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.

COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-3696

DATE: 2019/12/19

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1

AND IN THE MATTER OF RSR, born […], 2011, and ESR, born […], 2015

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

JSR (Mother)

Respondent

Juliet Kim, for the Applicant

Wendy Rogers, for the Respondent Mother

Heard: August 12-15 & October 21-23, 2019 (at Ottawa)

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter was heard by way of a summary judgment focused hearing. The procedure that was followed included cross-examination of several witnesses on their affidavits. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CAS) requests a finding that there is no genuine issue for trial raised by the evidence in this case. In addition, it seeks three orders. First, it requests a determination of statutory findings pursuant to s. 90(2) of the Child and Youth Family Services Act[^1] (CYFSA). Second, that the children, RSR and ESR be found in need of protection pursuant to s. 72(2)(a)(i), (b)(i), (b)(ii) or s. 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA and third, that the children be placed in the extended care of the CAS.

[2] At the end of the hearing, JSR consented to an order in relation to the statutory findings pursuant to s. 90(2) of the CYFSA for both of the children who are the subject of this application. That order was signed on December 18, 2019.

[3] In addition, the Court grants the summary judgment in relation to the issue of whether the children, RSR and ESR are in need of protection and makes the following order:

• The children, RSR and ESR are in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) – risk of physical harm, and pursuant to s. 74(2)(h) – risk of emotional harm.

[4] There is a genuine issue requiring a trial in relation to the disposition of this matter.

Background

[5] This family consists of the mother, JSR and her two children, RSR and ESR and an older daughter, who is not the subject of this application. RSR’s father was an anonymous donor and ESR’s father is unknown.

[6] There is a long history of CAS involvement in JSR’s life. According to records filed by the CAS, their involvement started in 2001. During that time period, there were three interventions by CAS in 2007-2008, 2009-2014 and 2015-2017. CAS notes that between 2007 and 2018, JSR moved over thirty-five times and had more than a hundred contacts with Ottawa Police Services and Ontario Provincial Police.

[7] The issues relating to JSR and her children have remained the same over the course of the past eighteen years: JSR’s mental health and parental capacity.

Positions of the parties

[8] The CAS take the position that JSR is unable to appropriately meet the emotional needs of her children and she has consistently refused to acknowledge or address her mental health issues. The CAS acknowledges that JSR can provide some appropriate, direct care of her children, but that in the long term she is unable to meet the children’s emotional, educational and medical needs. The CAS also argues that JSR’s unstable lifestyle has isolated the children and prevented them from establishing a sense of belonging to an extended family or community. According to the CAS, this lifestyle has also led to poor academic performance, primarily due to multiple changes in schools and excessive absenteeism.

[9] The mother argues that the children are not presently in need of protection and that any current CAS concerns can be addressed by returning the children to her care with a supervision order if necessary. JSR contends that much of the evidence presented by the CAS is historical and that insufficient weight has been placed by the CAS on her more recent efforts to address the concerns of the CAS.

Evidence at the hearing

Kerri Wilson

[10] She is a child protection worker and her primary focus was on the access visits between the children and their mother.

[11] Ms. Wilson testified that JSR has supervised access, twice a week at the offices of the CAS. She noted that generally, there have been no problems with JSR’s attendance.

[12] The problems noted by Ms. Wilson are the fact that JSR engages in talking negatively to the children about the foster parent and Society workers. Ms. Wilson also noted that RSR feels the need to align with her mother and reports things to her mother that she knows would be of concern to her mother. Those reports are not necessarily truthful.[^2] In cross-examination, Ms. Wilson noted that the negative messaging has decreased recently, but had not stopped completely. She did not know whether this decrease in negative messaging coincided with the decrease in JSR’s access time.

[13] Ms. Wilson stated that JSR does not always engage with her children during access visits. According to Ms. Wilson, JSR sometimes is preoccupied with her concerns in relation to the CAS and fails to focus on her children.[^3] Ms. Wilson also indicated that when the children act out, JSR has difficulty managing their behaviour and she fails to acknowledge her own role in the problems she has.[^4] After the reduction in access time, JSR appeared to be more engaged with the children. However, in a recent visit (August 6, 2019), the same lack of engagement reappeared.

[14] In addition to problems during access visits, Ms. Wilson noted that there are several other problems that the CAS has had with JSR. Ms. Wilson stated that JSR has made several unsubstantiated allegations, such as workers contacting Ontario Works and her neighbours.[^5] JSR has also complained that the CAS workers do not respond to her communications but has also blocked workers from her email address.[^6]

[15] An ongoing concern raised by Ms. Wilson is that JSR believes that the CAS wants her to ‘fail’. Yet, Ms. Wilson also notes that JSR has consistently failed to provide information or releases to the CAS that would allow them to assess her situation.[^7] Additionally, the CAS has found it difficult to arrange meetings with JSR, even when she has requested those meetings.[^8]

[16] The CAS has raised concerns about JSR’s mental health. Ms. Wilson noted that JSR ‘asked repetitive questions despite being given clear and concise answers.’[^9] Ms. Wilson indicated that the reason for this behaviour was unclear but posited that it might be the result of obsessive thought or oppositional behaviours that interfered with JSR’s ability to understand information.^10 Moreover, it was observed that JSR had an extreme preoccupation and obsession about the physical appearance of the children.[^11] In addition, the CAS is concerned about JSR’s ongoing insistence that her children have specific medical conditions. For instance, JSR claims that RSR has a heart condition and may have diabetes. CAS has no evidence of either of these conditions. JSR has also claimed that ESR has an eye condition. ESR has been assessed twice and there is no evidence of any eye condition.

[17] Finally, Ms. Wilson recounted an incident where JSR attempted to influence her daughter’s recollection of an incident of physical abuse to minimize the incident.[^12]

[18] Another area of concern raised by the CAS concerned JSR’s pregnancies. On more than one occasion, JSR advised the workers that she was pregnant and later advised CAS that she had suffered several miscarriages. JSR provided a doctor’s letter confirming one of the pregnancies but did not provide a consent so CAS could authenticate the letter. Consequently, the CAS were never able to verify this information. According to JSR, she suffered another miscarriage in late summer 2019. Ms. Wilson stated that a consent would have been helpful to learn when the doctor felt that the pregnancy was viable and therefore assist the CAS and JSR in determining when the children should be told of the pregnancy. The key concern was that the children would not suffer a loss if the pregnancy resulted in another miscarriage. The hope was to make the decision in collaboration with the mother and in the best interests of the children.

Dr. F. Wood

[19] Dr. Wood was qualified as an expert in parental capacity assessments pursuant to s. 98 of CYFSA.

[20] Dr. Wood stated that he asked to conduct a parental capacity assessment in relation to JSR. In order to conduct that assessment, he met with JSR. In addition, a social worker on staff met with JSR primarily in relation to any plan of care. A psychologist on staff conducted a psychological assessment of JSR and there was also a family interaction assessment. In order to do that assessment, the interaction of JSR and her children was observed through a one-way mirror. Finally, a home visit was conducted where the children were present.

[21] As part of the assessment, Dr. Wood met with RSR. He did not meet with ESR as she was too young. Dr. Wood stated that he played games with RSR that included a psychological element.

[22] Moreover, Dr. Wood stated he read the information provided by the CAS and met with CAS workers, but only at the end of the process.

[23] Once all the assessments were finished, Dr. Wood met with all his staff to discuss possible options for the family.

[24] Dr. Wood noted there were some complications surrounding arrangement of the home visit. He provided various dates to JSR, but she was concerned that the visit would occur the first time the children visited the home themselves. Dr. Woods said he understood JSR’s concern and he waited for the CAS to arrange the home visit, which took some time to occur.

[25] Dr. Wood also noted that he had difficulty obtaining consents from JSR to review collateral reports. Initially, JSR refused to provide any consents because she did not want Dr. Wood to see her medical history. Later, JSR agreed to provide consents, but she did not want Dr. Wood to review any material that was more than five years old because she feared the reports might be biased due to involvement of her parents. Dr. Wood obtained consents from the CAS to review the children’s medical history.

[26] Dr. Wood testified there were times where he had to prompt JSR to provide information, such as her employment and the names of the children’s fathers. He also noted that JSR said she had provided the information to the psychologist, but in fact she had not. JSR did advise Dr. Wood that she was working as a dispatcher for a tow truck company. JSR also said she had worked as a paramedic, but she did not have the educational requirements for that job, so it was temporary only. Dr. Wood concluded that JSR earned a reasonable income based on the fact she could support herself and send her children to private schools.

[27] Ultimately, the psychological testing was not relied on in the assessment. The psychologist noted that the results might have been adversely affected by the fact JSR said repeatedly that she did not understand the questions and consequently, the psychologist was required to explain many of the questions. The psychologist did observe that JSR was trying to present herself in a more favourable light. Dr. Wood noted that that was not uncommon in any situation where the result of the assessment was very important to the patient. However, he also noted that the degree of effort in JSR’s case was unusual.

[28] Dr. Wood indicated that JSR showed no evidence of any psychotic or major mental illness and there was nothing in JSR’s medical history to suggest there was any major mental illness.[^13] However, it was noted that the assessment was difficult to conduct because a number of accommodations had to be made due to JSR’s rigid and inflexible thinking and the fact she was minimally cooperative. Furthermore, Dr. Woods noted in his report that JSR contested all the concerns and reports provided by the CAS. She stated that the CAS’s concerns were malicious due to interpersonal problems and the fact the CAS had negative intentions towards her.[^14] Ultimately, Dr. Woods stated that it was his opinion that JSR had a ‘Paranoid Personality Disorder along with a number of cluster B traits, specifically antisocial and borderline traits.’^15 He added that ‘Paranoid Personality Disorder is defined as a pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent.’^16

[29] The observation of the family that was conducted at the Royal Ottawa Hospital was unremarkable except for JSR’s insistence that everything in the room be sterilized due to concerns in relation to potential allergens. As a result of JSR’s concerns, the only items used during this interaction between JSR and her children were the ones JSR brought with her. Dr. Woods noted that the room used for this interaction would normally be cleaned between visits and that the degree of cleaning required by JSR was unprecedented.

[30] After spending time with RSR, Dr. Woods stated it was his opinion that she had experienced emotional harm. He observed that RSR was nervous about someone being outside the door of his office and she was worried about her mother learning what she said in the meeting. RSR made some spontaneous disclosures to Dr. Wood. These disclosures related to her mother and were of concern to Dr. Wood. Specifically, Dr. Wood noted in his report that RSR revealed that her mother used physical forms of punishment, including an incident where RSR told Dr. Woods her mother had ‘pulled her by the hair and dragged her while she was on the ground.’[^17]

[31] In his conclusion, Dr. Woods observed that JSR clearly cares for her children and has provided with essentials such as a well-kept home, clean clothing and food. He noted that JSR demonstrated some positive parenting skills during the FCC interaction and the home visit.[^18]

[32] The final conclusion of Dr. Woods’ report is as follows:

The FCC’s review of this matter suggests that the two available options for [RSR and ESR] would be either to return home to their mother or to be deemed children to be placed in extended care of the Society with a view towards adoption if no kinship plans are available. At this point, due to the information above, we are quite pessimistic about [JSR] being able to make the major changes needed to protect and act in [RSR and ESR’s] best interests.

While it is possible that [JSR] may achieve some improvement in her ability to form collaborative working relationships and to decrease the traits of the Paranoid Personality Disorder, it would require a significant commitment to long-term psychotherapy.[^19]

[33] The conclusion of the report is a recommendation that the children be deemed in need of protection and be placed in the extended care of the CAS with a view towards adoption if no kinship alternatives are available.[^20]

Other CAS witnesses

[34] Ms. Michele Tyrell and Ms. Manon Jacques also testified at the hearing and their evidence was similar in content to Ms. Wilson’s evidence. Ms. Jacques agreed in cross-examination that JSR had tried to stop making negative comments about the workers in front of the children or criticizing their appearance. She agreed that JSR did listen at times and sometimes tried to address CAS concerns. Furthermore, Ms. Jacques agreed that although the CAS had raised issues in relation to JSR’s parenting skills, they did not suggest that JSR take any parenting classes. Their input was limited to modeling the behaviour they wanted JSR to use. The CAS expected that JSR would learn from the modeling as well as the feedback the workers provided both verbally and in writing.

[35] Ms. Jacques agreed in cross-examination that except for her ability to manage her children’s behaviours, JSR has met the CAS’ expectations with respect to access. Ms. Jacques agreed with JSR’s counsel that the management of behaviours can be taught, but she indicated that the issue remains whether JSR is able to implement what she learns.

[36] Ms. Jacques noted there were extra meetings held with JSR in order to establish better communication and cooperation. Ms. Jacques noted JSR’s cooperation has been better in 2019 than it was previously and that JSR has made progress in relation to the Society’s expectations. Ms. Jacques stated she had advocated to permit JSR to move the access visits outside and then later to another location. This effort was a recognition of JSR’s progress in meeting the Society’s expectations. Ms. Jacques indicated that based on her interactions with JSR that some of the Society’s expectations have been met but others have not and that where there has been improvement, it has not necessarily been consistent.

JSR’s evidence

[37] JSR contested the CAS’ characterization of her lifestyle as unstable. In her affidavit, she noted that not all the moves she made were necessarily caused by her. She indicated that some moves were the result of transfers between shelters. She conceded that she had not always made her children’s education a priority, but she has since learned the need for stability in the children’s schools.[^21]

[38] JSR indicated in her affidavit that the Society has alleged that she has caused harm to her children by depriving them of a sense of belonging to a family in part because JSR has cut off all contact with her extended family. JSR responded by stating that ‘this position/allegation totally ignores [JSR’s] destructive history with her father and his persistence in trying to interfere in her life and to gain control [over her other daughter], who he strongly wanted to adopt at birth.’[^22]

[39] JSR also conceded that she has had difficulty managing her children’s behaviour on a consistent basis. However, she pointed out that the CAS has not been helpful in suggesting parenting programs.[^23] The CAS conceded that they made a conscious decision not to provide a list of parenting programs as they were waiting for the results of the FCC assessment. Despite this fact, she has taken parenting courses of her own volition.

[40] JSR testified that she has several health issues. She is a diabetic and is dependent on insulin. Her family doctor and an endocrinologist manage her condition. She also has some serious allergies and a heart condition. The heart condition requires daily medication and eventually she will require surgery. JSR indicated that she carries an epi-pen and keeps her kitchen/home free of allergens. Also, if she is outside the home, JSR stated she wipes down any table she uses and washes her hands after touching door handles or elevator buttons. JSR advised the court that she believes these precautions are necessary as previously she has had a serious allergic reaction.

[41] JSR testified that she became aware that Lanark CAS was considering starting a court proceeding the second week of September 2015. She moved from Lanark to Ottawa in mid-July 2015. She stated that it was because of this move that she was labelled a flight risk. She noted that the Ottawa CAS still consider her a flight risk but have never explained why. Society workers told JSR that she needed to contact Lanark CAS to get the label removed because Ottawa cannot do so. However, she has not contacted Lanark CAS.

[42] JSR acknowledged that she has been reluctant to provide information to the CAS. She indicated that her interactions with the CAS have left her suspicious of their motives.

[43] JSR stated she was shocked by the apprehension on April 25, 2018. She indicated she had not expected the CAS to be part of her life again and consequently, on that day she was angry and swore at the workers. When she spoke to the CAS shortly after the apprehension, they did not provide her with suggestions as to what she should do. At that meeting, she wanted to know where the children were, when she would see them again and why the apprehension had occurred, but the worker would not answer any of her questions.

[44] At the June 27, 2018 meeting, she again asked what she had to do to get her children back. At that time, the CAS said it would depend on an FCC assessment. The CAS also said that access would be worked out at court. JSR said she did not want to give CAS any information because she had been advised that the apprehension was based on past history. That fact made her apprehensive and she did not know what the Society meant when they alleged the apprehension was based on her past. She believed at the time there had been no intervention by CAS for the past six months.

[45] JSR acknowledged that the CAS complained she was sending too many emails, but she believes the CAS were very slow to respond to her and this situation frustrated her. She has significantly reduced the number of emails she sends since April/May 2019. JSR noted that she was required to stay 15 minutes after an access visit so she would not follow the girls to their foster home, and she indicated she has never attempted to do so.

[46] JSR agreed that she has sometimes recorded the meetings with CAS and/or access visits without the workers knowledge in order to protect herself from any allegations the Society might make against her. She stopped doing this in April 2019 after she was advised that it was not appropriate to conduct surreptitious recordings. JSR noted that security has never been asked to intervene in any of her access visits and she has never been cautioned about her language or the volume of her voice.

[47] JSR testified she believes that she has met the CAS’ expectations in relation to the access visits. She believes that she has not met the expectation of setting limits for the children but argued that based on her own childhood setting limits can result in abusive behaviour by a parent when the child fails to respect the limits set. She indicated that is not the type of childhood she wanted for her own children, so her approach is to redirect the children instead of setting limits. JSR was adamant that she does not use physical discipline.

[48] JSR stated she understands that some of the comments she was making about the foster home could result in emotional harm to her children. Consequently, she has made a major effort to not make any such comments since December 2018. She indicated that she has encouraged her children to have a meaningful relationship with their foster mother. She stated she has come to realize that the foster mother has the best interests of her children at heart.

[49] JSR noted that the CAS did not acknowledge her success in meeting the expectations. The CAS changed her access so she could take the children to the park this past summer, but there was no increase in her access time. JSR expected that the CAS would give her the resources to learn to set appropriate limits for the children. They did not do so, so she went and found parenting classes on her own. JSR contended she has received lots of criticism from the CAS, but very little positive feedback.

[50] During the hearing of this motion, JSR completed a five-week parenting program through Family Services Ottawa and she advised the court she is registered for two more classes starting in November 2019. JSR filed a certificate and letter from the course she just completed.[^24] She also has a parenting coach lined up to assist her in her home if the children are returned to her.

[51] In addition to the parenting courses, JSR advised the court she has been working with a counsellor at Jewish Family Services. She started seeing this person about two weeks after the children were apprehended and she continues to see this person on a weekly basis. The focus of the counselling sessions is childhood trauma and parenting.

[52] Since she has read the FCC report, JSR said she has tried to follow the recommendations by signing consents, working more collaboratively with the CAS, taking parenting classes and psychotherapy. She believes she is more willing to accept her faults and work with the Society. Furthermore, JSR believes the CAS never gave her any direction. She also believes that other factors have played a role in her difficult behaviour. She indicated she has stopped taking Adderall. The drug made her agitated and anxious. JSR also noted that until relatively recently she had not understood she could lose her children forever and this realization made her change her behaviour and start working with the CAS.

Legal Principles

[53] Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules[^25] requires the court to make a final order where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The test on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a need for a trial to establish the material facts that are necessary to the determination of the application.[^26]

[54] As noted in Hryniak v. Maudlin,

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.[^27]

[55] Although, the decision in Hryniak applied to Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure[^28], this court has since ruled that the principles set out in that decision should apply to summary judgment motions brought pursuant to the Family Law Rules.[^29]

[56] Where one party presents a prima facie case, the responding party must present evidence rebutting that case. As noted in CAS Ottawa v. M.C.,

[T]he respondent – in this case, the parent – has the onus of providing evidence of a specific fact or facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. As has been pointed out in numerous cases, evidence showing that there is no genuine issue for trial cannot be merely allegations, blanket denials or self-serving declarations.[^30]

[57] Determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial involves a two-part procedure. First the judge should ‘determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence before her without using the new fact-fining powers.’[^31] If there appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge must then determine whether the need for a trial can be avoided by using the powers found in Rule 16.

[58] In child protection cases, it has been noted that,

[T]he existence of a genuine issue for trial must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression by a parent of a desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable point based on the parent’s evidence that the parent faces some better prospects than those that existed at the time of the Society’s initial involvement, and has developed some new ability as a parent.[^32]

[59] Finally, the respondent to an application for summary judgment should demonstrate that the Society has failed to address a material fact and a trial is necessary to fill that gap.[^33]

Analysis

[60] In the present case, the CAS is asking for three orders:

(a) A determination of statutory findings for the children pursuant to s. 90(2) of the CYSFA;

(b) an order finding that the children are children in need of protection pursuant to sections 74(2)(a)(i), 74(2)(a)(ii), 74(2)(b)(i), 74(2)(b)(ii) or 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA; and

(c) an order placing the children in the extended society care of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa.

[61] As noted above, JSR consented to an order in relation to both children setting out the statutory findings pursuant to s. 90(2) of the CYFSA.

[62] JSR has acknowledged that her behaviour towards the CAS has been challenging. In addition, she acknowledges that she has had difficulty managing the behaviour of her children, in particular, RSR. However, she denied using any form of physical discipline. On the other hand, RSR was both consistent and persistent in her allegations she had received physical discipline from her mother, including being pulled by her hair. In addition, Dr. Woods noted that RSR was fearful of her mother learning of her allegations. JSR was overheard by CAS workers trying to persuade RSR that she had not correctly recalled the incident. Given this evidence, I conclude that RSR was subjected to physical discipline by JSR and that she has suffered emotional harm as a result.

[63] JSR also agreed with the CAS that she has not always placed value on stability in her children’s education. Furthermore, while accepting that she has moved frequently over the course of the last few years, she denied that these moves were always at her instigation.

[64] The frequent moves of residence and school have contributed to the fact both children suffer from delays in their education. In addition, Dr. Wood offered the opinion that RSR is a special needs child and may have ADHD. However, he noted there has never been an in-depth assessment of whether RSR in fact has ADHD. JSR’s frequent decisions to change the children’s schools have contributed to their educational delays.

[65] Dr. Woods concluded that JSR suffers from a Paranoid Personality Disorder. JSR did not provide any evidence to rebut that conclusion. Consequently, I find as a fact that JSR does suffer from this disorder. This disorder explains much of JSR’s attitude and behaviour towards the CAS. As noted by Dr. Woods this disorder also impacts negatively on JSR’s ability to parent.

[66] As a result of the above findings, I conclude that both children are in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm stemming from JSR’s pattern of behaviour, frequent moves and her mental health issues.

[67] On the other hand, I am not confident that I am able to make an appropriate disposition in this matter. JSR testified that in the very recent past, she has come to realize the precise nature of the risk she is facing with respect to her children. To her credit, she has made a significant effort to address the concerns raised by Dr. Woods. She is taking counselling. She has taken parenting courses. She has reduced her negative comments and the number of emails she sends to the CAS. She has begun to work more cooperatively with the CAS.

[68] JSR’s complaint that the CAS has not done much to assist her in improving her parenting skills has been acknowledged by the Society. Moreover, the CAS agreed that JSR has made some changes in her behaviour towards them.

[69] There is no question that the changes in JSR’s behaviour are coming at the eleventh hour and that it is her reluctance to share information with the CAS that has led to the situation where the CAS has been largely unaware of what JSR has been doing. However, the fact is that changes have been made and the CAS has not had an opportunity to properly assess the impact of these changes on the children and their future.

Conclusion

[70] Consequently, there remains a genuine material issue that needs to be determined: is an extended CAS care order still the appropriate disposition in this case? I have heard a lot of evidence in this case and it is my view that I should seize myself of this matter and hear any further evidence either party would like to bring on the issue of disposition.

Madam Justice Julianne Parfett

Date: December 19, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-3696

DATE: 2019/12/19

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1

AND IN THE MATTER OF RSR, born […], 2011, and ESR, born […], 2015

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society

Applicant

– and –

J.S.R. (Mother)

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Parfett J.

Released: December 19, 2019

[^1]: Child and Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1

[^2]: Wilson, Affidavit of July 24, 2029 at para.13.

[^3]: At para. 15.

[^4]: At para. 14.

[^5]: At para. 16.

[^6]: At para. 18.

[^7]: At paras. 19-20, 26, 27(b) & 29-30.

[^8]: At paras. 22-25 & 27.

[^9]: At para. 32.

[^11]: At para. 34.

[^12]: At para. 36.

[^13]: FCC Report at p. 41.

[^14]: At p. 42.

[^17]: At p. 68.

[^18]: At p. 86.

[^19]: At pp. 87-88.

[^20]: At p. 88.

[^21]: JSR affidavit dated August 9, 2019 at para. 7.

[^22]: At para. 10.

[^23]: At. Para. 11.

[^24]: Exhibit #10.

[^25]: O. Reg 114/99.

[^26]: Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. D.(C.A.) 2011 ONCA 684 at para. 5.

[^27]: 2014 SCC 7 at para. 49.

[^28]: R.R.O. 1990, reg 194.

[^29]: 2015 ONSC 4623 at para. 74.

[^30]: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.C. 2003 CanLII 67754 (ON SC), 2003 O.J. No. 6307 at para. 13.

[^31]: Children’s Aid Society, Region of Halton v. K.C.L., 2014 ONCJ 168.

[^32]: Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. L.P. 2016 ONSC 417 at para. 24, citing Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. A.M. 2015 ONSC 2496 at para. 36.

[^33]: Children’s Aid Society of the County of Dufferin v. K.D. 2008 ONCJ 225 at para. 11.