

[93] While examining H.G.’s ears, the doctor reported that he spontaneously stated “daddy pinches my ears.”

[94] When examining the bruises on his back and buttocks he stated “that’s from my mom.” The doctor reported that he did not ask H.G. any questions about those statements.

[95] X-rays did not detect any fractures but did detect severe constipation with massive amounts of retained stool.

[96] The doctor noted that bruising to ears would uncommonly occur as a result of an accidental injury. This would be extremely uncommon with respect to both ears and the doctor noted that H.G. had, without prompting, reported that his father pinches his ears. The doctor noted that very significant crushing force is required to bruise the soft energy absorbing tissue. As a result, the ear bruising is “highly suspicious for inflicted injury.”

[97] With respect to the bruising to the back and upper buttocks, the doctor noted that “this type of bruise would be typical in a child who has been struck with a curved or linear object.” He also noted that during the examination of this area, H.G. spontaneously stated “that’s from my mom.” The doctor further noted that similar lesions in the upper portion of his left thigh could be compatible with the same mechanism of injury. He noted, as well, that these injuries “are highly suspicious for inflicted trauma.”

[98] The doctor noted that the large left side bruise was in an area commonly accidentally impacted in active mobile children.

[99] The doctor noted that the right wrist lesion could easily be the result of having his hands tied to a chair but there were other possible causes including possible accidental trauma.

[100] The doctor noted concern about the severe constipation and that diarrhea like symptoms could be associated with liquid stool leaking around the hard impacted mass.

[101] This court notes that the doctor concluded that the injuries to H.G.’s ears and back and upper buttocks were “highly suspicious for inflicted abusive injury.”

[102] The doctor further notes that while corporal punishment remains legal in Ontario, the type of corporal punishment that involves striking a child with an object, particularly when it results in tissue injury is “always considered abusive.”

Probation Orders of both Respondent Father (H.G. Sr.) and K.W. dated September 29 2017

[103] The respondent parents pled guilty to charges of forcible confinement with respect to H.G. As a result of those guilty pleas, they entered into probation Orders.

[104] The salient provisions of those probation Orders were that they not have contact with H.G. or be within 250 metres of any place where he would be except pursuant to a family court Order made after that date.

Supervised Therapeutic Access Visit by H.G. and H.P.A.G. with H.G. Sr. November 18, 2016

[105] There are notes from Chantel Sicard de Carfuel-Leduc relating to observations from access with H.G. and H.P.A.G. and the respondent father.

[106] It was noted that the respondent father was tearful at the outset of H.G.’s session and that he acknowledged tying him to the bed by his foot and also to a chair and stated that this will never happen again.

[107] He stated that his impression was the situation was unfair and the children should be home with him. He also made reference to a human rights lawsuit and that his (sic) sister was coaching H.G. to embellish his treatment at home due to her dislike of him.

[108] It was observed that the respondent father’s level of remorse fluctuated and the message was not consistent as to the level of accountability and responsibility anticipated.

[109] With respect to H.P.A.G., he commented three times on the fact that she had gained weight. He attempted to get her to refute the allegations of differential treatment.

[110] H.P.A.G. became tearful at one point when her father commented that he missed her and wanted her to return home.

[111] The children did not react with fear or apprehension at their father’s physical touch.

Supervised Therapeutic Access Visit by H.G. and H.P.A.G. with K.W. on November 21, 2016

[112] It was noted that there was no attempt at initiating physical contact, either hugging or cuddling at any point in the session, from either the respondent mother or the children towards her.

[113] There was no attempt at an apology or to acknowledge any wrongdoing of any kind.

[114] There was no discussion or inquiry regarding their possible desire to return to the home.

[115] The session ended with a brief hug being exchanged between the respondent mother and H.P.A.G. during the point of transfer to the foster parent. There was no physical contact between the respondent mother and H.G.

H.G. Sr.’s November 15, 2017 Affidavit

[116] The respondent father acknowledges securing H.G. to the bed on one occasion and that H.G. was secured to a chair by the respondent mother on one occasion.

[117] He claims that he was secured to the bed by a six foot rope tied around his ankle knotted so as to prevent it tightening around the ankle and that he was secured to the chair in the same fashion.

[118] He claims that in both cases, restraint was applied to prevent the child from incurring serious injury or roaming while the rest of the family slept and that the longest period of time that he was secured to the bed is approximately four to five hours.

[119] He claims that this was done so that the child could be kept safe.

[120] With respect to the basement of the home, he claims there are two rooms of which the children used one and that the sleeping area does have a window and bedroom furniture including dressers, two beds and a soft carpet. He claims that it was stocked with toys and things for children to do. He further claims that the children could be heard in the basement through the walls and vents from the basement and that there had been a video camera installed. They were motion triggered and could be viewed on either his computer or an app.

[121] He denies that H.G. was made to sleep in or left restrained in soiled clothing and denies that he was ever locked where he could not access the bathroom.

[122] He further denies that when the chair was knocked over that the child hit his face.

[123] He denies that the respondent mother would strike the child in a disciplinary manner.

[124] He claims that the plastic bags on H.P.A.G.’s bed were placed underneath the sheets due to bedwetting.

[125] He denies that the other children participated in the restraint of H.G.

[126] He denies that either he or the respondent mother told H.G. that he would have to leave the home.

[127] He denies ever saying that H.G. was “bad” but acknowledges that the children would say he was bad.

[128] He denies that the injuries to H.G.’s ears resulted from him pinching H.G.’s ears. He postulates that these injuries may have occurred when H.G. tried to squeeze through the door to the upstairs bedroom where he slept on bunk beds which was chain locked at night to protect him from disturbing others or endangering himself.

[129] He postulates that any injuries observed on H.G. did not take place in his household nor were they inflicted by either he or the respondent mother. He “suspects” that if any abuse did take place, it would have occurred in the household of Ms. J.O. and may have been inflicted either by her or her husband.

[130] He disagrees with Dr. Amitay’s Parenting Capacity Assessment Report and claims that he is a competent parent capable of raising all his children.

[131] He indicates that he apologized directly to H.G. and for his role in the apprehension and “particularly for placing him in the care of Ms. J.O. which incident precipitated the present proceeding.” (emphasis added)

[132] He claims that the reference to Barbados was that he had contemplated family travel to Barbados hoping that exposure to extended family might help to settle some of the child’s issues.

[133] He denies that H.G. was ever exposed to a horror movie or given access to tools.

Affidavit of H.G. Sr., dated January 30, 2018

[134] In this affidavit he claims that the Society has failed to investigate suitable placement homes including a paternal aunt, L.B. who, after the apprehension was trying to have E.W. and Z.G. placed in her care. He also mentions C.B. another paternal aunt who is willing to care for the children.

[135] He claims that photos attached demonstrate that H.G. was not singled out for different treatment but was part of the united family.

Affidavit of H.G. Sr., dated March 26, 2018

[136] In this affidavit he suggests that rather than characterizing “differential treatment” the treatment of H.G. should be characterized as “a demonstration of how we as parents are able to see, attend to and respond to the needs of many children” and how “we as parents are able to focus on the unique and individual needs of different children in a manner appropriate to each.”

Affidavit of K.W., dated July 11, 2016

[137] The respondent mother states that while she was surprised when initially told that H.G. would be apprehended by the Hamilton CAS, she was also somewhat relieved as she felt that she might then get the help that she needed. The parents were dismayed at learning that Z.G. would be apprehended as well.

[138] She describes H.G.’s extreme behaviours at home coming to the point where they were concerned not only for his safety but that of the other children. These behaviours included shoving objects in siblings’ mouths while they were sleeping quietly and purposefully hitting them and saying that he wanted to kill baby Z.G.

[139] She claimed that they were forced to pull H.G. from school after learning that he attempted to stab another student with a pair of scissors and was found in the bathroom with a female student encouraging her to disrobe.

[140] His behaviours at home included purposefully urinating on the floor and walls and climbing on window ledges to urinate on nearby furniture.

[141] She described attempts to get help for H.G. through the Society and Well Baby Clinic in Barrie. They succeeded in having H.G. genetically tested following consultations with Dr. Hazlett.

[142] She describes the older son J.B. as having operational defiant disorder (ODD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

[143] When she was asked to attend at the Barrie Society office, she knew that it was a possibility that the other children would be apprehended. She requested that the apprehension occur in a non-threatening manner. However she claims that requests “fell on deaf ears.”

[144] She claims that J.B. was interviewed at the police station for one and a half hours.

[145] She claims that A.B., who did not want to go to speak, was interviewed for approximately an hour to an hour and a half.

[146] Next, she and the respondent father were questioned and while being questioned, they heard screaming and shouting.

[147] She claims that Ms. Thistle, who had been caring for the children told her that J.B. and M.B. were blocked from running out the door and forced into awaiting vehicles.

[148] She claims that Ms. Pechmann then came into the room and with a “smirk on her face” and said that the children were gone.

[149] The respondent mother alleged that Ms. Pechmann was prejudiced against the respondent father.

Affidavit of K.W., dated November 21, 2017

[150] She notes that save and except H.G. and H.P.A.G., the other children were returned to the respondent father and her in October and November 2016 and therefore at the time of the affidavit, had been back with them for approximately one year.

[151] She notes that as of that time, she only had five visits in 17 months with H.P.A.G. and H.G. including those during the PCA process and psychological assessment.

[152] The respondent mother notes that she returned in September 2015 to the Well Baby Clinic to seek assistance dealing with H.G.’s aggression, lack of empathy and harmful behaviours. She notes that she had “tried everything” short of confining H.G. on the one instance that she did to address these behaviours.

[153] She characterizes her actions as not being maltreatment but being concerned that H.G. would set the house on fire (noting that he apparently turned the gas valve on and off).

[154] She claims that while he was restrained in the chair, he did not fall off but jumped. She claims he was only restrained by one ankle not bound by his hands and feet.

[155] She alleges that he used the excuse of needing to pee when he was placed for a timeout.

[156] She denies ever restraining H.G. by the neck.

[157] She denies ever making him drink soap.

[158] She claims that he was always fed with the rest of the family.

[159] She denies that he was ever given a hot or cold shower claiming that he was given baths by her and the respondent father.

[160] She denies ever seeing the respondent father hit H.G. with a belt or vacuum cord and denies ever doing that herself.

[161] She asserts that there is a window in the basement bedroom.

[162] She indicates that due to a learning disability J.B. cannot tell time.

[163] She claims that H.G.’s bedroom door was only locked at night to prevent him from being a flight risk or endangering himself during his night walks.

[164] She claims that there were three separate incidents of restraining H.G. over a two week period and that the only time that she restrained him was tying one of his ankles to the chair with a soft scarf material.

[165] She claims that H.G. was moved to the basement because of damage he caused to the bedroom in which he was sleeping.

[166] She claims that H.G. soiled himself because of habit, not because he was not allowed to use the bathroom.

[167] She denies ever hearing H.G. Sr. or anyone else tell H.G. that he was not wanted and that he was “bad.” She denies ever saying this to H.G. herself.

[168] She claims that H.P.A.G. shared a basement bedroom with E.W. but E.W. asked to be moved because H.P.A.G. was a bed wetter and E.W. complained of the smell.

[169] The respondent mother points out an omission in the Society evidence in that she apologized to the other children on October 27, 2016, contrary to Society claiming that she had not done so. Further, she claims that Dr. Amitay failed to note that when she and the respondent father met H.G. during those sessions, H.G. would run up to her with a joyful “hi mommy” and give her hugs.

[170] The respondent mother denies that she ever indicated that she did not want to parent H.G. She claims that if the appropriate supports and programs were in place which would allow H.G.’s behaviour to improve, that they would not have the level of behavioural issues to deal with as they had previously with H.G. She claims that she has always said that she could not parent H.G. without additional supports being available to her and that taking H.G. to her sister was intended to be for respite care not for permanent care.

[171] The respondent mother claims that the Society has never explained why they allowed six of her eight children to be returned to her home but not the remaining two. She denies the allegations of “abuse.”

[172] She further states that if the Society cannot provide the necessary in-home supports, including enhanced supervision due to the large family, that it would be in the best interest for H.G. to be cared for by family who can provide that for him. In other words, she suggests that she would like assurances that if he were adopted by a family, that the family would have the ability to provide one-on-one supervision to him. In that affidavit, she acknowledges as well, that she appreciates with respect to H.P.A.G. that separating biological siblings may not be in their best interest.

[173] The respondent mother goes on to indicate that “it would be very hard for me to adjust from parenting H.G. and H.P.A.G. to having occasional access visits with them.

[174] She further indicates that if the Society were granted Crown wardship without access she would want to receive updates from the adoptive family with respect to the children’s milestones and that she does not object to sibling access, although questions how meaningful that would be.

K.W.’s April 9, 2018 Affidavit

[175] When describing the situation at the Hamilton police station on June 11, 2016, the respondent mother indicates that H.G., when seeing the respondent father and her wanted to run up to them and “happily called out to each of us (Mommy! Daddy!) and was upset when he was prevented from doing so by his aunt.

[176] She denies ever reporting to her sister that she had “hit H.G. and tied him up.” She further denies saying that she believed that her sister caused the bruising on H.G.’s back instead saying that she believes it was caused by injuries when he climbed onto and fell off the chest freezer.

[177] She claims that the birth of Z.G. was a trigger for H.G.

[178] She describes the positive times that the family had and notes that Dr. Baird, Dr. Amitay and his teacher all described him as happy, cheerful, bright, alert and playful.

[179] She claims the following in her affidavit;

(a) that disclosure of records reveals that H.G. has had some behavioural issues not only while at home with the respondent father and her, but also at school and in the foster home;

(b) that what happened with H.G. was related to a “situational crisis related to the birth of Z.G.”;

(c) she notes H.G.’s “sexualized behaviour” of stripping off his clothes and seemingly being obsessed with his private parts;

(d) that when J.B. was younger, his school had asked her to sign a consent to allow them to physically restrain him as a last resort;

(e) that she has worked diligently to get services for M.B. and B.B who have individual education plans at school because of their special needs;

(f) that she appropriately dealt with H.P.A.G.’s bedwetting and that the bed was covered with a plastic builder’s tarp not garbage bags. She claims that the sheets were washed daily and the Society may have viewed the unmade bed;

(g) that she has “taken full responsibility for my actions and restraining H.G. and apologized.” She attaches a letter dated April 3, 2018 which she gave to the Society worker Leah Friesen on April 5, 2018 (the court notes the recent date);

(h) that the Society has not provided any relevant supports or referrals to help her and the respondent father deal with concerns regarding supervision and safety if the children were returned home. She notes that the Society paid for three sessions for she and the respondent father each with Dr. Lambrose who wanted to continue the therapy work on childhood trauma issues but the Society would not pay for continued therapy. In addition she indicates that she attended Catholic Family Life Services for counselling with Rick Hancock but that ongoing service was not available “because of their policy.” She also indicates that she contacted the Ministry of Children and Youth Services about respite care, Kinark Child and Family Services and Simcoe Community Services for family care should H.G. be returned home. She submits that this is in H.G.’s and H.P.A.G’s best interest. Attached to her affidavit is an email from Central intake at Kinark dated March 13, 2018 and a letter from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services dated March 26, 2018 as well as from Simcoe/Catulpa Community Support Services;

(i) she also attaches a letter from New Path Family Counselling Services which confirms that she contacted them on September 9, 2015 regarding H.G. This contact indicates it is related to his speech and language delays, developmental delays, behavioural concerns and the fact that he may be a flight risk at school and in the community (the court notes that this is corroborative of the fact that she did seek some help prior to the apprehension);.and

(j) in the apology letter, she indicates that she loves H.G., thinks about him daily and made a terrible mistake in that she should never have tied his ankle. She acknowledges that he has every right to be angry with her and every right to feel hurt and sad. She reassures him that he is “not a bad boy.”

K.W.’s Updated Answer and Plan of Care, dated April 17, 2018

[180] The respondent mother lists a number of support services that she would plan to engage. She claims to have the support of Jennifer Thistle, Michelle Brekon, and Cynthia Brown who would assist with childcare, respite and transportation as needed.

[181] In her Plan of Care, she indicates that she believes that she and the respondent father are in a better position to provide for H.G.’s needs than they were when the children were apprehended and that she is willing to continue to have the Society involved in a supportive capacity and will agree to supervision. She claims that there is no risk to either H.P.A.G. or H.G. upon being returned.

Affidavit of Leah Friesen, dated November 24, 2016

[182] There is a review of the circumstances leading up to the apprehensions which is described elsewhere in this decision. Ms. Friesen notes that the Society had received the results of genetic testing for H.G., which had been requested by the parents from the child’s pediatrician Dr. Hazlett. The test had been completed before Society involvement. Those tests revealed a normal male.

[183] The mother stated in an interview in July 2016 as part of the therapeutic access program that she had a significant fear of basements due to her own past trauma and that she avoided basements at all times. She indicated that J.B. did not want his bedroom in the basement. However the respondent parents made H.G. and H.P.A.G. sleep in the basement.

[184] During access in September 2016 the parents provided gifts and back to school clothing for the children but none for H.G. The respondent mother claimed that the respondent father was responsible for providing for H.P.A.G. and H.G. The respondent father provided no explanation as to why he provided nothing for H.G.

[185] During a case conference on July 6 and August 4, 2016 the respondent mother stated that she could not and did not want to parent H.G. due to his behavioural issues that she could not manage. The respondent father agreed with her.

[186] On August 26, 2016 at court, the parents advised the Society that they did not want to parent H.G. and H.P.A.G. although the mother expressed concerns about how they can cope with H.G.’s behaviour. They stated as long as H.G.’s behaviour changed they would want to parent him. The mother admitted that tying H.G.’s foot was wrong and that she would not do it again. She denied all other concerns. When challenged by Ms. Friesen about the previous statements, the father said that if H.G.’s behaviour continued to be problematic, he would send him to family in Barbados until his behaviour improved at which time he would consider having him return home again. According to Ms. Friesen, the parents maintained this thinking through September, October and November 2016.

[187] The respondent mother on November 16, 2016 advised that she had spoken to the father’s family in Barbados and that they had suggested H.G. was deserving of the treatment he received and the mother indicated that there were differences in what was acceptable as parenting practices in Barbados and Canada. The mother indicated she did not want to share what those family members suggesting they would do to a child behaving like H.G.

[188] On November 21, 2016, Ms. Leduc Sicard stated that she had spoken to Ms. Deschambault who said that the father asked her in front of H.P.A.G. what he and the mother should do if the other children did not want H.G. or H.P.A.G. to come home. H.P.A.G.’s facial expression understandably revealed that she was upset by this question.

[189] On October 28, 2016, Mr. M.B. attended court unexpectedly, as attempts by the Society to contact him had been unsuccessful. He stated that he wanted his children J.B., A.B., M.B. and B.B. out of Society’s care. He supported the fact that the oldest child J.B. was then in his mother’s home on an extended visit. He indicated that he wanted the other children returned to her as well.

[190] M.B. refused to take service of copies of the court documents.

[191] Extended family Lalette, L.B. and C.B. had provided kinship plans and Lalette and L.B. attended at the Society for a case conference September 15, 2016. The parents voiced concerns about the children being placed with L.B. due to hostility between she and the parents that occurred in front of the children. By October 2016 Society was advised that Lalette was no longer prepared to plan for the children. As well in October, L.B. indicated she was no longer prepared to proceed with kinship either.

[192] Ms. Friesen notes that the mother had consistently recognized that she was concerned about how to cope with H.G. This indicates that the Society believed she is demonstrating insight regarding her parenting abilities so as not to repeat the maltreatment of H.G.

[193] The access supervisor noted on October 25, 2016, that generally the parents provide age-appropriate expectations for the children and she does not observe the parents using fear or control but redirection.

[194] It was noted that the parents had completed six sessions with Catholic Family Life therapist Rick Hancock. The parents stated they were open to ongoing psychological services.

[195] Mr. Hancock indicates that although the parents initially expressed resistance, they appeared to open up and engage in the sessions and he noted a willingness on their part to change. They recommended Triple P Parenting as a next step.

[196] Ms. Helen Belanger, an enhanced parenting specialist and part of the therapeutic access program, supported the return of the children (save and except H.P.A.G. and H.G.) to the parent’s care with supports in place to assist them.

[197] Ms. Friesen noted that the parents have participated in all case conferences and have followed up with all appointments with Society workers. The parents of signed all necessary consents to allow the Society to gather information.

[198] On October 25, the parents considered that H.G. may not have been getting the attention and physical affection that he needed from his father and the parents acknowledged that the way they treated him was wrong and it would never happen again. On that date the parents seemed to express concern for the impact that the children, H.G. and H.P.A.G. may have suffered as a result of the loss of their mother.

[199] By November 21, 2016, all children, save and except H.G. and H.P.A.G. had returned home to their parents. There was no evidence of any abuse issues upon their return.

[200] It was noted that due to the respondent mother’s health issues following Z.G.’s birth, that the respondent father took on a more primary caregiving role for the eight children and that he may have shifted from being a parent with few boundaries for H.G. to being a more authoritative parent for him. As he had been H.G.’s ally in the past, this role could have been stressful for H.G.

Affidavit of Leah Friesen, dated February 1, 2018

[201] In this affidavit, the Child Protection worker indicates that on January 24, 2018 at the request of Ms. Aylwin, OCL on behalf of J.B., E.W, A.B., B.B. and M.B., she attended with her when Ms. Aylwin sought instructions from the children as to whether or not they would want access with H.G. and H.P.A.G. in the event of Crown wardship. All of the children confirmed that they did want to see H.G. and H.P.A.G.

[202] When recounting the then recent Christmas visit they had with H.G. and H.P.A.G., they all viewed this as being positive, as did the worker. E.W. and J.B. however expressed concern about H.P.A.G.’s behaviour having changed. J.B. also expressed concern about the foster parents being in attendance and them wanting a hug from B.B. and M.B.

[203] All of the children expressed their wish that visits occur in the community rather than at the CAS office.

[204] E.W. and A.B. also stated they wanted to communicate with H.G. and H.P.A.G. via “messenger.” When advised that the Society did not support that, they were agreeable to exchanging handwritten letters and pictures.

[205] A.B. said she liked to see H.G. and H.P.A.G. four times per week, while E.W. and J.B. talked about seeing them on holidays and birthdays.

Affidavit of Leah Friesen, dated March 7, 2018

[206] She points out that based on her observations H.G. is happy and playful with his siblings, cheerful with Dr. Amitay and attentive to his baby brother in June 2016.

[207] She notes that in H.G.’s OSR he has regulation and impulse control issues and that he loves one to one attention.

[208] The foster parents reported in August 2017 that H.P.A.G. and H.G. had engaged in sexualized behaviour on one occasion.

[209] She notes that in December 2017, the respondent parents decided to restrict Z.G. and A.G. from participating in the sibling visit.

[210] Ms. Friesen concludes with noting that the parents continue to make positive progress regarding the care of the children returned to them. She notes that the parents are cooperative with the Society.

Affidavit of Leah Friesen, May 2, 2018

[211] The Society worker notes that the respondent mother’s current affidavit notes positive descriptions of H.G. whereas previous affidavits accentuated the negative.

[212] The Society acknowledged and continues to acknowledge that there were positive family experiences prior to the apprehension but those do not mitigate the child protection concerns.

[213] With respect to behavioural problems at school and in the foster home, the Society notes that the child’s behaviours are managed in the foster home with positive parenting and do not result in any major disruption to the child’s life or stability within the foster home.

[214] The Society agrees that H.G. requires a high level of parenting and 1:1 support and with this support he functions well in his foster home. It is noted that he is having more difficulties at school than in the foster home.

[215] The Society concurs that A.B., E.W., and H.P.A.G. are doing well in school despite extremely emotional and challenging situations in their lives. This was the same situation at the time of the apprehension.

[216] The Society is aware however that J.B., M.B. and at times B.B. have had behavioural difficulties at school and exhibit more behavioural concerns at home. Since December there has been an escalation in school difficulties for M.B. including those resulting in a recent suspension which followed an intense verbal altercation at home between J.B. and the respondent father that was witnessed by M.B. The parents did not inform the Society about this, who only learned of it during a home visit from one of the children. When the school inquired of the parents as to whether or not there is any stress in the home that may have impacted M.B. the school was not informed of this incident. Since the Society raised this with the parents, they have been open to dealing with it. RTB needs to comment on this in analysis

[217] It is noted that during a school meeting held April 9, 2018 M.B.’s behaviour was described by his teacher and EA as disruptive to other students and concerning. The respondent mother acknowledged that M.B. has been experiencing significant behavioural problems at school since December 2017.

[218] With respect to other family members, the Society notes that as of July 2016 the respondent father indicated he was going to contact his aunt in Barbados and was to provide information by August 5, 2016 but did not do so. Further, he was to provide the Society with names, addresses and telephone numbers for his family as noted in the case conference Minutes of September 15, 2016 but did not do so.

January 10, 2017 Society Letter to H.G. Sr. with Respect to Kinship

[219] Leah Friesen, the Child Protection worker, sent a letter to the respondent father reaching out to him with respect to the possibility of any kinship planning for H.G. and H.P.A.G.

Peace by Peace Counselling August 10, 2017 Summary Update

[220] Sandi Deschambault is a registered psychotherapist who as of August 10, 2017 had seen H.G. for four sessions.

[221] H.G. noted that his father cried when he saw him but not his mother and stated “she (mommy) never cries.”

[222] He noted that his father told him that it was time for him to go home now and when asked by the therapist how H.G. felt about that, he did not respond.

[223] H.G. noted that while at home, he had watched a horror movie involving extreme violence, torture and gore. He described scenes of cannibalism. He stated that it did not scare him.

[224] During a session at the end of July 2017, he made no reference to his family access visit. He disclosed a memory of using a hammer to put holes in his bedroom wall and a saw to cut some articles. He said that he found these tools in the basement and his siblings were upstairs playing video games while he was in the basement alone.

[225] He made no recent references to the punishments that he had received while living at home.

[226] It was noted that H.P.A.G. had attended five sessions since the previous summary report and that she reported very positive feelings about the family access visit in May.

[227] H.P.A.G. continues to avoid discussions about anything unpleasant.

Affidavit of Sandi Deschambault, dated October 20, 2017

[228] Ms. Deschambault indicates that she is a registered psychotherapist and art therapist who has been providing such services to children for approximately 23 years.

(a) H.G.

[229] H.G. began sessions June 21, 2016 and has continued to the time of the affidavit. He has had 31 sessions as of that date which were more or less weekly and then moved to bi-weekly in August 2016.

[230] He presents as an intelligent, articulate child who responded favourably to therapy. He disclosed details of mistreatment by his father and step-mother which included being confined to his room sometimes overnight, sometimes tied to furniture. In addition, he disclosed being hit, forced to sit in urine soaked clothing, and being deprived of food. He made statements that some of these things occurred because “he was bad.”

[231] Following the first access visit with his father and step-mother in December 2016, the foster mother reported an increase in clingy behaviours and it was noted that at school, defiant and aggressive behaviours began to emerge, including hands-on interactions with peers and destructive behaviours towards property.

[232] By February 2017, the school reported that the behaviours were continuing and escalating to the point at which his peers referred to him as a bully and were not including him in activities. At about that time, he disclosed in therapy, that his parents do not want him.

[233] H.G. did indicate that he wished to see his step-siblings more frequently.

[234] As of March 2017, he became aware of the identity of his biological mother and her death and the existence of some extended family including half-siblings of which he was previously unaware.

[235] He reports feeling safe in his current foster placement and having developed a close bond with his foster family. Ms. Deschambault recommends that he remain in the foster home until a permanent plan can be considered and that he and H.P.A.G. be placed together.

(b) H.P.A.G.

[236] H.P.A.G.’s sessions commenced August 3, 2016 and as of the date of the affidavit, she had 25 therapy sessions on a bi-weekly basis.

[237] She presents as cooperative and polite. She consistently expressed discomfort with any discussion about her life at home with her father and step-mother and it was only recently that she began to share feelings of sadness about being separated from her father and step-mother.

[238] H.P.A.G. was unable or unwilling to identify the reasons why she had been brought into care. She had not shared any direct knowledge regarding the treatment of her brother only to say that he misbehaved a lot when they lived at home.

[239] In more recent sessions over the summer months and into September 2017 she expressed a desire to return to her family home.

[240] She indicated that anger is a very difficult emotion for her to discuss and that she also has difficulty expressing fear, confusion and disappointment.

[241] She openly discusses activities in the foster home. She also wanted to learn more about her biological mother.

[242] Ms. Deschambault recommends that she remain in her current foster home until a permanency plan can be established. She also recommends a continuing relationship for both H.P.A.G. and H.G. with their step-siblings such as Christmas, Easter March break or one of the children’s birthdays.

[243] The therapist opines that the traumatic effects for H.P.A.G. of being exposed to H.G.’s mistreatment may have long-term consequences for her. Although H.P.A.G. expresses a wish to remain connected to her father and step-mother, the therapist opines that this would not be in her best interests and that only if the father and step-mother are prepared to accept responsibility for their mistreatment of H.G. and vicariously of H.P.A.G. could therapeutic access even be considered but it would need to be closely structured and supervised in the event that it was ordered.

Affidavit of Sandi Deschambault, dated March 20, 2018

[244] By the time of that affidavit, H.G. had attended 38 sessions and continues to present as an intelligent and articulate child who responded favourably to therapy.

[245] H.G. indicated that he did not want to see his father and step-mother. He was willing to talk with his father because his father had cried and said he was sorry for hurting him. He did not however want to talk with his step-mother because she did not cry or apologize for hurting him.

[246] Ms. Deschambault had 31 therapy sessions with H.P.A.G. as of that time and noted that H.P.A.G. continued to remain guarded in her therapy sessions and reluctant to discuss what she had witnessed H.G. being subjected to. She speaks very little of her father and step-mother.

[247] Her opinion continues to remain the same that children should remain in their current foster home until such time as a permanent placement is considered, which she believes should be an adoption to the same family.

[248] She attended at the visit that H.P.A.G. and H.G. had with her step-siblings on December 22, 2017 and noted that they appeared to enjoy the same.

CAS Statement of Agreed Facts, February 12, 2018

[249] At Tab 27, is a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by the respondent father, respondent mother, the Society and OCL for H.G. and OCL for H.P.A.G.

[250] The parents agreed in this SAF that H.G. suffered physical harm (section 37(2) (a)). They further agreed that H.G. had suffered emotional harm (section 37(2) (f)) which was demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development and that there was reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm 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. The parties further agreed that H.P.A.G. and H.G. are likely to suffer emotional harm as demonstrated by the above, contrary to section 37(2) (g).

[251] The SAF goes on to confirm that a PCA was completed on September 7, 2017 by Dr. Oren Amitay and that it concludes that “Mr. H.G. Sr.’s performance on the PASS (Parent Awareness Skill Survey) was problematic as he barely reached the most basic level of “good enough parenting” and “required considerable assistance in a highly favourable environment.”

[252] Dr. Amitay also opined that if H.P.A.G. were to return to the care of her father and the respondent mother, the risk that she would become the new identified patient in her brother’s absence is far too high.

[253] The SAF also confirmed that the children had been meeting with therapist Sandi Deschambault and each has had more than 30 sessions. Ms. Deschambault indicated that the traumatic effects for H.P.A.G. of vicariously being exposed to H.G.’s mistreatment may have long-term consequences for her. She observed what H.G. suffered and was unable to assist him.

[254] The SAF concludes with the parties agreeing that a finding that the child H.G. is in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2) (a), (f) and (g) and a finding that the child H.P.A.G. is in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2) (g) and the statutory findings.

Amended Notice of Summary Judgment Motion

[255] On February 12, 2018, an Amended Notice of Motion with respect to summary judgment, which was originally signed by the Society November 15, 2017, adding A.G. as one of the siblings who would have access. This was done given A.G.’s birth […], 2017.

Child Protection Application Issued in Hamilton, June 16, 2016

[256] Given that Z.G. and H.G. were apprehended in Hamilton initially, by the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, an Application was commenced in Hamilton. However, that Application was in a very short period of time transferred to Barrie. The court therefore need not address the Hamilton protection action.

[257] The court does note however that by way of history, between August 2002 and January 2009 the Toronto CAS was involved with the respondent mother intermittently due to concerns of domestic violence between she and her former partner M.B., lack of supervision and the respondent mother’s care of her other children. According to the Hamilton Application, none of those concerns was verified and all the openings were closed at the intake level.

[258] That Application also notes that there was a historical involvement with the family in Hamilton CAS due to the respondent mother’s struggles to manage J.B.’s behaviours including lack of supervision that was not verified. The Hamilton CAS had most recently been involved with family in October 2013 after J.B. disclosed being hit and kicked by the respondent mother and choked by his step-father (being the respondent father in this matter). At that time, the respondent mother admitted that she struggled with J.B.’s behaviours. The respondent mother then arranged for J.B. to reside with his father and paternal aunts and uncle in Toronto.

Application with respect to A.G.

[259] On January 16, 2018 an Application was issued with respect to A.G., given the Society becoming aware of her birth in December 2017. That was subsequently addressed in the amendment of the original Application in this action.

Original Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services Application

[260] The initial Application in this jurisdiction was issued June 20, 2016 with respect to A.B., B.B., E.W., H.P.A.G., J.B. and M.B. This Application followed the apprehension of the aforesaid children June 13, 2016. This apprehension was as a result of information received from the Hamilton CAS and police regarding the apprehension of Z.G. and H.G. on June 11, 2016.

Affidavit of Gabby Pechmann, dated June 20, 2016

[261] Ms. Pechmann, a Child Protection worker, confirmed the history involving the Toronto CAS and the Hamilton CAS with respect to the respondent mother.

[262] It was also noted that Simcoe Muskoka had become involved September 15, 2015 regarding a six year old child riding a dirt bike without a helmet and a three year old also being on the bike without a helmet. As a result of that investigation, the child J.B. disclosed that he had been choked by his step-father (being H.G. Sr.) a year ago. This incident had been investigated by Hamilton CAS.

[263] Ms. Pechmann notes that when she initially met with the parents on June 13, 2016, they denied that they ever caused any bruising to H.G. and claimed that the respondent mother’s sister had made up the allegations and that when they took H.G. to her sister, he had no bruises. The respondent mother claimed that her sister’s reactions were vindictive as she did not like the respondent father. The parents alleged that H.G. had been inappropriately treated while with his aunt.

[264] The respondent mother volunteered to Ms. Pechmann text messages (subsequently determined to be between she and her sister J.O.).

[265] It was determined that Ms. Pechmann would interview the children individually.

[266] Ms. Pechmann first interviewed J.B. in private.

[267] J.B. disclosed that H.G. ate his meals alone after the other children finished eating and that H.G. was tied up in the basement on his bed. J.B. offered that he did not like the basement and does not go there. J.B. indicated that H.G. was tied to the bed from 7 or 8 p.m. until the next morning. As well, when he was “bad” H.G. was tied to a chair, his legs were bound to the legs of the chair. The rope that was used being rope as thick as one’s finger. There were times when H.G. was taken into the bathroom and left there still tied to the chair. On one such occasion, H.G. fell down and J.B. picked him up because he was afraid that H.G. may have been injured.

[268] J.B. noted that on one occasion, H.G. was naked and walked into the room of his younger brothers and “who knows what he could’ve done.” J.B. claimed that on one occasion H.G. pulled down his pants and peed on clothing of his brothers which resulted in being tied up again and according to J.B. “he got out again and peed” subsequently he got out again went to his brother’s room and changed. That was when his mother had enough and they took him to London.

[269] According to J.B., initially when H.G. was tied to the chair by his feet, he would still hit them so we also tied his hands.

[270] Ms. Pechmann observed that when J.B. said these things he spoke about them without compassion or worry and described them as if it was part of normal daily life. He vacillated between stating “we” had to tie him up to only referring to his parents. Ms. Pechmann also interviewed 10 year old A.B. who stated that her mom spanks H.G. or ties him to the chairs or to the bed.

[271] As a result of the information that she received from J.B. and A.B., Ms. Pechmann contacted Detective Cummings at the Barrie police and a few hours later along with Detective Cummings, she interviewed J.B. and A.B. on June 13, 2016.

[272] She further interviewed H.G., H.P.A.G. and B.B. on June 16, 2016. That interview was conducted with Detective Jason Story.

[273] The details of the disclosure made by the children during these interviews is set out elsewhere in this decision.

[274] Ms. Pechmann conducted a home visit with the parents June 14, 2016.

[275] She was shown the basement room where H.G. and H.P.A.G. were sleeping. There was a room with two beds; one being a queen size bed on wheels. The floor was bare concrete and walls were bare and there was no window.

[276] She was also shown the furnace room that had a door with a latch on top of the door. The respondent father stated that H.G. managed to open the latch to get into the room and opened the freezer. The respondent father claimed that H.G. also frequently played with the switches and the gas pipe connected to the hot water heater.

[277] On the main level was the kitchen and living room area. The kitchen chairs were similar to what the older children described as the chairs that H.G. had been tied to. They were unable to show Ms. Pechmann the rope as respondent father believed they may have taken it to Hamilton with them.

[278] Upstairs there were bedrooms for the other children, and a bathroom and bedroom for the parents. It was noted that the children’s rooms contained toys and were decorated in friendly colours with clean bedding. The parents denied that H.G. had ever been locked in that bathroom.

[279] The respondent mother described Z.G.’s birth as traumatic and that she experienced numerous health problems because of it. She also indicated that over the years she had suffered from depression and anxiety and had seen numerous psychiatrists and psychologists. The respondent mother stated that she and her sister were victims of sexual abuse during their childhood. Their parents were not protective and that her mother allowed a man in his 50s to have an intimate relationship with her. She claims that she was in a relationship with this man from age 12 to age 18 and it ended when she became too old for him. Two years later she met M.B. and claims that he abused her for many years.

[280] The respondent father indicated that he was unable to work because he was still seeking permanent resident status and had been for the last three years; his family resides in Barbados.

[281] The parents stated that H.G. might have a mental disorder and that they had been waiting for results. As well, they asked for help from community resources, friends and family. They claimed that H.G. did dangerous things such as stealing matches, urinating on things, stealing frozen food from the freezer and hiding it under his bed and giving small items to his seven month old brother which could have been dangerous to him. The parents felt that they had no other choice but to tie him up.

[282] When suggested by Ms. Pechmann that the parents should have adequately locked the furnace room door, the respondent father indicated that this was also the laundry room which was why they could not do that.

[283] The respondent father indicated that H.G. was no longer attending kindergarten as he had done things, such as exposing himself and running away so the parents did not feel it would be fair to other children for them to have to deal with this behaviour.

[284] The parents advised that they tried to send H.G. to Barbados but he did not have his Passport. His maternal grandmother had agreed to take him but when they arrived she would not, as she said that she is not allowed to have children there because of some past sexual abuse issues. It was then that the parents asked the respondent mother’s sister to take him which she agreed to do.

[285] When Ms. Pechmann advised the parents that H.G. was being placed in a foster home with his step-brothers, the respondent parents told her that they worry about the other children’s safety and want H.G. to be placed by himself.

[286] In a June 15, 2016 conversation with J.B., Ms. Pechmann was advised that according to J.B. the family had no choice but to tie up H.G. as he could have killed them all by setting the house on fire. J.B. indicated that he did not wish to have H.G. back to be part of the family. He stated that H.G. and H.P.A.G.’s biological mother was a terrible mother and a bad person. In reference to his two step-siblings H.G. and H.P.A.G., he said “I hate them both.” He indicated that he had witnessed domestic violence between his mother and his biological father. He claimed that initially his current step-father was mean to him so J.B. moved back with his biological father who was barely around and he was cared for by aunts and other relatives. As they no longer wanted him, a few months ago he moved back with his mother. He says he still gets yelled at by his step-father.

[287] On June 15 and 16, the then current foster mother of H.G. advised that H.G. was doing well and showed no behavioural problems.

[288] In a conversation on June 15 with the principal of H.G.’ school, Ms. Pechmann was advised that while he attended kindergarten at the school, he was described as a “normal child.”

[289] In a conversation on June 16 with the Society worker who facilitated the transport of H.G. and Z.G. from Hamilton to Barrie, Ms. Pechmann was advised that the foster mother in Hamilton did not notice any behavioural difficulties or delays pertaining to H.G. Ms. Belanger, who had spent a number of hours with H.G. and Z.G. did not notice any behavioural difficulties and described them as quite compliant and inquisitive. On June 15, 2016 Ms. Pechmann supervised an access visit between the parents and Z.G. During discussion about H.G., the parents were adamant they can no longer manage his behaviour stating that “he lies, steals, played with gas pipes, was hiding food from the freezer, hits his siblings and threatened to hurt his siblings.”

[290] Neither parent was able to acknowledge that depriving a child of stimulation, isolating and shaming them and persistently physically abusing them could cause significant harm to them.

[291] The parents offered that they had installed cameras in the home to watch H.G. but yet did not see it appropriate to put a lock on the furnace room door.

[292] The Society felt that the harm to H.G. included:

(a) being repeatedly hit by his parents with hands, a belt and a cord from a vacuum cleaner as well as a shoe by J.B.;

(b) being restrained for hours a day with a rope being bound to a chair;

(d) being forced to have dish soap in his mouth;

(e) having his mother using alternate hot and cold showers as a form of physical punishment;

(f) emotional harm by socially isolating him from the rest of the family and treating him differently to the other children;

(g) having him sleep in the basement with no windows and a room that was significantly different to the bedrooms of the other children;

(h) being tied to his bed overnight;

(i) having him socially isolated for extended periods of time facing a wall while being bound to a chair;

(j) having him soiled himself repeatedly while being bound to a chair and one occasion being forced to put on clothing soiled with urine as a form of punishment;

(k) being placed for prolonged periods of time and repeatedly in the bathroom of the home while being bound to a chair; and

(l) being repeatedly told by his parents and siblings how bad he was and that he was not wanted, blaming and shaming.

[293] With respect to H.P.A.G., the Society took the position that she had been emotionally harmed by having to sleep in the basement beside her brother who was tied to the bed by rope, being required to tie and untie her brother and having to sleep on garbage bags placed underneath her on the bed. The Society assessed that all of H.G.’s step-siblings and sibling have been emotionally harmed as a result of the treatment of H.G. and they had all been made accomplices in inflicting emotional harm on him.

[294] Ms. Pechmann arranged on June 16 for Peace by Peace counselling and art therapy with H.P.A.G.’s first counselling to commence June 21, 2016.

[295] On June 17, 2016 she arranged for initiation of counselling sessions for all of their children except Z.G.

[296] On June 14, 2016 the parents indicated that there are about 20 people who propose to care for the children as an alternative to being in Society care. The respondent mother indicated that E.W.’s father had not been involved since she was two years old and he had “signed his rights away.”

[297] The respondent mother had given Ms. Pechmann a name and phone number for Grace and C.B. When called, both women stated they do not know who the mother is and what the call was pertaining to.

[298] Starting June 14, 2016 Ms. Pechmann made repeated attempts by telephone calls and text messages to contact M.B., the father of some of the children, and as of June 20, 2016 had been unsuccessful in so doing.

[299] Attached as an Exhibit was the affidavit of Stephanie McKillop, Child Protection worker with CAS Hamilton who described the apprehension of H.G. and Z.G.

[300] In an affidavit she describes the interaction of Theresa Mitchell an after-hours Emergency Services worker and Officer Dougherty. H.G. had been interviewed by them.

[301] The court notes that on June 11, 2016, Ms. K.W. advised the after-hours emergency worker in Hamilton that she left the other children with C.B., their paternal aunt, while she attended Hamilton and that M.B., the father of his children, had picked them up and brought him to his home in Mississauga but she was uncertain of his address.

[302] The respondent mother indicated that she did not want Z.G. placed in the same foster home as H.G. because H.G. previously threatened to harm Z.G.

[303] The respondent mother also indicated on June 13 that neither she nor the other children understood why H.G. had been apprehended.

Answer and Plan of Care of K.W., dated July 11, 2016

[304] In that Plan of Care, she proposes that the children be returned to her care and that of the respondent father. She claims that H.G.’s behaviours are overwhelming and that she is seeking the assistance of organizations to address them. She lists two family friends, two paternal aunts, Dr. Kuzmar, family doctor and Ms. Kyla Kadlac, principal of Holy Meadows Public School as people who would support her plan.

[305] She proposes that all children be returned to her care and that of the respondent father or in the alternative, clearly defined access particularly given the criminal charges that she is facing.

Parenting Capacity Assessments

[306] Parenting Capacity Assessments were conducted by Dr. Oren Amitay with respect to each of the respondent parents. The reports were issued September 7, 2017.

[307] Dr. Amitay obtained a PhD in clinical psychology from York University in 2006 and he received six academic and research scholarships.

[308] He has conducted research at the University of Toronto and York University as well as four Toronto hospitals.

[309] He had been involved in approximately 25 psychological, personality and Parenting Capacity Assessments per year for various Children’s Aid Societies across Ontario. This number increased to about 50-60 per year from 2008.

[310] He has been recognized as an expert witness numerous times in various courts in Ontario.

[311] From 2000 to the present he has taught 20 different courses in psychology.

[312] Since 2009, he has been assisted in completing assessments by a psychomotrist.

[313] None of the parties through their counsel challenged his credentials or the fact that he was an expert capable of performing a Parenting Capacity Assessment.

[314] By way of common background with respect to the assessments of each of the respondent parents, he reviewed the family constellation.

[315] He confirmed that he was aware that as a result of H.G.’s injuries, the Society became involved after being contacted by the CAS of Hamilton. He is aware of H.G.’s disclosure of discipline and emotional/psychological mistreatment by his father and Ms. K.W., some of which was confirmed by the children, J.B. and A.B. and other siblings.

[316] He was aware that Ms. K.W. denied causing injuries but that she did admit to having H.G. tied to his bed at night due to his extreme, uncontrollable, threatening and dangerous behaviours. He was further aware that she indicated that she, and Mr. H.G. Sr. had withdrawn H.G. from school in the fall of 2015 following several incidents involving his acting out violently and sexually with other children. He was further aware that she indicated she had sought the assistance from the Society in dealing with H.G. prior to the apprehension but was told they could not help and that she indicated that she and Mr. H.G. Sr. had exhausted all other avenues of support.

[317] He was further aware that H.G. had been examined by CAAP at McMaster Children’s Hospital and that the results and report confirmed that a number of H.G.’s injuries were “highly suspicious” and that it was suspected he had been subjected to “emotional abuse” and possibly “medical neglect” regarding his severe constipation.

[318] He was further aware that all of the other children had been returned a few months later but that H.G. and H.P.A.G. remained in care at the time of his assessment.

[319] In addition, he was aware that although no major concerns have been noted with respect to the children who were returned, a number of problematic interactions between the parents and H.G. have been observed during their infrequent access visits. Neither parent had demonstrated adequate insight into the stated child protection concerns, as they believe their actions were warranted due to H.G.’s behaviours.

[320] This court further notes that Dr. Amitay indicates with respect to both assessments, “it should be noted that this assessor’s protocol is to refrain from reviewing the Society’s file until after having interviewed the client at least once in order to get his/her views on the case.” (emphasis added)

[321] The court has reviewed these assessments. The court wishes to point out that it views a Parenting Capacity Assessment as another piece of evidence but not in any way determinative.

[322] However, the court finds that one of the utilities of a Parenting Capacity Assessment is to measure the conclusions drawn by the assessor, particularly those in the realm of standardized testing and to weigh those test results against the other evidence before the court.

[323] If those test results are congruent with the behaviour exhibited based on other evidence, then in the opinion of this court, the Parenting Capacity Assessment can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to confirm the subjectivity and objectivity of the parent’s actions and the reasons for those actions.

[324] In the Parenting Capacity Assessments, Dr. Amitay was asked to address six specific questions. Those were:

(a) the nature of the children’s attachment to Mr. H.G. Sr. and Ms. K.W. and the impact of severing or continuing that relationship;

(b) the psychological functioning and developmental needs of the children (named above);

(c) whether Mr. H.G. Sr. or Ms. K.W. has any psychiatric, psychological or other disorder or condition that may have an impact upon his or her ability to care for the children;

(d) the parenting capabilities of Mr. H.G. Sr. and Ms. K.W. including those attributes, skills and abilities most relevant to physical and emotional abuse and lack of supervision;

(e) the current and potential ability of Mr. H.G. Sr. and Ms. K.W. to meet the needs of the children; and

(f) the need for and likelihood of success of clinical interventions for the observed problems.

[325] With respect to each parent, Dr. Amitay administered eight tests being:

(a) semi-structured clinical interview;

(b) Wechsler Adult Intelligence scale-IV;

(d) Personality Assessment Inventory;

(e) Child Abuse Potential Inventory;

(f) Thematic Apperception Test;

(g) Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test; and

(h) Parent-Awareness Skills Survey.

PCA with respect to K.W.

[326] At the time of the PCA, the respondent mother was 36 years of age, born […], 1981.

[327] She reported that she was one of six siblings and that her home was “abusive” and “our father beat us with anything.” With respect to her mother, she said “she would hit us for anything.”

[328] She indicated that her sister J.O. was “molested by my dad’s best friend.” The respondent mother indicates that she was “kicked out at age 12” by her mother.

[329] She subsequently joined her two older sisters in Toronto and got involved in prostitution with a man who is 55 years of age.

[330] She met her kids’ dad when she was 20. He was 24 years her senior. She indicates that none of her children were planned and that she had her first son J.B. when she was 21 years of age.

[331] She indicates that she is currently on ODSP for depression and anxiety.

[332] She first met Mr. H.G. Sr. in 2012, about a month after his wife had passed away.

[333] They began living together and she indicated that there were issues with her oldest son (J.B.). H.G. Sr. held him from behind. J.B. said that H.G. Sr. had choked him but she claims the other children denied that. As a result, J.B. began living with his dad for 15 months.

[334] She, Mr. H.G. Sr. and the family moved to Barrie from Hamilton.

[335] She claims that after a year H.G. started showing certain behaviours, getting up at night, going out the door, threatening to kill the baby, going to his siblings’ beds while they were sleeping and putting marbles and puzzle pieces in their mouths, turning on gas pipes, climbing up cupboards, getting knives, peeing all over things, taking out his penis, talking about sexual things and colouring her carpets with nail polish.

[336] Dr. Amitay indicates that the respondent parents were interviewed together twice, once in person and once over the phone.

[337] When they were asked about claims contained in Society materials and/or other information supplied by the people, they denied most of the allegations made against them and instead focused on what they described as problems with the credibility or character of those who made certain claims. Dr. Amitay indicates that he investigated as many claims as possible. The couple declined to answer certain questions on the advice of their legal counsel or because they had not seen the evidence in question (the court notes that at the time of the assessment the criminal charges against them were still pending).

[338] The respondent mother admitted tying H.G.’s one foot to a chair during the period from June 5 to the time that they went to her sister’s house June 8.

[339] The respondent father acknowledged tying his son’s foot to a chair and to the bed during this period.

[340] Both of them denied tying his hands or seeing the other parent do so.

[341] When asked about the comments made by the other children, the respondent mother indicated she could not comment because she had not seen the video. The respondent father said the Society said it was acceptable to tie children to a chair and to a bed “so it is lawful” to do so.

[342] When the assessor tried to confirm whether or not the respondent father truly believed this, he became very defensive and hostile and did not provide a direct answer for a while.

[343] The respondent mother intervened eventually and said that based on the lack of support from others and the hand they were dealt “it was lawful.”

[344] She did acknowledge however that “if it was wrong, I would apologize for it” however “I was directed not to speak… So I didn’t apologize for it.”

[345] The parents claimed that one of the Society’s workers, Gaby Pechman, had coached and scared the children into lying about what happened in their home.

[346] The respondent mother specifically said that A.B. told them she did not want to talk anymore and Ms. Pechman said she had no choice (the assessor (and this court) viewed the police video recording of A.B.’s interview and can confirm that A.B. gave no indication of any distress, discomfort or other negative mood state).

[347] The respondent parents denied making H.G. sleep on the bathroom floor or while tied to a chair, telling him to pee himself, making his step-siblings tie or untie him, making his sister tie or untie him, giving him excessively hot or cold showers, washing his mouth with soap in the home or making him stand in the corner for any longer than 10 minutes (the respondent father claimed only two or three minutes but the respondent mother admitted to the longer duration). (The court notes that some of these “denials” were admitted in other circumstances by the respondent parents.)

[348] The respondent parents did report that H.G. had peed himself one night while he was sitting on the chair but they said this was because he did not wait to go to the bathroom.

[349] The parents denied H.G.’s spontaneous disclosure that his father would pinch his ears very hard. They did however acknowledge that the respondent father did pinch his ears. They claim however that any bruising was because H.G. had low iron.

[350] The respondent mother admitted that she sometimes slapped the children’s bottoms with her hand but never on their legs and never with an object.

[351] The respondent mother did admit that shortly before bringing H.G. to her sister’s home in Hamilton, she had expressed not wanting to have anything to do with the boy.

[352] She claimed that she was at her wits end after having undergone an emergency C-section delivery and having to deal with “a cyst the size of the cantaloupe that burst.”

[353] She complained that her sister never offered any help at all.

[354] She said that the children did not mind staying in the basement and that she and the respondent father had wrapped H.P.A.G.’s mattress with garbage bags because of the daughter’s bedwetting. She claimed that H.G. slept in the basement because he had been peeing upstairs. She said this arrangement was only for a few days prior to taking him to her sister’s.

[355] The assessor noted that even when asked about reports from the other children that indicated H.G. was treated very differently from the rest of his (step) siblings, the parents disagreed and did not express any regret or remorse.

[356] The respondent mother additionally advised that the other children expressed that the tying up of H.G. was warranted because he was acting so badly.

[357] The assessor notes that during the previous interview, the respondent mother began to cry when asked about the differential treatment of the children saying that she took in two kids and that H.G. thinks I am their mother just like B.B. and M.B. think H.G. Sr. is their dad.

[358] The respondent parents “totally disagree with” the Society’s recent decision to let H.G. know that his biological mother was not Ms. K.W.

[359] With respect to H.G.’s injuries, the parents claimed that two or three days prior to going to the respondent mother’s sister’s home, the boy fell off the freezer and hurt his back and buttocks and claim that on the first day that he was there, the sister took pictures and there were no marks.

[360] The respondent mother claims that H.G.’s disclosures could not be trusted because “my sister was present with him in front of the CAS during the police interview.”

[361] The parents also challenged H.G.’s statement that they “were going to send him to his grandmother” saying that this is stuff that he did not know and that her sister must have told him.

[362] The respondent mother mentioned during her individual interview that her sister had portrayed her as having “a violent and criminal history” including an alleged assault against her sister. The respondent mother advised the charge against her was “uttering a death threat” due to a message she left on her sister’s phone and that it was her sister that attacked her first.

[363] The respondent mother also spoke negatively about H.G.’s maternal side of the family claiming that the biological mother drank and did drugs while pregnant and had a long mental health history. As well, they found out that H.G.’s maternal grandmother could not take him because she was recently confined to a wheelchair (which they did not know about until arriving at her home in London) and was not allowed to have kids in her care and neither was her son due to a CAS history of molestation in the family.

[364] The respondent mother claims that they had contacted the maternal grandmother out of desperation and that the respondent mother had called the CAS in Barrie and they told her to exhaust all means before they will take the child in care.

(c) Test Results for K.W.

WAIS-IV

On this test, the respondent mother scored at the 30^th percentile. Percentiles between 25 and 75 are considered to be within broad average range. In other words she finished near the top of the bottom third of the group.

This suggests that she should be about as capable as most adults in managing everyday affairs.

PAI, MCMI-III, CAP

The first test is to provide personality profiles based on questions a person answers about themselves and the CAP assesses traits, behaviours, beliefs and histories associated with the risk of physically abusing a child with the responses being compared to those provided by individuals identified as having history of child abuse. These tests have a number of validity scales to indicate whether the respondent attempts to make herself look overly good or overly poor.

The PAI results show that the respondent mother is inclined to portray herself as being relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit and is somewhat reluctant to recognize minor faults in herself.

She may tend to view relationships as a means to an end.

She is not likely to be perceived by others as warm and friendly and others may see her as tough-minded, sceptical and somewhat hostile.

The clinical scales were entirely within normal limits.

MCMI-III

Responses suggested a well-established need for social approval and commendation. As well indicated a possible deficit in self-knowledge and strong underlying feelings of insecurity.

She may become overly concerned with minor irrelevancies as a means of distracting her attention from deep feelings of inadequacy and anticipated condemnation from others.

CAP

Her answers did not reveal any similarities between those produced by identified child abusers.

TAT

This test gives an indication of how respondent conceptualizes social relationships, conflicts and the resolutions, goals and aspirations and emotional life.

The respondent mother’s test results indicate that she has a capacity to think clearly and logically and plan ahead and to arrive at a reasonably effective solution to moderately challenging problems.

One factor that can severely compromise her functioning is that she is vulnerable to acting impulsively and without sufficient forethought.

This test is also thought of as an “emotional intelligence test.”

The assessor found that although the respondent mother is aware of what she is feeling, she is not usually inclined to process or express her emotions as naturally or comfortably as most other people do. She is prone to inferring negative emotions or intentions and other people even if there is little reason for such assumptions.

Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test

This test provides an indication of one’s thought processes reality testing, approach to an organization of the environment, emotional functioning and self perception.

According to the respondent mother’s test results, she is about as capable as most people of thinking logically and coherently, maintaining a connected flow of associations in which ideas follow each other in a comprehensible manner and coming to reasonable conclusion and relationship about events.

She shows less psychological complexity than most people.

She identifies as a hyper vigilant personality style that is likely to engender suspicion and mistrust in her everyday transactions with the world and particularly in dealings with other people.

Her thinking can occasionally become strange or peculiar.

She appears to be more of a thinker than a doer inclined to ruminate excessively about certain matters.

She may also be more vulnerable than most people to being overwhelmed or disorganized when confronted with intense expressions of affect.

The assessor noted that the severity of her experienced stress was likely contributing to emotional difficulties such as anxiety, depression, confusion, apprehension, general malaise, reduced motivation to carry on with everyday activities or a sense of hopelessness with respect to what the future may bring.

He also found that the anger she harbours can often undermine the soundness of her judgment and the harmony of her relationship with others especially in situations that call for tolerance and compassion.

The assessor noted that another factor that can compromise her interpersonal functioning is that she is likely to show marked tendencies to overvalue her personal worth and become preoccupied with her own needs at the expense of concern about the needs of others. She may also evince a sense of entitlement and a tendency to externalize blame and responsibility. (emphasis added)

She may also pursue goals beyond her reach without learning anything from being unable to achieve them.

As well, her Rorschach profile advised that she gives evidence of limited capacity to form close attachments to others and is more likely than most people to demonstrate ineffective or maladaptive interpersonal behaviour.

PASS

This test presents examinees with a number of scenarios involving children ranging from early infancy to late adolescence.

The assessor noted that while she demonstrated satisfactory comprehension of many of the childcare issues presented in these scenarios, she was somewhat inconsistent in her ability to discuss the need to enact appropriate discipline or punishment for various transgressions and/or to explain the social, moral or practical reasons for not engaging in those misbehaviours.

The assessor found that her greatest shortcomings on this test was that she frequently failed to consider or to understand the children’s perspective or non—obvious emotional and psychological needs, suggesting limited empathetic attunement.

She is far more likely than most parents to approach childcare situations on her own terms or from her own perspective without recognizing serious deficiencies in her care giving knowledge or skills. She also displayed unsatisfactory appreciation for the developmental stages young children go through at different ages. (emphasis added)

PCA with respect to H.G. Sr.

[365] The respondent father was 43 years of age the time of the PCA, born […], 1974.

[366] He reported that he was born in Barbados and raised by his mom. He has one younger sister on his mother’s side and 10 younger siblings on his father’s side. He only met his father a couple of times.

[367] He noted that his mother “sometimes she whooped my ass if I didn’t come home; it was okay.”

[368] He lived with his mother and sister until he came to Canada in 2004.

[369] While travelling back and forth between Barbados and Canada, he fathered a daughter who he thinks is 22 this year. He used to support the daughter financially in the beginning.

[370] He then met a “Hungarian woman” with whom he lived for three or four years. He sought status for remaining in Canada while with her and is “still going through the process.” He then met the respondent mother who became his sponsor. He currently does not have any entitlement to Canada.

[371] He met H.G. and H.P.A.G.’s mother while in Canada and she got pregnant while they were in Windsor within the first year of the relationship. He did not think it was serious but because she got pregnant it became more serious.

[372] He indicated that people called the CAS on them because “his partner was deemed to be an unfit parent.”

[373] The mother had cancer when pregnant and was a street person. He made reference to the stigma of black men and white women.

[374] He thought that the current PCA had been ordered “to make them (the Society) look good in court… This is all for them, not for us.” He believes that he is being discriminated against due to his background “because I’m black.”

(d) H.G. Sr. Test Results

WAIS-IV

This test result placed him around the bottom of the low average range at the 10th percentile.

His perceptual reasoning Index (PRI) fell within the average range at the 55 percentile.

PAI, MCMI-III, CAP

His PAI suggests that he tends to portray himself as being essentially free of common shortcomings that most individuals will acknowledge. He is quite reluctant to admit minor faults perhaps even to himself. As a result of these issues, his report warned that his test results were unlikely to be a valid reflection of his experience.

His self-reported interpersonal style characterizes himself as self-assured, confident and dominant. Others are likely to see him as ambitious, tough-minded and sceptical.

His MCMM-III indicates that he presents with a strong sense of self-satisfaction and self-worth, may act in a grandiose and self-assured manner. He feels justified in his claim for special status in his belief that he is a special person deserving of great admiration which can conversely lead to others seeing them as egotistical, inconsiderate or arrogant. He does not seem to realize that his behaviour may be objectionable, even irrational.

His CAP results suggested some naïveté, limited insight and/or defensiveness with respect to how he sees her presents himself. He denied a significantly high number of personal flaws that most people readily acknowledge while describing himself in more positive terms than most people would.

TAT

This test gives an indication of how the respondent conceptualizes social relationships, conflicts and the resolution, goals and aspirations and emotional life. His responses demonstrate a defensiveness on his part. He is likely to be passive, indecisive, frustrated and relatively ineffective in novel, unfamiliar unclear, ambiguous or moderately challenging circumstance.

These deficits can be seen in below average emotional intelligence as well.

These results significantly reduces effectiveness and tending to other people’s emotional, psychological and interpersonal needs.

Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test

He tends to misinterpret the actions and intentions of others and to perceive events in a distorted manner.

He is likely to have difficulty in anticipating the consequences of his own actions and recognizing the boundaries of appropriate behaviour in various situations.

The preceding deficits which seem most prominent during intense affect of experiences, can lead him to erroneous conclusions, ill-advised actions and faulty judgment, all of which are likely to undermine the adequacy of his adjustment.

He is a markedly insecure person who has low self-esteem and lacks confidence in his capabilities and judgment. Accordingly, he may be comparing himself unfavourably to other people which can result in feelings of futility or contribute to episodes of depression.

He appears to have a limited capacity to form close attachments to other people or to manage relationships in a comfortable and rewarding manner.

PASS

In this test, he demonstrated unsatisfactory understanding of childcare issues and parenting strategies for children of various ages.

He was also far less likely than most parents to see things from the children’s perspective and rarely discussed tending to their emotional or psychological needs, even when guided toward doing so as per the test protocol.

He had extremely low empathy and very limited appreciation for different developmental stages children go through.

In short, his performance on the PASS indicated that he barely has enough caregiving knowledge or skills to reach even the most basic level of “good enough parenting.”

[375] When asked about the withdrawal of H.G. from school in April 2016 (some materials incorrectly indicate the fall of 2015) they explained that it was because he was caught in a bathroom having a naked party with a girl and a flashlight and was chasing someone with scissors.

[376] When they were asked about the Society’s concerns regarding access with H.G. and H.P.A.G. in September and December 2016, they minimize those concerns. The respondent father saw no problem with the way he apologized to H.G. explaining that he had to mistreat him as he did so because of the boy’s behaviour. He also saw no problem with the apparent insensitivity of asking about the possibility other children might not want H.P.A.G. to come back home right in front of H.P.A.G.

[377] During the last interview for the PCA, the parents were asked about reports that while in the care of Ms. K.W.’s sister and the foster parents H.G. had not been displaying any of the kind of terrible behaviours that they reported him doing at home. Their answer was that this was because the respondent mother’s sister bought him things and that in the foster care there were problems although she later corrected herself saying that H.G. did not fall off the car while moving but he opened the door to the van while it was being driven. Based on the assessor’s discussions with the foster mother, the therapist and the Society’s information was that H.G. had not opened the door or fallen from the vehicle. The foster parents indicate that they have childproof locks and that this did not happen. As for the five point harness referred to by the respondent mother, the foster parents explained that this was necessary because H.G. was too small for the booster seat they had been using.

[378] The assessor indicated that he had asked the parents for names of collaterals and that he reached out to each person on the list and was able to speak to the respondent mother’s long-time friend Christine O’Link for 20 minutes, respondent father’s criminal lawyer for 15 minutes, the respondent mother’s sister J.O. for 40 minutes and 50 minutes respectively during two conversations not including numerous text messages, the respondent mother’s mother for 25 minutes and 40 minutes in two respective conversations, the couple’s former psychologist for 10 minutes, Ms. Adrian Boyd, a neighbour in Barrie for 10 minutes, Ms. Michelle Raymond another neighbour in Barrie for 20 minutes, the paternal aunt of most of the children, C.B. for 30 minutes, the OCL for H.P.A.G. (Ms. Catherine Rogers and for H.G., (Mr. Doug Manning) for 50 minutes, Ms. Chantel Leduc-Sicard Society worker for 60 minutes and the children’s psychotherapist, Ms. Sandi Deschambeault for 60 minutes and 10 minutes respectively, the children’s foster parents for 30 minutes, 20 minutes and 10 minutes during three conversations.

[379] The assessor indicates that it is his practice to refrain as much is possible from disclosing what is discussed so as not to create any disharmony between parents and their personal or professional supports.

[380] He does indicate that the respondent mother’s friend and family neighbours had only positive things to say about them and had no concerns about the care and well-being of the children.

(e) Assessor’s Notes of Observations of the Respondent Parents with the Children

[381] The assessor observed the parents with the children at their home from 9:30 a.m. to 10:20 a.m. on March 21, 2017 and at the Society offices in Barrie from 9:20 a.m. to 12 p.m. on May 12, 2017. The second visit was observed from behind a two-way mirror.

[382] Based on the first visit, the assessor noted that the respondent mother seemed to speak in a harsh voice even when the children had not really done anything wrong and other times her tone was sarcastic although it looked like she had been trying to joke with the children on occasion.

[383] With respect to the second visit on May 12, 2017, each parent met with H.P.A.G. and H.G. separately for 30 minutes at the Society offices. After those two hours of visits, the children met with the entire family for several hours, the first 30 minutes of which was observed by the assessor.

[384] The assessor noted that with respect to H.G., she did not praise him for being able to count to 40 and commented to him “you have only one parent.”

[385] The assessor also noted that at the conclusion of the visit she did nothing with respect to saying goodbye to H.G. and he in turn left without any kind of interaction with her.

[386] With respect to H.P.A.G., the assessor noted that she did not hug or engage H.P.A.G. in any physical way upon entering the room.

[387] When the respondent mother met with H.G., he had already spent a half hour with his father. She greeted him verbally but did not hug him or engage in any other physical interaction. He appeared to be in a cheerful mood telling her about the activity he had done with his father. She responded by speaking with no affect and based on what was said, he could have inferred that she was complaining about what he had done with his father.

[388] H.G. volunteered “when I see my lawyer, I’m going to tell him it’s time to go home” but she appropriately did not encourage that kind of conversation.

[389] At another point when he said “I’m smart” she did not reinforce his statement in any way, she did however acknowledge that he was pretty smart when he counted from 30 to 40 but failed to positively reinforce him when other clear opportunities presented themselves.

[390] When H.G. began talking about some children at school with whom he had been having physical conflict, she responded telling him it is not appropriate to hit or beat up children. He answered “you used to hit me when I lived with you.” She did not apologize or say anything else about that.

[391] When he eventually left the room, she did and said nothing with respect to saying goodbye to him, he in turn left without any interaction with her.

[392] The assessor noted that similar to with what happened with H.G., the respondent mother usually spoke with almost no affect and she and H.P.A.G. made little sustained eye contact throughout the visit.

[393] The assessor then comments with respect to the family visit. He noted that A.B. and E.W. looked very excited waiting to see their step-siblings. When H.P.A.G. and H.G. did come in the room, the other children did not seem to know how to react. Only M.B. approached H.P.A.G. and hugged her. H.G. went over to B.B., but no one else really said or did anything and the parents did not help her intervene.

[394] There are periods of time when M.B. was the only one talking and playing with H.G. who was mostly ignored by everyone else.

[395] The respondent mother at times was on her iPad and she typically did not facilitate any interactions between the children and H.P.A.G. and H.G. nor did the respondent father.

(f) Assessor’s Conclusions and Recommendations

[396] The assessor finds that a convergence of information obtained from a variety of sources and methodologies over the course of the assessment suggests that it would not be prudent to return H.P.A.G. and especially H.G. to their parents.

[397] With respect to the first and second questions asked of the assessor with respect to the respondent mother’s biological children, the assessor did not see any signs of unhealthy attachments between the parents and the children at the family home or in the Society office. Nor did he see any obvious signs of (potential) child protection concerns, behavioural problems or impairments/deficits in any of the children’s psychological functioning and/or developmental needs.

[398] “With respect to H.P.A.G. and H.G., however there does not seem to be any greater bond between them and their step-mother than one might ordinarily have observed between any two children their age and someone they had met only once or twice.” (emphasis added)

[399] “Although H.G. was quite talkative and generally engaging with the respondent mother, it is apparently how he acts with most people, including the police who interviewed him and this assessor.”

[400] Although each child demonstrated a much greater connection with their father than they did with their step-mother, especially when they first saw him, there were times throughout the 30 minute meeting that the respondent father showed no signs of emotional or physical intimacy. When H.P.A.G. did get close to her father, he did not respond at all. There is no sustained eye contact between father and daughter. The assessor notes that “to be fair to the parents” they had not seen the children in approximately four months.

[401] “Even if a greater bond between the children and their father and especially step-mother had been observed, the answers to the following four questions/issues regrettably preclude returning H.P.A.G. and H.G. to their home. It must be stressed that, from among the over 425 PCAs this assessor has conducted over the years, a recommendation against reunification of the family is relatively rare (approximately 10% of the cases). Unfortunately the (inferred) facts and circumstances of this case appear to leave no other alternative course of action. (emphasis added)

[402] The assessor then turns to the concluding four questions asked of him.

[403] He indicates that the respondent father’s performance on the PASS was far more problematic than the respondent mother. He barely reached the most basic level of “good enough parenting” and he required considerable assistance in a highly favourable environment.

[404] The assessor notes that despite their limitations and parenting capacity, collectively they have done a relatively reasonable job in raising the children at least on the outside.

[405] The assessor notes however that the respondent father once reportedly assaulted J.B. The assessor, based on information obtained by him, felt the J.B. was not lying about the incident. He also noted that M.B. and B.B. had apparently presented with behavioural problems at school such as leaving the property and that the parents blamed H.G. for these misbehaviours but it did not seem plausible that a child who was four years of age could have masterminded such transgressions and M.B. who is 20 months older especially since H.G.’s principal reportedly had very positive things to say about him.

[406] The assessor notes that then the parents attempt to blame the boy’s biological father, although he appears not to have been involved in B.B’s life at all and in M.B.’s perhaps for the first year.

[407] The assessor also noted that according to the Children’s Aid Society worker, A.B.’s former one-on-one worker happened to see her around Christmas last year and noted that she had a black eye. The child and her mother denied it and the respondent mother indicated that the child had run away from the worker upon seeing her. The assessor notes the black eye itself is not necessarily a concern but covering it up is.

[408] The assessor notes that it is possible that one or more of the people who have negative things to say about them are motivated by malicious intent and that the professionals have some sort of personal animosity towards particular members of their family.

[409] He notes however that for most of the stated child protection concerns to be invalid, as the parents have asserted, everyone they have criticized to this assessor would have to be in the wrong (emphasis added). He notes that the only way that the parents’ explanation would be true is if the respondent mother’s sister, the police, CAAP, several Society workers and the foster parents had either colluded with each other or acted independently to somehow compel all of the children to say very similar things in what appeared to be an entirely natural manner in their respective interview videos. The importance of such similarities in the children’s depictions of such events cannot be overstated.

[410] In addition, the couple claimed that the respondent mother’s sister or someone else in her family had inflicted any non-accidental injuries discovered on H.G. For this to be true, not only would the little boy have to have decided to turn against his parents in order to protect the people he barely knew, he would also have to be able to show that none of the feared distress or other signs one would ordinarily expect to see in a four year old child who had been recently physically abused by virtual strangers over the course of a three day stay with them.

[411] The assessor concludes that the respondent parents’ denials, explanations and other claims related to H.G.’s alleged mistreatment stretch all balance of credulity.

[412] The assessor found that the respondent mother did on occasion “say the right thing” but noted that the respondent father refused to make any concessions, let alone to acknowledge that anything he admitted to doing was wrong. He was extremely defiant and spoke in almost a self-righteous manner at times, often presenting as the victim in the current circumstances. He gave no indication that he appreciated the impact of having lost their biological mother at such a young age especially for H.P.A.G. who was old enough to remember her mother.

[413] The assessor noted that the parents’ presentation during the current PCA were entirely consistent with their respective test data. (emphasis added)

[414] He found that the respondent parents are inclined to blame others for their own misdeeds.

[415] The assessor notes that the parents failed to help the children adjust to all of the changes in their lives.

[416] The assessor also considers that H.G. had undoubtedly watched the scary horror movie Jeepers Creepers which reflects poor judgment on the part of his parents. He finds that other information obtained during the PCA suggest that the respondent father’s poor judgment, arrogance and lack of consideration for the consequences of his actions in H.G.’s presence could explain some of the boy’s transgressions at school, namely chasing a child with scissors and engaging in sexual misconduct. Although H.G. has apparently misbehaved at school and on the school bus while in foster care, it is believed that this is due in large part to the school and bus driver’s ineffective means of dealing with such matters. This suggests to the assessor that his acting out while in the W-G house was largely due to environmental factors.

[417] The assessor notes “even granting Ms. W and Mr. G the most generous benefit of the doubt with regard to their mistreatment of H.G., however their attitudes and actions subsequent to the boy’s removal from their care counter-indicate the capacity to satisfy three criteria that usually predict a successful outcome in cases such as this. Specifically PCA examinees are ordinarily expected to consistently demonstrate at least two but preferably three of the following traits and behaviours (in addition to adequate parenting knowledge and skills):

Sufficient insight into their issues and other relevant factors that have contributed to their involvement with the SMCYFS.
Good judgement in order to care for, protect and raise their children and put their children’s needs before their own.
The ability to work honestly and cooperatively with SMCYFS and any other people or organizations involved in the welfare of the children, in order to improve on the issues that led to the Society’s involvement with the family (page 40).

[418] The assessor goes on to state:

“at the risk of belabouring the point, neither parent has given any indication that they genuinely recognize, acknowledge or feel remorse for what they did to H.G. (and H.P.A.G.). Nor did they appear to possess sufficient insight into the Society stated child protection concerns, even if they had truly only committed the transgressions to which they have admitted.”

[419] The assessor notes that although together the parents appear capable of continuing to raise their children as they have been doing up until now, he also notes that in the case the respondent mother particularly, various aspects of their personalities, psychological functioning and other internal operations make them prone to engaging in maladaptive or harmful parenting practices which seems to be true not only when she is feeling overwhelmed by stress or stressors in her life, but also when things simply do not go her way.

[420] The assessor also notes that:

“unfortunately one of the oldest axioms in psychology/psychotherapy is the that people cannot make changes in themselves if they are not adequately motivated and capable of introspective, self-reflecting and sincerely acknowledging what needs to be changed; they must then demonstrate a genuine commitment to making such improvements in themselves and/or their lives.”

[421] The assessor concludes with “in the present case, unfortunately, this assessor’s professional mandate requires me to recommend against returning H.G. to his father or step-mother. (emphasis added)

[422] The assessor also concludes with:

“in light of a) Mr. G’s failure to raise H.G. in line with even the most minimal parenting standards (at least for a certain period of time), b) Mr. G’s complete absence of evinced acknowledgement, understanding or remorse with respect to his actions prior to his children’s apprehension, and c) the bond in history between H.G. and H.P.A.G., she also regrettably should not be returned to her father on his own-and especially not if he is with Ms. W” (Page 42). (emphasis added)

[423] The assessor indicates that Ms. W’s children seem to be doing reasonably well in the care of their mother and step-father. Nevertheless, the current PCA results suggest that one or more of them would be at risk for harm should SMCYFS withdraw from the family prematurely.

[424] The respondent parents challenge and “attack” the PCA for a variety of reasons. This court finds that the process undertaken by the assessor was valid. Further, this court finds that there is no indicia that the assessor was in any way biased against the respondent parents. In fact, the court finds that the assessor was very “even handed” and gave the respondent parents the “benefit of the doubt” on a number of issues.

[425] As indicated, the court views the PCA as a “piece of evidence.” This court finds that the results and conclusions of the PCA, particularly with respect to the standard testing is consistent with and corroborative of the other evidence before this court.

The Law

[426] The Society brings this motion pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules (all references to Rules in this decision are to the Family Law Rules) – the summary judgment rule.

[427] The relevant provisions of Rule 16 read as follows:

RULE 16: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WHEN AVAILABLE

(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:

Weighing the evidence.
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
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.

[428] The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, sets out the process to be followed on summary judgment motions.

[429] The court held that the judge should first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence before the judge, without using the judge’s new fact-finding powers (set out in subrule 16 (6.1)).

[430] If there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, based on the record before the judge, the judge should then determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using the powers set out in subrule 16 (6.1). These powers involve the weighing of evidence, evaluating credibility, drawing inferences, and possibly receiving oral evidence on the motion. The use of these powers is discretionary, provided that they do not run contrary to the interests of justice. Their use will not be against the interests of justice if they will lead to a fair and just result and will serve the goals of timeliness, affordability and proportionality in light of the litigation as a whole (paragraph 66).

[431] If there are concerns about credibility or clarification of the evidence, then those issues can be addressed by calling oral evidence on the motion itself (paragraph 51). This is the mini-trial procedure set out in subrule 16 (6.2). This power should be employed when it allows the judge to reach a fair and just adjudication on the merits and it is the proportionate course of action. While this is more likely to be the case when the oral evidence required is limited, there will be cases where extensive oral evidence can be heard on the motion for summary judgment, avoiding the need for a longer, more complex trial and without compromising the fairness of the procedure (paragraph 63).

[432] Where a party seeks to lead oral evidence, it should be prepared to demonstrate why such evidence would assist the motion judge in weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or drawing inferences and to provide a “will say” statement or other description of the proposed evidence so that the judge will have a basis for setting the scope of the oral evidence (paragraph 64).

[433] 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 the judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result (paragraph 49).

[434] The court in Hryniak also set out the following:

(a) Summary judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to the affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims (paragraph 5).

(b) Undue process and protracted trials, with unnecessary expense and delay, can prevent the fair and just resolution of disputes (paragraph 24).

(c) The summary judgment motion is an important tool for enhancing access to justice because it can provide a cheaper, faster alternative to a full trial (paragraph 34). These reforms embody the evolution of summary judgment rules from highly restricted tools used to weed out clearly unmeritorious claims or defences to their current status as a legitimate alternative means for adjudicating and resolving legal disputes (paragraph 36).

(d) The Ontario amendments to the summary judgment rule changed the test for summary judgment from asking whether the case presents a “genuine issue for trial” to asking whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. The new rule, with its enhanced fact-finding powers, demonstrates that a trial is not the default procedure (paragraph 43).

(e) Where a summary judgment motion allows the judge to find the necessary facts, to apply the law to the facts and resolve the dispute in a just manner, proceedings at trial

(f) A process that does not give the judge confidence in conclusions to be drawn can never be a proportionate way to resolve the dispute (paragraph 50).

(g) On a summary judgment motion, the evidence need not be equivalent to that at trial, but must be such that the judge is confident that the court can fairly resolve the dispute. A documentary record, particularly when supplemented by the new fact-finding tools, including ordering oral testimony, is often sufficient to resolve material issues fairly and justly. The extra powers provided can provide an equally valid, if less extensive, manner of fact finding (paragraph 57).

(h) The inquiry into the interest of justice is, by its nature, comparative. Proportionality is assessed in relation to the full trial. It may require the motion judge to assess the relative efficiencies of proceeding by way of summary judgment, as opposed to trial. This would involve a comparison of, among other things, the cost and speed of both procedures. It may also involve a comparison of the evidence that will be available at trial and on the motion as well as the opportunity to fairly evaluate better evidence that would be available at trial (paragraph 58).

[435] Hyryniak applies to child protection cases. See: Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2018 ONSC 2783 (Divisional Court), paragraph 38.

[436] Courts should be very cautious in granting summary judgment in child protection cases since the stakes for the family are so high and the granting of summary judgment deprives the parent of his or her day in court and the procedural safeguard of cross-examination of witnesses before a judge. See: C.R. v Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2013 ONSC 1357.

[437] The Divisional Court in Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., supra, set out the following:

(a) Neither party has the onus of establishing who will succeed at trial. That is the wrong question. Pre-Hryniak case law where courts examined whether a party has any reasonable chance of success no longer applies (paragraph 45).

(b) The key question is whether it is in the interest of justice for the court to resolve the case summarily? To do so, the court is required to consider whether the process allows it to make the necessary findings of fact, to apply the law to the facts, and that it is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result. Stated alternatively, does the process allow the court to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute and is it a timely, affordable, and proportionate procedure (par.46).

(c) The summary judgment process considers the nature of the issues, the evidence, and the strength of the case, not to determine who would win at trial, but to determine if it is fair and just to resolve the matter summarily without a trial (par. 43).

(d) The burden of proof is on the party who moves for summary judgment. Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566 at para. 30. Under Rule 16(4) the moving party must “set out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.” The party must satisfy the judge that it is in the interest of justice that the case be decided summarily asking the appropriate questions set out in Hryniak (par. 48).

(e) Rule 16 (4.1) then dictates how a party who wishes to resist summary judgment is to respond, as follows:

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.

(par. 49)

(f) In Sweda v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200, 242 A.C.W.S. (3d) 794, affirmed 2014 ONCA 878, Corbett J. confirmed the continued applicability of the rules requiring the responding party to “put its best foot forward” or “lead trumps or risk losing.” Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764 at para 56; Bhakhri, v. Valentin, 2012 CarswellOnt 6667 (S.C.J.), para. 7; Pizza v. Gillespie (1990), 1990 CanLII 4023 (ON SC). The judge is entitled to assume that the parties have put before her or him all of the evidence that they would be able to adduce at trial. T. Hamilton and Son Roofing Inc. v. Markham (City), 2018 ONSC 2665 at para. 30 (paragraph 50).

[438] A summary judgment motion can also be an opportunity to make findings of fact not in dispute, narrow the issues to be heard at trial and give directions to assist in organizing the trial pursuant to subrule 16(9) of the Rules. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A., [2013] O.J. No. 3183 (OCJ).

[439] Subrule 16(9) reads as follows:

ORDER GIVING DIRECTIONS

(9) If the court does not make a final order, or makes an order for a trial of an issue, the court may also,

(a) specify what facts are not in dispute, state the issues and give directions about how and when the case will go to trial (in which case the order governs how the trial proceeds, unless the trial judge orders otherwise to prevent injustice);

(b) give directions; and

(c) impose conditions (for example, require a party to pay money into court as security, or limit a party's pretrial disclosure).

[440] A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent’s desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernable from the parent’s evidence that she faces some better prospects than what existed at the time of the Society’s removal of the child from her care and has developed some new ability as a parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H. 2000 CanLII 3158 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.).

The Child Youth and Family Services Act (2017) (CYFSA)

[441] The CYFSA came into force just prior to the hearing of this summary judgment motion. This replaced the CFSA which was in place at the time of the apprehensions.

[442] The relevant sections of the CYFSA are as follows:

Best interests of child

74(3)

(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and

(i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) 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,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) 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,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) 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, and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

Order where child in need of protection

101(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 102, in the child’s best interests:

Supervision order

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.

Interim society care

That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.

Extended society care

That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision

That the child be placed in interim society care and custody 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 a total of 12 months.

Court to inquire

(2) In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or section 102, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.

Access: where child removed from person in charge

105(1)

Where an order is made under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection 101 (1) removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall make an order for access by the person unless the court is satisfied that continued contact with the person would not be in the child’s best interests.

Access after custody order under s. 102

(2) If a custody order is made under section 102 removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall make an order for access by the person unless the court is satisfied that continued contact will not be in the child’s best interests.

Access after supervision order or custody order under s. 116 (1)

(3) If an order is made for supervision under clause 116 (1) (a) or for custody under clause 116 (1) (b), the court shall make an order for access by every person who had access before the application for the order was made under section 115, unless the court is satisfied that continued contact will not be in the child’s best interests.

Existing access order terminated if order made for extended society care

(4) Where the court makes an order that a child be in extended society care under paragraph 3 of subsection 101 (1) or clause 116 (1) (c), any order for access made under this Part with respect to the child is terminated.

When court may order access to child in extended society care

(5) A court shall not make or vary an access order under section 104 with respect to a child who is in extended society care under an order made under paragraph 3 of subsection 101 (1) or clause 116 (1) (c) unless the court is satisfied that the order or variation would be in the child’s best interests.

Additional considerations for best interests test

(6) The court shall consider, as part of its determination of whether an order or variation would be in the child’s best interests under subsection (5),

(a) whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and

(b) if the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.

Analysis

[443] On June 11, 2016, H.G. and Z.G. were apprehended from the respondent parents by the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society. This apprehension was based on information received from the respondent mother’s sister J.O. who had been caring for H.G. for the past three days.

[444] She indicated that based on observations that she had made, while H.G., who was then four years of age, was being bathed, she noted bruising on his body.

[445] In addition to that physical evidence, he had made certain disclosures to her with respect to being struck by his father and step-mother both with their hands and with a belt and a vacuum cord.

[446] He also made disclosures about being tied up to a bed and a chair.

[447] In addition to that information, Ms. J.O. also had conversations and text messages with the respondent mother which corroborated some of the disclosures that had been made by H.G.

[448] As a result of an examination by a forensic pediatrician, and information volunteered to that pediatrician by H.G., in addition to information shared by H.G. with Child Protection workers, H.G. was apprehended.

[449] The respondent parents attended at the Hamilton police station as directed by Ms. J.O. Since their then infant son Z.G. was with them, he also was apprehended at that time.

[450] Two days later, the Simcoe Muskoka CAS after having interviewed the other children (who were of sufficient age to be interviewed) along with the police, corroborated the information that had been shared by H.G. As a result, all of the remaining then six children were apprehended as well.

[451] By November 2016, as a result of progress made by the respondent parents, the six children save and except H.G. and H.P.A.G. had been returned to the parent’s care.

[452] This was “formalized” in November 2017 with a Statement of Agreed Facts. Pursuant to that Order obtained as a result of that SAF, the remaining six children have stayed in the care of the parents. Save and except minor issues to which this court will refer subsequently, there have been no significant concerns with respect to any of those six children.

[453] A ninth child was brought into this constellation with the birth of A.G. in [...] 2016. The Society was not informed that the respondent mother was pregnant and only learned of A.G.’s birth after the fact.

[454] A.G. has remained in the care of the respondent parents subject to a Voluntary Services Agreement. There have not been any protection issues raised with respect to A.G.

[455] This court notes that from the outset in June 2016, the main the protection issues involved H.G. and H.P.A.G.

[456] In fact, the main protection issue involved the treatment of H.G. and the exposure of the other children and in particular H.P.A.G. to that treatment.

[457] The treatment of H.G. and, based on any standard of care for children in Canada, can only be described as abhorrent.

[458] Although the respondent parents attempted to minimize the behaviour, and their treatment of H.G., this court finds that based on all of the evidence before it, there is no question in this court’s mind that H.G. was struck with the parents’ hands. There is no question that he was struck with a belt and there is no question that he was struck with a vacuum cord.

[459] The court has read all of the evidence put before it, and has reviewed the police/CAS interviews with the children and with the respondent parents as well as the interview with the respondent mother’s sister.

[460] The interviews with the children are particularly compelling. The court takes into account the fact that the children are of relatively young age.

[461] Based on the answers given by each of those children, there is no doubt in this court’s mind that the children understand the difference between truth and a lie.

[462] The court notes that because they are children, the court discounts some of the time frames set out by the children and discounts the accuracy that the children may have with respect to detail.

[463] The children were interviewed separately. There is absolutely no reason to believe, based on the circumstances of those interviews, that the children in any way collaborated on their stories. In fact, there are a number of differences between the stories recounted by each of the children as alluded to in the section of this decision whereby the interviews of those children are discussed. The court finds that the respondent parents’ allegations that the children may have in some way been “coached” either by the Society, or the respondent mother’s sister is baseless. Further, this court finds that the allegation by the respondent parents that H.G.’s injuries may have been caused by the respondent mother’s sister is also baseless.

[464] In this court’s mind, the differences between the children’s stories, serves to corroborate the authenticity of those stories.

[465] This court is left with no doubt that H.G. was struck with the objects earlier referred to.

[466] Further, those statements of the children combined with the Statement of Agreed Facts in the parent’s criminal proceedings, leaves no doubt that on multiple occasions, H.G. was tied to a bed, being his bed in the basement of the parties’ home.

[467] There is a great deal of evidence about this basement room. The room is clearly different to the other bedrooms of the children upstairs. It is a partially finished room in a basement with a concrete floor and drywall that has not even been primed let alone painted. According to the Society evidence, the room in which H.G. and H.P.A.G. were staying is windowless, although the respondent mother claims that there is a window in the room. This is in the court’s view a rather minor and somewhat inconsequential detail.

[468] The fact that this room is so different than the other children’s bedrooms is a factor that this court considers.

[469] The fact that the respondent mother indicates that she “does not like basements” and the fact that the eldest child J.B. appears to have a fear of basements, is taken into account in this decision.

[470] The Society references on multiple occasions the fact that H.P.A.G.’s bed was covered with garbage bags. The respondent mother indicates that it was not garbage bags, but was a plastic tarp.

[471] The evidence would appear to disclose that sheets and blankets were placed on top of this covering.

[472] It is acknowledged that H.P.A.G. had some issues with bedwetting. The fact that her mattress was covered with some form of plastic is not something that this court views as a “protection concern.”

[473] As well, while H.P.A.G. and H.G. were made to sleep in the basement for probably somewhere in the range of three to four weeks prior to the apprehension is of a concern. However, this court takes into account the fact that this family at that time consisted of eight children and two adults. The court also takes into account the fact that although there is no evidence with respect to the same, it would appear that money was not plentiful in this family.

[474] Therefore, the fact that two of the children were made to sleep in the basement in less than “luxurious” settings, is not something that this court would consider a protection concern in of itself. It does however, when taken into consideration with the other treatment of H.G., corroborate the difference in the treatment of H.G. and H.P.A.G. compared to the other children and is a factor in the “emotional” aspect of the treatment of those two children.

[475] What this court finds alarming, in addition to the corporal punishment given to H.G. is the restraint of H.G.

[476] Based on all of the evidence, it would appear that there is no doubt that H.G. was restrained on multiple occasions by tying a rope around his ankle and tying the rope to the wheel on the bed so that he was restrained from moving from that bed. The court finds that he was restrained overnight in this manner on multiple occasions and that H.P.A.G., his older sister, was directed to sleep in close proximity to H.G. She was further directed by the respondent parents to untie and re-tie H.G. should he need to use the washroom.

[477] That, would be bad enough.

[478] However, in addition to that, H.G. was also tethered to a kitchen type chair. At times, this occurred during the day and was used as a form of punishment for misbehaving.

[479] The parents deny that H.G. was not allowed to eat with the other children, claiming that because of the size of the family, not all of the children ate together and that the parents sometimes ate while sitting on the couch while the children sat at the kitchen table. The evidence however, discloses that H.G. was in fact treated differently at mealtimes and that at least on some occasions, when all the other children were given treats, he was not.

[480] For this court, the single biggest factor however, in this treatment of H.G., was tying him to the chair overnight.

[481] The mother claims that this was only tying his ankle or perhaps ankles. The evidence from all other sources however (including the SAF in the criminal proceeding when the respondent mother and respondent father were represented by criminal defence counsel) is that he was restrained at the waist and that his hands were restrained either in front of him or tied behind him.

[482] The children in their video statements, demonstrate how he was tied. This court has absolutely no doubt that this in fact occur.

[483] This court has no doubt that it occurred more than once and likely a minimum of between five and seven nights prior to the apprehension.

[484] On at least one occasion, the chair tipped over and the eldest child J.B. went to H.G.’s aid fearing that he had been seriously injured. Fortunately he was not.

[485] On another occasion, likely the one that led to the respondent mother deciding that H.G. could no longer stay in their home, H.G. had urinated in his pajamas while restrained to the chair overnight. He had somehow managed to extricate himself and had gone to his sibling’s bedroom to find clean pajamas. While there, based on the evidence that this court read, he innocently was touching one of his siblings. His soiled pajamas were on the floor. He may have been naked from the waist down or may have put on fresh pajamas. So far as it relates to this case, that is not a detail that this court sees as material.

[486] The respondent mother “lost it.” She decided, and the respondent father went along with this decision, that he could no longer stay in their home.

[487] It was believed that his deceased mother’s mother was prepared to accept him and therefore the respondent parents travelled to London. However, for whatever reason, she decided not to accept him.

[488] The respondent mother’s sister in Hamilton agreed to take him.

[489] That led to the apprehension.

[490] The question for this court, of course; is there a genuine issue requiring a trial?

[491] This court is satisfied that it has available to it all of the evidence needed to determine this case.

[492] The cumulative effect of the children’s statements plus the Statement of Agreed Facts and the physical evidence of the forensic pediatrician clearly demonstrates to this court the material facts that led up to the apprehension.

[493] In fact, the parents have agreed that H.G. and H.P.A.G. were children in need of protection at the time of the apprehension.

[494] The purpose of the change in the Rules, leading from the Hryniak decision, is to avoid trials where possible and to grant summary judgments on these motions unless there is “a genuine issue requiring a trial.”

[495] The court notes that the children have been in care now for virtually two years. The timelines set out in the CYFSA have now been reached.

[496] The evidence, in this court’s opinion, is extremely clear and unequivocal. There is no need to have a trial to determine what the evidence will be. The Statement of Agreed Facts will not change. The statements of the children made to the police and the CAS will not change.

[497] No one is suggesting that the children will be cross-examined at trial and will be asked to give viva voce evidence.

[498] Prior to the summary judgment motion, the parents, through counsel could have sought to cross-examine the Society workers or the children’s therapist. They did not do so.

[499] Therefore, what evidence would possibly be led at trial that would be different from the evidence before this court? The short answer is none.

[500] The respondent parents point to the fact that they had made gains and have engaged in programming since the time of the apprehension. The court accepts that they have done so.

[501] The court further accepts that they are probably in a better position to parent the seven children currently in their care as a result than they were at the time of the apprehension.

[502] The respondent parents point to a “situational crisis.” This they claim is as a result of the birth of Z.G. and the fact that the respondent mother had a difficult birth followed by physical complications following that cesarean section.

[503] The court has no doubt that this is in fact the case, that she did have a difficult birth and that she did have physical problems after that birth.

[504] However, by the time the apprehension occurred and by the time the restraining of H.G. had escalated to where it was, the respondent mother had returned to work. Those physical issues were behind her.

[505] The court must look at the psychological effects on H.P.A.G. and H.G. and from the treatment that H.G. had received.

[506] The court is particularly struck by the evidence of Ms. Deschambault. She indicates that after thirty plus therapy sessions with each of those two children, they still have difficulty dealing with what happened to H.G. and what H.P.A.G. had observed and been required to participate in.

[507] To this day, it would appear that H.P.A.G. is unwilling or unable to discuss what she observed and what she was required to participate in.

[508] There is a reality that cannot be ignored. H.G. and H.P.A.G. have a special bond to one another. That bond is as a result of the fact that they are biological siblings. They have lost their mother. H.G. was too young to remember his mother but H.P.A.G. certainly was not.

[509] The loss of their mother at an early age, clearly would have an impact on these children.

[510] They remained living with their father on his own for approximately one and a half years following their mother’s death.

[511] Then, he began the relationship and began cohabiting with the respondent’s step-mother.

[512] The children have not only had to go through the loss of their mother and, an adjustment to being parented by a single parent father. Then, they are introduced into a family constellation that involves all of the respondent mother’s children. That adjustment would be difficult for any child, let alone children who had gone through the death of their mother.

[513] The introduction of J.B. to the family constellation on a primary residence basis was a further adjustment that they had to incur.

[514] Then, came the birth of another child Z.G. The respondent mother believes that this caused problems for H.G. and that due to jealousy or lack of attention by the respondent mother, H.G. began to have even more behavioural problems than before.

[515] Based on the evidence of the therapist who has been seeing each of these children for more than 30 sessions, there is no question that these children have been and still are severely negatively impacted by the treatment that H.G. had to endure and that his sister had to witness and partake in.

[516] There is also evidence that even recently, all things are not “rosy” with the respondent father and the children who remain in the parent’s care. As a result of behavioural issues at school by one of the children, it was discovered that there was a major verbal altercation between the eldest child J.B. and the respondent father.

[517] Therefore, while the respondent parents have undoubtedly made progress, there are, still issues that arise. This is not surprising in a constellation of seven children, particularly where at least three of them have some behavioural issues and some special needs. The issues are exacerbated by the limited capacities of the respondent parents, particularly the respondent father, as evidenced by the PCA conducted by Dr. Amitay.

[518] The respondent parents’ solution is that H.G. and H.P.A.G. be returned to this constellation. They commit to ensuring that the restraint and corporal punishment that had occurred in the past will no longer occur.

[519] That is a laudable commitment. However, the case law clearly demonstrates that it is not enough on a summary judgment motion for parents to simply commit to “do better.” There must be evidence that they have made sufficient changes and are sufficiently capable to carry out those “good intentions.”

[520] However, the recent events with respect to J.B. and the respondent father demonstrate that there will be altercations within this family dynamic either between the parents and children or between siblings.

[521] The evidence is that H.G. continues to have some behavioural issues, both in his foster home and at school.

[522] The further evidence is that H.G. does much better when he has one on one supervision. Currently he is in a foster home with his sister H.P.A.G.

[523] The reality is that with a family of nine children, even if there were no behavioural issues and no special needs with any of the children, it is not possible to have one on one supervision or guidance. The respondent mother’s proposal is that the Society should provide 24/7 supervision. This is not a realistic expectation.

[524] The respondent mother (to her credit) even suggests in her November 2017 affidavit that if the Society is not able to provide in-home supports as suggested by her, that it is in H.G.’s best interest that he be cared for by a family who can provide for him and if possible the family provide one on one supervision. She further acknowledges that it is not in the best interests of H.G. and H.P.A.G. to separate them.

[525] The timelines for children to be in foster care have now been virtually exceeded.

[526] This court is of the firm view that nothing will be accomplished by having a trial.

[527] A trial will lead to a further delay of at least one year if not longer. As indicated, there is nothing before this court that indicates that additional evidence would be provided at a trial that was not available to this court so far as the material facts are concerned.

[528] The damage to H.G. has been done. The damage to H.P.A.G. has been done.

[529] Dr. Amitay expresses concern that if H.G. were not returned to be with the respondent mother and respondent father but H.P.A.G. was, that she may then become the next “target” (the court’s term). This, combined with the obvious emotional damage that H.P.A.G. has endured (as evidenced by Ms. Deschambault) is sufficient reason to not return H.P.A.G. to the respondent mother and respondent father either.

[530] The question now becomes what is in these children’s best interest and clearly it is not in this court’s opinion to put them back into a situation whereby despite the gains made by the parents and despite the promises made by the parents, the dynamic indicates that this would be a recipe for disaster.

[531] This court notes that not only the children’s lawyer representing H.G. and H.P.A.G. support the Society in the summary judgment motion. What is telling for this court is that the OCL for the remaining children (save and except the two youngest who are not represented) also supports that result.

[532] These children need finality and they need the opportunity to move forward with their lives.

[533] Due to the damage that has been done to these children, this is not a case where they can be protected through return to the respondent mother and respondent father and a supervision Order.

[534] There are no relatives/alternative placements proposed by the respondent mother or respondent father.

[535] This court therefore has absolutely no difficulty coming to the conclusion that there is no genuine issue for trial and that the children should be placed in extended Society care.

[536] The onus with respect to access, then shifts to the respondent parents to demonstrate that access to them is in the best interest of these children.

[537] The evidence discloses that the children have benefited from sibling access and that the children wish to continue to have a relationship of some sort with their step-siblings and half-siblings through access. It is proposed by the Society that this access would occur at holidays and special occasions.

[538] This court finds that would be in the best interest of all of these children.

[539] However, there is no evidence that access to the respondent father and the respondent step-mother is in these children’s best interest.

[540] The respondents claim that as a result of the Society not arranging for frequent access between the respondent parents and these two children the respondent parents have not had an opportunity to demonstrate that access would be in these children’s best interest.

[541] There is no question that there has only been limited access by the respondent parents to H.G. and H.P.A.G. In fact, most of the access visits have been either therapeutic or have been as a result of the Parenting Capacity Assessment.

[542] That having been said, the reality is that until 2017, the criminal charges remained outstanding and access was problematic for that reason. The court also notes that the respondent parents did not immediately admit their wrong doing and “come clean.” Their initial interviews demonstrate that they were still at that point minimizing the actions they had taken. Further, they did not immediately, and it is questionable if, even now, they have fully appreciated the damage they have done to these two children. At least initially, they tried to justify their behaviour by blaming H.G. for the need for their extreme actions. They seem to have little, if any, appreciation for the fact that this was a four year old child who had lost his mother, who had some behavioural issues and who was thrust into a family constellation with five other children (some of whom had their own behavioural issues) and then was introduced to a new baby sibling.

[543] During the access visits that did take place, there is nothing to indicate that this was beneficial to the children. There is little, if any, affection shown by either parent to the children and as noted by Dr. Amitay, the relationship is as if the children were interacting with someone they had met once or twice, which does not indicate a relationship beneficial to the children.

[544] The respondent parents have not, in the opinion of this court, met the onus on them to prove that access is in the best interest of H.G. and H.P.A.G. and therefore an Order will be made that there will be extended Society care without access.

[545] The respondents’ counsel have done an admirable job of presenting the best possible case for the respondents. They have alleged, although the parents agreed to the Statement of Agreed Facts, to support a plea in the criminal proceedings; that they felt pressured into agreeing to some facts that were untrue and inaccurate. This court notes that the respondents had criminal counsel at the time that they agreed to that SAF. Further, there obviously was a concession made by the Crown in that the assault charges were withdrawn. There was a resolution with respect to sentence which resulted in a suspended sentence for the respondent parents. There is no suggestion that the respondent parents have attempted to set aside their plea of guilty or that they have in the criminal proceedings done anything to indicate that they misrepresented “the facts.” This court therefore is prepared to rely on the Statement of Agreed Facts. There is no suggestion by the respondents’ counsel that if the trial were held, that there would be any evidence which the court would find credible to indicate that the admissions in that SAF were not accurate.

[546] The case law is clear that once the applicant has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, the onus is on the respondents to put their best foot forward.

[547] The respondents alleged that the Society has not acted reasonably in this case.

[548] The court finds that the evidence supports the contrary conclusion.

[549] The Society was faced with a situation whereby there was clear evidence of extreme abuse of H.G., particularly with respect to the restraint that had been placed on him.

[550] The Society took the position, initially, that all children should be apprehended and placed in foster care.

[551] Although the parents suggested that there may be some type of kin placement that never materialized, no viable kin placements were put forward on behalf of the respondent parents.

[552] The Society ensured that supports were in place for the parents and, within five months had arranged for all of the children to be returned to the parent’s care save and except H.G. and H.P.A.G.

[553] Even though the respondent parents were not forthcoming and did not disclose the respondent mother’s pregnancy and the birth of A.G., the Society acted reasonably and did not apprehend A.G.

[554] In recent months, as a result of a severe verbal altercation between the respondent father and J.B., there was a negative impact on M.B. Once again, the respondent parents were not forthcoming in disclosing that information to the Society.

[555] The Society however, did not act precipitously and did not seek to alter the current status quo by suggesting an apprehension of any of the children.

[556] All of the actions by the Society are viewed by this court as being very reasonable.

[557] The respondent mother suggested that the Society should have placed H.G. in a home with many foster children to provide a much better opportunity for observations of the child in that milieu. How possibly is that in the child’s best interest when the respondent acknowledges that this child functions much better in a one to one supervision ratio?

[558] To her credit, in 2015, prior to the apprehension, the respondent mother did reach out for some help while recognizing that she and the respondent father were not able to cope with the behavioural issues of H.G. However, she did not actively pursue that and instead took the totally inappropriate actions referred to in this decision.

[559] I find that it is in the interest of justice for the court to determine this case summarily. This process allows the court to make the necessary findings of fact and to apply the law to the facts. It is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result. The summary judgment process allows the court to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute. I reach these conclusions for the reasons set out above.

Finding

[560] As a result of the evidence received and the analysis done above, this court makes the following findings:

(a) the court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before it to find, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial;

(b) the court further finds that in accordance with section 101 of the CYFSA, the children H.G. and H.P.A.G. shall be placed in extended Society care;

(c) the court further finds that in accordance with section 105 of the CYFSA, that the court is not satisfied that it would be in the children’s best interest to have access with the respondent parents;

(d) the court has taken into account the provisions of section 74(3) of the CYFSA in making the determination with respect to the best interests of H.G. and H.P.A.G.;

(e) in particular, so far as they can be determined, the court finds that neither child has indicated a credible view or wish to have access with the respondent parents. As referred to elsewhere in this decision, the court is particularly moved by the evidence of Ms. Deschambault. Her evidence indicates that the effect on both children, but particularly H.P.A.G. continues to have such a traumatic effect that she is still really unable to discuss the impact that thereof;

(f) in examining the criteria in 74(3) (c), the court has taken into account in particular the criteria set out in subparagraphs (i) (ii) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) and (xi);

(g) in examining each of these criterion, the court finds that none leads to a conclusion other than the best interests of these children are to be placed in extended Society care with no access to the respondent parents; and

(h) given the fact that they have been in Society care now for two years, and given all of the factors set out in this decision, with the court having concluded that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, and having concluded that access with the respondent parents would not be in either of the children’s best interests, the children are entitled to finality in these proceedings.

[561] Based on all of the above, there will be an Order to go as follows:

Having been found to be children “in need of protection” by Statement of Agreed Facts dated February 12, 2018 that the children H.G., born […], 2011 and H.P.A.G., born […], 2007 be placed in “extended Society care” (formerly Crown wardship) pursuant to section 101(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.
That there is no access by either of these children to either parent and there is no access by either parent to these children.
All efforts shall be made to find a placement for H.G. and H.P.A.G. together.
Failing placement together, that H.G. shall have regular access to H.P.A.G. as may be arranged between their foster families in consultation with the Society (pursuant to section 105(5), (6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.
Failing placement together, that H.P.A.G. shall have regular access to H.G. as may be arranged between their foster families in consultation with the Society (pursuant to section 105(5), (6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017).
That each of H.G. and H.P.A.G. shall have access to J.B., born […], 2002, A.B., born […], 2005, E.W., born […], 2007, M.B., born […], 2010, B.B., born June 14, 2011, Z.G., born […], 2015, A.G., born […], 2017 (or any combination of such children) two times per year supervised by the Society or in a manner approved by the Society as to durations and at locations as approved by the Society (pursuant to section 105(5), (6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017.
The respondent parents shall make reasonable efforts to cooperate with Society personnel in facilitating the access visits referred to in the paragraph above.
In addition, such access shall include periodic communication in the form of cards, letters, drawing and photographs between the children (or any of them) with such communication being vetted by, and facilitated by the Society on an ongoing basis.

Justice R.T. Bennett

Date: July 6, 2018