COURT FILE NO.: C369/08

DATE: 20191010

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

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

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

B. Lescheid, for the CAS

Applicant

• and -

M.-M.-K.P. and D.R. and Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida Nation of the Thames

C. Johnson, for Walpole Island First Nation; Y. Lunham, for Oneida Nation of the Thames; L. Blokker, for D.R.

Respondents

HEARD: August 9, 2019

WARNING

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87(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

TEMPLETON J.

[1] The Applicant seeks a summary judgment placing the children H.W.P. born […], 2018 and K.W.P. born […], 2018 into the extended care of the Applicant pursuant to s. 101(1).3 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the CYFSA).

[2] The Respondents Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida Nation of the Thames support the Application.

[3] D.R., D.R., is opposed to the Application.

[4] M.-M.-K.P., M.-M.-K.P., did not appear or participate in the proceedings. The requirement of service on her was dispensed by the Court on March 11, 2019.

The Law with respect to this Application

[5] The rules for a summary judgment procedure and the test to be applied are well established in the Family Law Rules:

When Available

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

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.

Evidence Required

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

Evidence Of Responding Party

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

Evidence Not From Personal Knowledge

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

No Genuine Issue For Trial

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

Powers

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

1. Weighing the evidence.

2. Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.

3. Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence.

Oral Evidence (Mini-Trial)

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

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, in addition to exercising a power listed in subrule 1 (7.2),

(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);

(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).

[6] The Ontario Court of Appeal has also recently provided additional guidance with respect to motions for summary judgment initiated by a child protective service. In Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, the Court wrote as follows:

The courts should be especially mindful of the reality and material circumstances of those subject to child protection proceedings…

The cautious approach to summary judgment in child protection has long been recognized by lower courts and by this court: see Children’s Aid Society of Halton (Region) v. A. (K.L.) (2006), 2006 CanLII 33538 (ON CA), 216 O.A.C. 148 (C.A.).

The child protection jurisprudence has crafted an approach to the fair and just determination of issues using summary judgment motions by recognizing that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants. The jurisprudence reflects an approach to the genuine issue “for trial” or “requiring trial” analysis that incorporates these considerations. Following the release of Hryniak, the courts have taken its fairness principles and adapted them to the cautionary approach needed in child protection. As Zisman J. said in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v C.J.W., 2017 ONCJ 212, at paras. 66-67:

In assessing whether or not a society has met its obligation of showing there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, courts have equated that phrase with “no chance of success”, “when the outcome is a foregone conclusion”, “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed”, and “where there is no realistic possibility of an outcome other than that sought by the applicant”.

Summary judgment should proceed with caution.

McDermot J. made similar comments in F. v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth & Family Services, 2017 ONSC 5402, at paras. 21-23:

In family law matters summary judgment shall be granted under Rule 16(6) of the Family Law Rules where there is “no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence”.

[7] Further, the Court observed,

[P]ursuant to s. 90 of the new CYFSA, the court in a child protection proceeding is required to determine if the child is First Nations, Métis or Inuit. This finding, which must be made before the court determines whether the child is in need of protection, is important because it ushers in a series of special considerations including the provision of services and decisions that recognize the importance of the child’s culture, heritage, and connection to community.

[8] And finally, the Court wrote the following,

To summarize and clarify the approach that the courts should take to summary judgment in child protection proceedings, I set out the following:

1. Hryniak’s fairness principles for summary judgment must be applied recognizing the distinctive features of a child protection proceeding. In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial the court must exercise caution and apply the objectives of the CYFSA including the best interests of the child.

2. The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment. Although, r. 16(4.1) sets out the obligation of the respondent to the motion to provide “in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence does not establish a genuine issue for trial, the court must still be satisfied on the evidence before it that the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

3. The court must conduct a careful screening of the evidence to eliminate inadmissible evidence. The court should not give weight to evidence on a summary judgment motion that would be inadmissible at trial.

4. Judicial assistance must be provided for self-represented litigants. In particular, judges must engage in managing the matter and must provide assistance in accordance with the principles set out in the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.

5. The special considerations that apply to Indigenous children must be part of every decision involving Indigenous children.

[9] What then would be the considerations to be addressed by the parties and the Court at a trial in circumstances such as these where the children have been found to be in need of protection and have been identified as Indigenous? Section 74(3) of the CYFSA delineates the factors the Court must consider:

Best interests of child

(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

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(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.

[10] With respect to First Nations, Inuk or Métis children, the CYFSA requires the following

First Nations, Inuk or Métis child

(5) Where the child referred to in subsection (4) is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child with a member of the child’s extended family if it is possible or, if it is not possible,

(a) in the case of a First Nations child, another First Nations family;

(b) in the case of an Inuk child, another Inuit family; or

(c) in the case of a Métis child, another Métis family.

The Evidence

[11] The evidence in this case consists of numerous Affidavits filed on behalf of the Applicant and an Affidavit filed by D.R. The substance of the relevant evidence contained in these Affidavits is as follows:

[12] On February 18, 2018 a social worker from the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre (“EMDC”) contacted the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (“the Society”) to report that M.-M.-K.P. who was twenty weeks pregnant with twins and an inmate at EMDC, was expected to be detained in custody.

[13] M.-M.-K.P. was known to the Society as a result of intervention required for three previous children born to her. The two older children of the three had been apprehended and in or about 2014 and placed with their paternal great-grandparents who are now their custodial parents. A third child had been apprehended and made a Crown Ward (as the term then was) in 2013. That child was then adopted. M.-M.-K.P. had not parented any of her children since approximately 2009.

[14] On May 7, 2018, M.-M.-K.P. informed Society workers that she was scheduled to be induced the following week. She also told the workers that she had been unable to reach the father of her babies, so was unsure of his plans with respect to caring for the children after their birth. She indicated that D.R., D.R., did not “do drugs” but he did use alcohol. His apartment had been the “party” apartment and she had used drugs when she was there. M.-M.-K.P. was addicted to non-prescription drugs and was also HIV positive.

[15] On May 17, 2018 M.-M.-K.P. was released from custody on bail while facing a charge of robbery and on […], 2018, prematurely gave birth to her twin sons H.W.P. (“H”) and K.W.P. (“K”).

[16] As indicated, the father of these children is D.R. It is his evidence that he was in a relationship with M.-M.-K.P. between April 12, 2013 and April 15, 2019.

[17] After their birth, H. and K. were able to breathe on their own but each required a feeding tube and donor breast milk. In addition, they were jaundiced, required increased dosages of morphine to cope with the drug withdrawal symptoms, needed antibiotics as and three preventative HIV medications. One of the twins ultimately tested positive for HIV.

[18] On May 22, 2018 Amanda Salter, a child protection supervisor met with M.-M.-K.P. and D.R. at the hospital. D.R. indicated that he was in receipt of ODSP[^1] and living in a one-bedroom apartment. M.-M.-K.P. was unsure if she could live with D.R. due to her conditions of release from detention. She had been arrested for robbery at the convenience store located below D.R.’s apartment.

[19] During this meeting, Ms. Salter discussed the need for M.-M.-K.P. to develop a treatment plan for her addiction. M.-M.-K.P.’s positive HIV status was recognized as a complicating factor in this regard[^2].

[20] On May 25, 2018 Ms. Salter, another worker from the Society and a Band Representative went to D.R.’s home as had been arranged on May 22, 2019. The purpose of the meeting was to have further discussions with D.R. about the children and to ensure that he was able to offer a suitable environment for them.

[21] According to Ms. Salter’s evidence, she found D.R.’s apartment to smell strongly of smoke, the carpets stained and the floors and counters covered with dirt. Further, she found numerous dead and live cockroaches on both the floors and counters. Ms. Salter pointed these negative conditions out to D.R. who then indicated that he was looking for a two-bedroom apartment to move into.

[22] D.R. apparently also indicated the following to her at that time:

• that he was on ODSP by reason of a disability caused by facial fractures sustained during assaults by police;

• that he had experienced wrongful convictions, police corruption and arbitrary detention during the prior fifteen years;

• that he did not have status but the police had labelled him as Walpole during his encounters and wrongful convictions;

• that he would be open to the Walpole Band taking him on as he got along with a lot of different Bands;

• that he had fought for the rights of the Indigenous people and described himself as “the Canadian race; a race of 35 shades”;

• that he had never parented before but was looking forward to it and would seek advice from others including his neighbours and people at church;

• that the twins would be best cared for by him and that deaths had occurred in the presence of police but never in his presence;

• that he had survived several murder attempts so was not afraid of parenting the twins;

• that he had no experience with the babies’ medical needs;

• that due to an incident involving police corruption and police assaulting students, he was unable to continue as a university student at Western University;

• that he was very skillful and would invent a way to look after the twins; that he had skills that had not even been invented yet;

• that M.-M.-K.P. was taking prescribed medication so she did not have an addiction;

• that traffic was a bigger risk to the children than the second-hand smoke in his apartment;

• that there was no issue with the presence of cockroaches as they did not bite so could not transfer disease.

[23] It is D.R.’s evidence that Ms. Salter’s description of the condition of his apartment is a gross exaggeration with respect to the presence of “numerous” cockroaches throughout the residence on the floor and the counters. He agrees that the apartment was at times untidy and needed cleaning because it was just himself and Respondent mother who were living there at the time. On the other hand, if the children were going to live with him, he would keep his residence cleaner and tidier. From his perspective, the original complaint of the Society regarding his apartment concerned only the dust on the ceiling fan. The cockroaches had been a problem in the neighbourhood and the landlord was dealing with the issue. In any event, although they (the cockroaches) were unpleasant they did not pose any real danger of physical harm or spread on infection.

[24] It is further D.R.’s evidence that Ms. Salter has twisted his words in an attempt to paint him as delusional. During their conversation, he was simply trying to tell her that (a) he knew that there would be challenges raising two infants with special needs but he had faced tough challenges before and he was skillful at other things; and (b) he had confidence that he was capable of learning new skills that he did not yet have to look after the children and their needs.

[25] Later that same day, the Society sought and obtained a Warrant to apprehend the children.

[26] Ms. Salter next met with D.R. at the hospital where the babies were still undergoing treatment. D.R. told her that he did not know where M.-M.-K.P. was. According to Ms. Salter, he again dismissed the concerns of the Society regarding the condition of his home and alleged discrimination by the Society against him. It was his view that the only concern about his home had been the dust on the ceiling fan.

[27] During this conversation, D.R. also confirmed his opinion that M.-M.-K.P. did not have an addiction issue and was not actively “using” because she had a prescription. He then started to discuss religion, the oppression of the Indigenous people and also indicated that someone named “Ryan” had won an Oscar for a movie that he (Respondent father) had written.

[28] When Ms. Salter spoke to D.R. about the need for parenting education, he indicated that he had taken developmental psychology at Western twenty years ago, while in his second year as a student.

[29] Ms. Salter then explained to D.R. that the children were going to be apprehended by the Society.

[30] On May 29, 2018, Ms. Salter spoke to M.-M.-K.P. by telephone. M.-M.-K.P. told her that she had ended her relationship with D.R.; that she thought that D.R. would have cleaned up the apartment given that she was no longer there; that the apartment had been sprayed three times due to the infestation of cockroaches; that she was not on Methadone for her addiction but had obtained a prescription for Dilaudid; that she had used non-prescription drugs once after the birth of the babies (when the twins were two days old); that, in her view, the Society’s opinion that she could not parent the twins was based on the fact that she no longer loved D.R.

[31] On the basis of information received from the hospital regarding the need for supervision of both M.-M.-K.P. and D.R. who had visited the children at the hospital, the Society executed the Warrant on May 31, 2018.

[32] Upon learning of the apprehension of the children when he arrived at the hospital and the requirement that his visits with the children thereafter be supervised, D.R. alleged fraud by the Society and the violation of his human rights. He denied having been made aware of any concerns regarding his home other than ceiling (fan) dust and expressed the opinion that Ms. Salter was somehow personally benefitting from the current circumstances. Upon being told of the first Court date, D.R. responded that this date was inconvenient to his schedule.

[33] Ms. Salter has deposed that she then encouraged D.R. to obtain legal advice.

[34] M.-M.-K.P. contacted Ms. Salter the following day and arrangements were made for her to see the children that afternoon at the hospital.

[35] On June 5, 2018 Mr. Justice Mitrow signed an Order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with supervised access by the parents at the discretion of the Society.

[36] On June 13, 2018, the children were discharged from hospital and placed in a foster home where they remain to date. Prior to their discharge, however, Ms. Salter met with D.R. once more at the hospital. He indicated to her that he would be unable to co-parent with M.-M.-K.P. , again alleged that the Society had committed fraud in obtaining the Warrant and accused the Society of lying about the children being addicted to crack at birth.

[37] According to Ms. Salter, D.R. also reiterated his allegations regarding police corruption during this discussion and told her that “only a few would survive”. He stated that he and M.-M.-K.P. and the babies had survived two murder attempts already.

[38] M.-M.-K.P. then arrived at the hospital at which time D.R. accused her of stealing his phone to buy street drugs and told her that he would be pressing criminal charges. M.-M.-K.P. proceeded to pick up one of the babies and in a child-like voice said that it didn’t matter, “jail would only be thirty days”. D.R. told M.-M.-K.P. that she was not welcome to return to his home.

[39] During this meeting, M.-M.-K.P. apparently had to be reminded regularly to support the baby’s neck and head while she was holding him. Toward the end of the meeting, M.-M.-K.P. told Ms. Salter that she had run out of her prescription early and on learning she had no refills while experiencing symptoms of withdrawal, had purchased street drugs so that she could attend access with her sons. Her doctor had refused to provide her with a refill because she had used street drugs.

[40] At the conclusion of this meeting, arrangements were made for and with both parents to visit their children on June 15, 2018.

[41] On June 15, 2018 Ms. Salter learned that M.-M.-K.P. had been arrested and charged with the failure to abide by a Court order as a result of which she had been detained. Ms. Salter and a colleague went to pick D.R. up so that he could see his children.

[42] Ms. Salter has deposed that during the ride in the car, D.R. spoke at length about police corruption and jumped from one topic to another. He alleged that Kathleen Wynne, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper had all resigned because of his (D.R.’s) sponsorship scandal that had killed 2.3 million people between 2004 and 2006. He also told them that he had written the movie “Crash” and had created the game show called “Survivor” but had only received $1000 from CBC.

[43] D.R. also confirmed his lack of consent to the children being taken into care by the Society and told them that there should be a hearing. Ms. Salter reminded D.R. that he had been present in Court when the case had been adjourned to July 19, 2018. When encouraged by Ms. Salter to follow up with a lawyer, D.R. told her that his lawyer had ‘quit’ because of a conflict of interest due to the sponsorship scandal.

[44] After the visit with the babies, D.R. refused to sign a document acknowledging his receipt of the rules and expectations with respect to the Society’s supervised access program. He again indicated that he did not consent to the children being in the care of the Society and then turned the conversation to politics and told Ms. Salter that he had started the Green Party.

[45] On June 28, 2018 D.R. accompanied Ms. Salter to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto where a medical appointment had been arranged for the children. Based on a medical assessment, it had been determined that both children continued to experience jitters and tremors from withdrawal and continued to require one dose (for one child) per day and three doses (for the other child) per day of morphine. Further, one of the children would need to be tested for HIV every month for six months.

[46] Over the course of the next few months, concerns remained about the condition of D.R.’s home and M.-M.-K.P.’s ability to sustain a drug-free lifestyle. During one meeting, neither parent appeared to understand the different medications the children required or why. According to Ms. Salter, there also appeared to be significant conflict between D.R. and M.-M.-K.P. during joint access in response to which, the Society decided to arrange for individual access to the children for each parent.

[47] In his evidence, D.R. has stated that he recognized the Society’s concerns about exposure to the children of any tension between him and M.-M.-K.P. but in his view, he and M.-M.-K.P. had displayed less tension in front of the babies than other adults in contact with them such as nurses or staff.

[48] Despite each parent apparently having been given a calendar setting out the appointments for the children for the month of July and having been specifically informed of a medical appointment for the children on July 10, 2018, neither parent attended this appointment.

[49] On July 11, 2018 M.-M.-K.P. also failed to attend a pre-arranged meeting with Ms. Salter. On July 18, 2018 Ms. Salter learned that M.-M.-K.P. had been arrested after allegedly breaching a Court order. It is unclear in the evidence whether this was the same breach as mentioned earlier.

[50] Sometime thereafter, Ms. Salter received an email from D.R. indicating that he would like to attend the medical appointments that had been arranged for the children to take place on July 25 and July 30, 2018.

[51] It is Ms. Salter’s evidence that in his email, D.R. further wrote, “I’m aware that they are in custody due to acts of fraud and corruption and that the former provincial premier resigned (or quit the race) over it. I can work with doctors well because we understand science and physical reality, as opposed to conjecture, sophistry, speculation and lies.”

[52] D.R. did not appear for the appointment on July 25th.

[53] During a subsequent conversation with Ms. Salter, D.R. expressed the view that his visits with the boys were going well and that he did not need any parenting education. He did indicate, however, that he may be interested in reading some literature in this regard.

[54] On July 27, 2018 Ms. Salter spoke to D.R. and told him that she had obtained train tickets for him to attend the boys’ medical appointment in Toronto on July 30, 2018. D.R. had previously indicated that he would appreciate her assistance with respect to transportation. Ms. Salter delivered the tickets to D.R. and confirmed the departure times. On July 30, however, he did not appear. Ms. Salter tried to reach him by telephone but repeatedly received a recorded message indicating that the number dialed was unavailable.

[55] On August 3, 2018, Ms. Salter spoke to D.R. M.-M.-K.P. was still in jail at the time. D.R. indicated that he had slept in and missed the train due to a disturbance in his neighbourhood the night before.

[56] Thereafter, Ms. Salter notified D.R. by email with respect to when and where he could next see the children. She also suggested a meeting at his home on August 8, 2018.

[57] According to Ms. Salter, D.R. responded with an indication that M.-M.-K.P. had had two “botched” Court appearances; and, further wrote as follows:

since experienced members of the courts [were] becoming confused, I intend to err (if at all) on the side of: presumption of innocence. I will allow M.-M.-K.P. to continue residing with me (as she chooses). My sons deserve the love of parents; you cannot provide it. My sons deserve reasonable security of the person; your record is far worse than mine (i.e. 0 dead..0!!). 0 accidents in the workplace, 0 natural disasters. The boys are safer with me than the national average…even if I offer tobacco out of doors. Pertinent to tobacco, legislation, I maintain the rights of indigenous people’s medicine.- instrumentation, as it measures wind, - in art, signaling, dibijmoan (sic). -traditional ‘disaster response’ and ‘survival skills that do not die off’. Bring a video device to view the apartment, you will have editorial rights (or liability) for those copies and what evidence you intend to present. Pleas (sic), show the photos to M.-M.-K.P., ask if it meets our immediate needs.

[58] On August 8, 2018, Ms. Salter and co-worker met with D.R. in the parking lot of the apartment building where he lived. According to Ms. Salter, he suggested that they videotape their visit. In his evidence, D.R. agrees that he suggested that the inspection be videotaped but that Ms. Salter declined to do so.

[59] According to Ms. Salter, immediately on entry into the apartment, she detected an unpleasant odour. The apartment appeared to be in the same or similar condition as when she had previously attended.

[60] Contrary to Ms. Salter’s belief that he had not addressed the cleaning issues, it is D.R.’s evidence that he had cleaned both his home and the carpets prior to their attendance. In his view, his home was cleaner than when they had previously visited.

[61] Ms. Salter has deposed that while she was there, D.R. began to rant about police corruption and stated that two premiers had now resigned because of M.-M.-K.P.’s arrest. She reminded him that M.-M.-K.P. was not permitted to live with him due to her bail conditions and that if she went to his home, she would be arrested again.

[62] In response, D.R. apparently then “escalated”, yelled at her, called her a liar and claimed that she was violating s. 7 rights. He further alleged that she was threatening to arrest M.-M.-K.P. and that this was a criminal offence. He pointed his finger in her face and positioned himself such that he was blocking her path to the door. He then asked her to leave for being a liar.

[63] According to Ms. Salter, as she was leaving, she saw a cockroach crawling up the inside of the doorframe. D.R. told her that he only spoke the truth, referred to police corruption and accused Ms. Salter of being a liar, aggressive and engaged in criminal activity.

[64] When asked if he would participate in a mental health assessment, D.R. indicated that he had already done so, having sustained fractures in his face as a result of police brutality in the past. When Ms. Salter gave him the contact information for the Regional Mental Health Centre, he replied that he believed that she (Ms. Salter) was the one who needed a mental health assessment as it was she who was causing crimes and violating codes.

[65] D.R. asked Ms. Salter if his apartment was alright but on learning of her ongoing concerns regarding its condition, D.R. appeared unable to control himself such that as Ms. Salter and her co-worker moved toward the elevator, he followed them yelling and accusing Ms. Salter of causing crimes against Canada.

[66] In response to a subsequent update from a Society worker regarding a medical appointment for the children that D.R. had missed, D.R. replied that he had a legal right to attend the appointments and he had now missed two appointments because he had not been informed of them. He also indicated the following

Of my medical records those with fractures to the nasal bones, nasal septum and zygomatic arch are factual: doctors can. verify it. The cause of injury is not a mental health issue that I personally suffer from. There’s (sic) hundreds of public witnesses whom (sic) came forward through media and through science, too many to fit in court. Acquaintances of mine have shown symptoms of shock, sometimes denial about the cause of injury. I’m encouraged through verifiable science. Fifteen years ago, some nurse’s (sic) wept, while I talked calmly with a doctor. We support human rights, no exceptions. I’ve survived some violence doing so. We’ve an (sic) higher rate of survival helping each other. est facta. Better intelligence doesn’t always mean better choices, only less accident. My love for my son’s (sic) is also affecting life in them, even on an (sic) hospital or prison visiting schedule. The threat: the source of harm to my sons, is exactly the same as threat (sic) to their mother. It has the same source: it has the same cure. The results we will have are always better than were threatened against us. M.-M.-K.P. has been coming to me sick, getting healthy through foo, sleep similarly she recovers while incarcerated. She always recovers with medicinal prescription, physically and mentally. We practice pasteurization at home and have access to lighters. We care; we spread the word not the disease. I’ll talk with H. about it, although he is the youngest, nursing student ever, and like most won’t quite know what we’re saying, he will eventually know how to defeat disease. he will know how to keep clean and protect others. H. lives! He’s alert, enthusiastic, till tired, then sleeps well in my short care. I’m asking if natural air and health diet can be improved?

[67] After a visit with his sons on August 31, 2018 D.R. met with Ms. Salter and a Society crisis intervention specialist but D.R. could not be calmed and left the meeting.

[68] It is D.R.’s evidence that M.-M.-K.P. pleaded guilty to robbery in September 2018. She was sentenced to a period of time in jail. She was also prohibited from attending the building where the store and D.R.’s apartment were located.

[69] On September 28, 2018 D.R. exercised access to his sons. There is evidence from the supervisor that during this visit, D.R. disclosed to the supervisor that he was homeless but that if he had received the restitution worth $3 million that he had been owed since 2007, he would be financially set to raise the children. He then apparently indicated that in any event being homeless was not so bad. He had been homeless before when the police had accused him of public intoxication and had broken his cheek bone and nose.

[70] On September 20, 2018 D.R. attended a medical appointment that had been arranged for the twins. In response to the doctor’s observation that the baby H. did not appear to be eating well, D.R. indicated that H. had always been that way and speculated that the baby might be depressed.

[71] On October 3, 2018 Ms. Salter attempted to confirm with D.R. by telephone, the accuracy of the information she had received that he (D.R.) had been evicted from his apartment. Ms. Salter asked D.R. for his new address to give to the volunteer driver. D.R. told her that he had already done so and hung up. Ms. Salter called back and left a message about the next medical appointment for the children. D.R. attended that appointment and also disclosed his new address at that time.

[72] According to Ms. Salter, she provided D.R. with the details concerning the next appointment on October 4 but D.R. did not appear. It is his evidence that contrary to Ms. Salter’s recollection, he had, in fact, not been informed of this appointment and this was why he had missed this appointment.

[73] On October 12, 2018 D.R. exercised access and according to the supervisor talked intermittently about corruption, how people die in the care of the Society and how police kill people. He then declared that no one would ever die when he is around. While walking around feeding the baby H., D.R. talked to the child about how children have been systematically lied to and said that he (H.) should not trust anyone “personal liability” or ever believe police officers.

[74] On October 16, 2018 in responding by way of email to the medical update arising from the appointment he had missed, D.R. wrote as follows:

Again, I wasn’t informed of the doctor’s appointment. I was going to suggest it after tomorrow’s visit, because of S.’s refusal to provide food to H. and their unsound reasons (that if I fed him; he refused food from her. Which sounds like jealousy and guilt on her part.) Though you do not have to bear immediate liability for the sadistic and purjurious (sic) crimes of your coworkers, you do have an obligation to prevent it from continuing. If not, then other C.A.S. workers will be complicit through negligence. If you are actually part of the metoo movement: the prison violence against M.-M.-K.P. will not help you. My movies/scripts were never as valuable as the lives of those prisoners. The sadistic mass section 7 violations in Toronto 2005 were not successful in coercing my silence then. None of you yet have given sound or verifiable reason to take the babies. I am outraged and disgusted with Salter. Most of your coworkers appear to be ignorant in DENIAL and only half sane.

[75] Ms. Salter has deposed that due to increased concerns for the personal safety of staff in the face of escalating hostility and threatening behaviour displayed by D.R., the Society decided to change the location of D.R.’s access to the children from the Strathroy access program (where D.R. had been able to attend with the assistance of volunteer drivers) to the Society’s offices in London.

[76] On October 23, 2018 access for D.R. to the children was suspended by the Society until Ms. Salter had an opportunity to meet with D.R. on October 29th to review their concerns and discuss a new plan going forward. According to Ms. Salter, upon being advised of these concerns, D.R. alleged that the staff was lying. He denied that he was experiencing any mental health issues. On being told that he would be provided with bus tickets to attend the Society’s offices to see the children, D.R. expressed the view that the Society was asking a lot more of him in the result.

[77] The supervisor of D.R.’s visit with the children on October 31, 2018 has deposed that D.R. appeared to struggle caring for the children when they were in his care but when he was offered guidance, he was inconsistent in his feedback – at times accepting the guidance, at other times resistant and at yet other times ignoring suggestions altogether. He appeared to the supervisor to have difficulty focussing on the children and instead remained fixated on his conspiracy theory. In addition, he also apparently became very aggressive at times in his tone and demeanour, making it very uncomfortable for staff members to be able to safely address concerns.

[78] On November 1, 2018 the Society met with a maternal aunt of the children who had regularly visited the babies and clearly loved them. However, M.-M.-K.P.’s sister also confirmed her position that she would be unable to offer a fulltime or permanent plan for the children with the recognition that the responsibility would be too much for her. That aunt, like M.-M.-K.P. is Indigenous and a member of Walpole Island First Nation. When asked, the aunt was also unfortunately unable to identify any other family members who could care for the twins.

[79] There is evidence before the Court that on November 6, 2018, D.R. indicated to the supervisor of his visit with the children that he was both physically and mentally above average. He also indicated during a number of visits thereafter that the children had been taken into care because of a dirty ceiling fan.

[80] On November 15, 2018 Ms. Salter met with M.-M.-K.P. at the Detention Centre and discussed supports that M.-M.-K.P. would be able to access after her release on December 22, 2018.

[81] On December 4, 2018 Ms. Salter met with D.R. at which time they discussed the Society’s expectations with respect to housing and his participation in parenting education. According to Ms. Salter, D.R. responded that he was more educated than most Society employees.

[82] The expectation of a mental health assessment was also discussed. D.R. denied having any mental health issues and talked about government corruption. He did eventually agreed that he would search for an unbiassed doctor.

[83] On December 14, 2018 during another visit with the children, the supervisor suggested that D.R. wash his hands following a diaper change for both boys. According to the supervisor, D.R. replied that there was nothing infectious in urine and therefore chose not to wash his hands. He indicated that he would have washed his hands if there were any fecal matter in the diapers.

[84] On December 18, 2018 Ms. Salter met with D.R. after having met the week before with M.-M.-K.P. who was still incarcerated. D.R. indicated that upon her release, M.-M.-K.P. would be staying with him in a hotel as this would be better than a shelter.

[85] Notwithstanding an agreement that D.R. would contact Ms. Salter on December 27, 2018 so that she could take M.-M.-K.P. to her probation appointment, she neither heard from nor saw M.-M.-K.P. or D.R.

[86] On January 4, 2019 Ms. Salter met with D.R. at the Society’s office. He confirmed that he and M.-M.-K.P. were living together in a hotel but refused to disclose where.

[87] On January 18, 2019 D.R. exercised access to the children. During this visit, he told the supervisor that he had had cockroaches in his home and that having to move had quadrupled his expense. He also indicated that he would be initiating charges against the worker Ms. Salter and that he hoped that she did some prison time.

[88] According to Ms. Salter, on January 21, 2019 D.R. indicated to Ms. Salter that he and M.-M.-K.P. were staying at the Mission and that he had applied for subsidized housing. It is D.R.’s evidence that he did not stay at the Mission with M.-M.-K.P.

[89] Ms. Salter next saw D.R. on February 8, 2019 when he arrived at the Society’s office for a medical appointment for the boys prior to his access with them. D.R. indicated that he continued to live at the shelter after having spent $2000 for the hotel room. To date, he had been unsuccessful in his efforts to secure housing. That same day, D.R. signed or initialed two of three consent forms for the child K. to access a physiotherapy program through the Child and Parent Resource Institute (“CPRI”) in London.

[90] On February 19, 2018 D.R. arrived for access with the babies carrying a suitcase which he described as containing all the evidence to prove that Ms. Salter was guilty. During this conversation he also mentioned the Trudeau government and police coverup. He then asked the supervisor what her education and experience was. On being provided this information, D.R. told her that the only reason she was monitoring him was to see that he did not have any broken bones caused by the police. He went on to refer to the “Harper scandal” and police conspiracy and then resumed talking about the evidence he had that Ms. Salter had perjured herself and how this involved an injury caused by the police and the government.

[91] On February 26, 2019 D.R. exercised access to the children. The supervisor of this visit has deposed that when he arrived, he immediately began talking to the twins who were by then nine months old telling them that he had been doing a lot of paper work in order to “free” them from the Society. He made further comments to the supervisor about the Society staff being lying criminals. When the supervisor asked him to set aside the hour for visits with his children, D.R. questioned whether the supervisor wanted him to have a split personality and be someone else during the visits. At the end of the visit, he again spoke about the “illegal behaviour” of the Society.

[92] On the same day, Ms. Salter also met with D.R. again. He indicated to her that M.-M.-K.P. was not doing well and was in distress. Efforts had been made by Ms. Salter to locate M.-M.-K.P. including contacting M.-M.-K.P.’s sister, to no avail.

[93] According to Ms. Salter, D.R. presented as agitated during this meeting and then indicated that he was revoking his consent with respect to the treatment for K. D.R. appeared to Ms. Salter to be focussed on his belief that the disclosure information he had received was filled with lies about him. When Ms. Salter advised him that his belief in this regard was not relevant to the needs of the children, D.R. called her a liar following which he paced the lobby, obtained bus tickets from another staff member and left the building.

[94] According to Ms. Salter, on March 5, 2019 D.R. arrived for his access and when he saw Ms. Salter, he put the babies down and approached her and said that she could not be around the babies anymore due to her lies and crimes.

[95] On March 8, 2019 as a result of information she received, Ms. Salter went to the lobby of the Society’s building with security and found D.R. in a highly agitated state. It had been determined that due to his agitation, he was not able to appropriately participate in a visit with his children. According to Ms. Salter, D.R. appeared fixated on what he called ‘illegal crimes’ of the Society. At one point in time, he apparently stated that he knew Barack Obama had called the Society to report that what the Society was doing with the twins was wrong. At this time, D.R. also smelled strongly of what was thought to be marijuana. D.R. then left the building.

[96] On March 22, 2019, Mr. Justice Henderson found that these two children are First Nations children and that they identify with Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida of the Thames First Nation. Walpole Island First Nation was declared to be a proper party to the proceeding and Oneida Thames Nation was added as a party to the proceeding. A final order was issued to that effect.

[97] On April 9, 2019 Ms. Salter spoke with and told him about a medical appointment for the children prior to his scheduled visit. She suggested that he come early to attend the appointment and then exercise his access. D.R. thanked her but did not appear either for the appointment or for access.

[98] On April 26, 2019, Mr. Justice Mitrow made the statutory findings with respect to both children and further found on a final basis that they were in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the CYFSA.

[99] As of May 17, 2019 M.-M.-K.P. had not exercised access to the children since their discharge from the hospital in June 2018.

[100] As indicated above, in November 2018, the frequency of D.R.’s visits had to be reduced from three times a week to twice weekly due to the necessity of changing the location of the access to a more secure setting. It is Ms. Salter’s evidence that

• between November 2 and December 14, 2018, D.R. missed only one visit;

• between December 18, 2018 and May 3, 2019, out of approximately thirty-one (31) visits arranged for D.R., D.R. (a) was late by more than 15 minutes for three (3); cancelled two visits; and (c) failed to attend five (5) visits without notice to the Society; and

• between May 5 and May 31, 2019, D.R. missed two visits without notice or explanation.

[101] On May 27, 2019 Ms. Salter spoke to D.R. following his access to the children concerning a report she had received from the Society’s medical administrative assistant that D.R. had been seen using a cigarette lighter to remove a string from the baby H.’s undershirt. D.R. apparently acknowledged that he had done so. Upon being told that this was not appropriate, D.R. replied “Fuck you” in a raised voice and grew agitated to the extent that the Society’s security guard in the lobby had to intervene.

[102] The evidence of the Society at this hearing is that there are no other available and/or viable kinship placements for the children.

[103] In his reply Affidavit sworn May 30, 2019 D.R. deposed that he was, as of that date, continuing to look for accommodation. He has completed eight applications for housing but they have all been rejected.

[104] It is further his evidence that he has exercised his access regularly, that the children have come to know him as their father; that they share a deep and loving bond; that they are in good health and are able to stand, crawl and climb; that they are trying to talk; and, that he loves to teach them and watch them learn new things.

[105] D.R. denies being dismissive of Ms. Salter’s concerns or suggestions. It is his evidence that he was repeatedly misunderstood and misinformed by the Society and has been misrepresented in the evidence of Ms. Salter. While he looked for co-operation and assistance from Ms. Salter with respect to getting ready to care for the children, she appeared to be interfering with that process instead of helping.

[106] D.R. has deposed that he will put the well-being of the children as a priority over providing shelter to M.-M.-K.P.

The Position of the Applicant

[107] It is the position of the Society that on the basis of all of the evidence before the Court, there is no genuine issue for trial in this case. D.R. has significant housing, mental health and parenting issues all of which he has refused or declined to acknowledge or pursue in terms of treatment or training.

[108] It is further the position of the Society that ongoing access by D.R. is not in the best interests of the children by reason of the following additional factors:

• he has not adequately recognized the risk posed by M.-M.-K.P. to her children;

• he has repeatedly demonstrated lack of commitment to co-operation with the Society;

• safety issues during supervised access have not been addressed or resolved by D.R.;

• the children will have ongoing access to their heritage through their access with their maternal aunt.

• although it is clear that D.R. loves the children and has regularly attended for access in the past, the evidence before the Court does not support a finding that such access is meaningful and beneficial to the children themselves; and

• the evidence before the Court does not support a finding that the children’s access to D.R. provides a “significant positive advantage to the children”.

The Position of D.R.

[109] It is D.R.’s position that

• since the apprehension of his children he has exercised access on a frequent and consistent basis in a meaningful manner;

• his visits with his children have become an important part of his sons’ routine;

• his sons view him as a significant caregiver;

• the children are emotionally happy and excited when they see their father;

• the children display a desire to interact and connect with him on a physical and emotional level;

• the Society protection worker has focussed on political observations expressed by D.R. and erroneously claims that he is delusional because of this;

• he is child-focussed and understands the risks posed to the children by M.-M.-K.P.;

• he is in the process of obtaining housing in order to have the children in his care;

• through his conduct, he has demonstrated that the children can be adequately protected by a supervision order when placed in his care;

• he has insight into the needs of the children;

• he has demonstrated that he is willing and able to co-operate with the Society;

• a further six-month extension of interim Society care would permit him to secure suitable housing;

• this matter has to go to trial with respect to the issue of how the children’s First Nation heritage is going to be protected if they are in care. The plan of the Society in this regard needs to be explored in detail.

The Position of Walpole Island First Nation

[110] Counsel for Walpole Island First Nation submits that the materials speak for themselves. D.R. has encountered a difficult time with the children during access. The children have significant and meaningful contact with their mother’s sister, their maternal aunt who is First Nations.

[111] There is no probative evidence that D.R. has native status or would maintain the native status and relationship of the children.

[112] Both Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida Nation of the Thames will ensure that the children will maintain and have access to their heritage.

Analysis

[113] I have reviewed the evidence in detail above because I think it is important to understand the basis for the positions taken by the parties.

[114] Where the Affidavit evidence from the Society contained hearsay, that evidence was ignored save and except those portions referred to above that would be admissible solely to provide context to actions taken or statements made by D.R.

[115] The first issue to be decided on this Motion is whether there is a genuine issue for trial. The burden remains with the Society in this regard throughout the hearing

[116] It is significant to note, in my view, that the test is whether there is a genuine issue for trial. The test is not whether there is any issue.

[117] In my view, the Society has met the test. On the evidence before me, there is no genuine issue for trial.

[118] I have arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the entire evidentiary record before me some of which has been referred to above and save and except that evidence which is not admissible by virtue of the rule against hearsay.

[119] I also note that save and except in certain instances which I have described above, D.R. has not disputed the allegations about what he has said or written during the course of his relationship with the Society until May 2019.

[120] In my view there is sufficient evidence as disclosed in the Affidavits.

[121] I arrive at this conclusion for a variety of reasons:

(a) the physical, mental and emotional needs of each child. H. and K. were born prematurely with special medical needs. They remain dependent infants who require specialized and ongoing medical treatment and, in my view, focussed parental commitment and care to ensure that their needs are met. D.R. has consistently presented on multiple occasions during access as unfocussed, self-absorbed and unable to appreciate the vigilance required to ensure the safety and health of the children especially given their vulnerable and entirely dependent stage of development;

(b) the Respondents Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida Nation of the Thames are in complete agreement with the request of the Society and the plan of the Society. The children are First Nations by virtue of their mother. The Society has ensured that the contact between the children and their maternal aunt has been and will continuously be maintained. There is no probative evidence before me that D.R. is willing to or committed to developing a relationship with anyone involved in the cultural and linguistic heritage of the children let alone maintaining their cultural and linguistic heritage;

(c) in order for these or any children to reach their full potential, the development of a positive relationship with parent(s) and a secure place as a member of a family is essential. I am entirely satisfied that D.R. is neither capable or willing to provide that security. There is no doubt that he loves these children. But D.R. has repeatedly failed to continually focus on them and their needs in priority to his own. He is readily distracted away from concentrating on them to preoccupation with the injuries he alleges he has suffered, his antagonism toward the police, his antagonism toward the Society and his perceptions of how he has been wronged by state and governmental intervention;

(d) there is little probative evidence of the bonding necessary between the children and D.R. that would lead to the appropriate attachment. It is trite to say that children (especially at the age of these children before me) need more than love or playtime. D.R. suggests that his sons view him as a significant caregiver. I cannot agree. They may respond positively to him when he sees them but D.R.’s consistent verbal and emotional digression from the positive and supportive interaction the children require to ensure their healthy development undermines the connection with a parent that they require;

(e) D.R. has attended access on a fairly regular basis and, at times, there has been positive interaction between him and the children. But even in circumstances in which D.R. (i) has access to his sons that is limited in frequency and time; (ii) has been offered or provided with transportation; (iii) has no other dependents children; and, (iv) has no work commitments, D.R. has also missed a number of visits with his children. These children require a depth of continuity and commitment that D.R. is either not capable of or has chosen not to consistently prioritize in his personal life;

(f) the Society’s plan for these children including placement and openness with their maternal aunt is in the best interests of these children. After months, D.R. does not only not have an appropriate home for his children, he does not even have (at least as of the hearing) a home for himself. He is unable to offer the children either in the short or long term, the stability they so very much need. He asks the Court to delay the order sought so that he can find housing. But, firstly, he has had months to do so and has unfortunately been unsuccessful. Secondly, children cannot and do not wait. Their physical, emotional and medical needs are consistently immediate and urgent in view of their ages;

(g) these children are infants and of very tender years. After fifteen months of Society care, they deserve and have the right to a family life that offers them warmth, security, support, nurture and love. Any further delay would not, in my view, in the factual circumstances of this case, be in their best interests;

(h) the evidence is unequivocal in my view that the risk that these children not may but would suffer harm if they were placed in the care of either D.R. or M.-M.-K.P. would be substantial, if not inevitable. In D.R.’s care, the child K. has fallen off a couch (where D.R. placed him notwithstanding a warning by the supervisor that he not do so) and hit his head on the edge or a table. D.R. has used the flame of a lighter to remove string from the baby H.’s undershirt. In an attempt to play with the children, he has placed them in the situation where H. has fallen headfirst to the ground after rolling off D.R. and K. has fallen on top of H. In addition, it is also clear that D.R.’s understanding of appropriate personal and environment hygiene for the children is significantly deficient. These incidents may well be isolated and mistakes happen in all parenting of children but these types of mistakes are indicative of D.R.’s lack of skill with respect to the care and safety of the children. More importantly perhaps with respect to the impact of this shortfall is D.R.’s attitude in response – more particularly, he response to correction by Ms. Salter. His lack of awareness of his own shortcomings and needs renders the court incapable of trusting D.R.’s willingness or ability to keep the children safe;

(i) I am entirely satisfied that the degree of risk in this case that justified the finding that these children are in need of protection remains alive and well today.

[122] On all of the evidence before me, I find that D.R. is probably an intelligent and well- read man who has suffered a traumatic past but who is now appears unable to discern reality from fiction, support from control and/or empathy from authority. D.R. is an intense man whose presentation and word choice in communication engenders an impression of a reactive personality driven by resentment, anger and escalating behaviour in situations that involve a challenge to his ideas, opinions or thought process. His self-perception differs dramatically from the way others see or perceive him.

[123] If a parent is to be believed and/or considered as an appropriate caregiver for a dependent child, that parent’s profession of love and support for the child requires both implementation and commitment to action in response to the child’s needs, at least to the extent of that parent’s capability.

[124] It is in any child’s best interests to not only feel the love and care of a parent but to see it in action as well.

[125] On the basis of all of the evidence before me, I am not confident whatsoever that D.R. is either capable or, perhaps even more importantly, willing to acquire the parenting training necessary or implement the plans necessary to meet the needs of these children. He is a first-time father but has neither co-operated with the provision of guidance nor sought the education necessary to acquire the tools and skills necessary for him to parent not one but two children and both children simultaneously as a single parent. He has failed or refused to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to parent these children.

[126] I agree with the submission of the Society that the evidence in this case does not support a finding that there is a significant positive advantage to the children with respect to ongoing contact with D.R.

[127] On the basis of all of the admissible evidence before me, I am satisfied that placement of the children in extended Society care is the only viable option for the children and is clearly in their best interests. There is no other viable kinship option.

Conclusion

[128] In my view, the admissible evidence is overwhelming that there is no genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial for resolution. In other words, I am satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial in this case.

[129] Further, I find that the children have reached the maximum amount of time in the care of the Society that is permitted under s. 122 of the CYFSA.

[130] In addition, I am satisfied that the Society has met its onus to implement a plan and place these children in a setting that recognizes and promotes their Indigenous heritage.

[131] I also find that it is in the best interests of both of these children that they be placed in the extended care with the Applicant pursuant to s. 101(1)3 of the CYFSA, 2017.

[132] An order shall issue accordingly.

“Justice L. Templeton”

Justice L. Templeton

Released: October 10, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: C369/08

DATE: 20191010

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX

Applicant

• and -

M.-M.-K.P. and D.R. and Walpole Island First Nation and Oneida Nation of the Thames

Respondents

RULING

TEMPLETON J.

Released: October 10, 2019

[^1]: In his evidence, D.R. has deposed that he was injured during several altercations with police in March 1991, September 2003, July 2005 and twice in August 2014. In the early years, he had become active in student protests.

[^2]: By May 25, 2018, M.-M.-K.P. had left the hospital and her whereabouts were unknown.