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 Family 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-08-973-7
DATE: 2019/12/30
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicants
and
G.L., the child
BEFORE: Shelston, J.
COUNSEL: Ms. Hupé for the Applicant
Ms. Côté, for the child
HEARD: December 6 and 12, 2019 (at Ottawa)
endorsement
Overview
[1] On August 9, 2019, I ordered, with the child’s consent, that she be committed for 120 days to the secure treatment program at the Roberts Smart Centre.
[2] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) has brought an application for a four-month extension of the child’s committal to the secure treatment program at the Roberts Smart Center.
[3] The child opposes the application and seeks to be returned to the Cramer residence.
Legislative and jurisprudential framework
[4] Section 167 (1) of the CYFSA provides that where a child is the subject of an order made under subsection 164 (1) or subsection (5):
(a) person referred to in subsection 161(1), with the administrators written consent; or
(b) the administrator, with the parents written consent or, where the child is in a society’s lawful custody, the Society’s consent,
may, before the expiry of the period of commitment, apply for an order extending the child’s commitment to the secure treatment program.
[5] Section 167 (5) provides that the court may make an order extending a child’s commitment to a secure treatment program only where the court is satisfied that:
(a) the child has a mental disorder;
(b) the secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to themselves or another person;
(c) no less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances;
(d) the child is receiving the treatment proposed at the time of the original order under subsection 164(1), or other appropriate treatment; and
(e) there is an appropriate plan for the child’s care on release from the secure treatment program.
[6] Section 167 (6) provides that the court shall specify in an order under subsection (5) the period not exceeding 180 days for which the child shall be committed to the secure treatment program.
[7] The legal and factual considerations applicable to a secure treatment application were recently reviewed by Justice Starr in McMaster Children’s Hospital, Dr. Jennifer Couturier and L.R.U and J.U 2019 ONCJ 496. In that matter, the court summarized the key guiding principles in such an application at paragraphs 14, 18 and 26:
Secure treatment is a highly intrusive procedure that engages children’s section 7 rights under the Charter. The Legislature has recognized this by placing the secure treatment provisions in a special part of the Act entitled “Extraordinary Measures” and by highlighting at section 158 of the CYFSA that secure treatment programs impose continuous restriction on a child’s liberty.
It recognition of the highly intrusive nature of this type of order and to ensure that this procedure complies with the Charter and the principles of fundamental justice, both the CYFSA and jurisprudence recognize that long-term secure treatment orders can only be made if the strict criteria are met.
Taking all of the foregoing into account along with the guiding principles this Court summarized at paragraph 20 of its’ decision in an Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences v. C. S., supra, the following emerge as the key guiding principles with respect to how the court is to safeguard against the arbitrary loss of a young person’s liberty in the context of the secure treatment applications, be the applications of first instance or applications to extend the committal:
The loss of a young person’s liberty is a very serious matter. Decisions that have the potential of resulting in such a loss are not to be made arbitrarily;
an order committing a child to secure treatment is to be considered as a remedy of last resort;
the applicant bears the onus to demonstrate why the young person should be(or continue to be) committed to a secure program against the child’s wishes;
to fulfil its own as the applicant must:
a. adduce clear, logical, and convincing evidence establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that each and every one of the five criteria have been met;
b. direct evidence from a psychiatrist whose opinion evidence resulted in the child’s admission;
the court cannot make a ruling on the basis of a summary procedure. It is the applicant’s obligation to lead oral evidence and the child is entitled to test that evidence.
The evidentiary standard on such applications is that the evidence must be trialworthy. It is not permissible to lead or rely on inadmissible hearsay or on hearsay opinion evidence given only in written form;
the court is required to review the evidence with respect to each criteria carefully and exhaustively; and be satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence with respect to each of the criteria, supports a finding that the particular criteria has been established;
the court may only make an order committing, or extending the committal, where it is satisfied that all of the criteria in sub section 164(1) (secure treatment applications) and ss.167(1) (extension applications) have been met;
the court retains the jurisdiction to decline to make a committal order, even in cases were all of the criteria have been met.
Witnesses
[8] During this two-day hearing, I received the of the viva voce evidence of Ms. Shah, a clinician at the Roberts Smart Center, Ms. Mabon, an occupational therapist who has worked with the child, Dr. Motayne, the child’s psychiatrist and the clinical director of the Robert Smart Center and Ms. Stard, the child protection worker involved with the child.
[9] Further, I received a document brief which included eight serious occurrence reports from the Center, a report from Dr. Cheng dated July 22, 2019, two occupational therapy reports dated July 26, 2019 and November 20, 2019, a secure treatment extension report dated November 28, 2019 completed by Ms. Shah, a report dated December 4, 2019 from Ms. Shah and Dr. Motayne and the consent to secure treatment dated December 3, 2019 signed by the administrator of the secure treatment program.
The Society’s position
[10] The Society’s position is as follows:
(a) that the child suffers from a mental disorder;
(b) the secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to herself/himself or to another person;
(c) no less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances;
(d) the child is receiving the treatment proposed when this court originally ordered secured commitment; and
(e) there is an appropriate plan for the child’s care on release from the secure treatment program.
[11] The child’s position is that the Society has not discharged its burden of proof regarding the factors required under section 167 (5) (a) to (f) of the CYFSA based on the following:
(a) there is no current evidence that the child suffers from a mental disorder;
(b) there is no evidence that the child has caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself/himself or to another person;
(c) there is a less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder; and
(d) there is no appropriate plan for the child’s care on release from the secure treatment program.
[12] The child concedes that she has been is receiving the treatment proposed when this court originally ordered secured commitment on August 9, 2019.
Background
[13] The child was born on […], 2006. She was brought into care when she was around three years of age. On May 7, 2012, the child and two other siblings were placed in foster care. On January 14, 2014, the children were made Crown wards.
[14] The child was placed in a foster home where she remained until September 2017 when she was moved to a group home. In May 2018, the child moved to another foster home but by June 2018 had returned to a group home.
[15] The child resided in a foster home until December 12, 2018. On that date she was moved to a group home because of concerns that she was leaving her placement daily without permission and placing herself in danger, such as running at traffic, climbing large trees and making threats to harm herself and others.
[16] From December 2018 forward, there were incidents of physical intervention with the child, verbal threats made by the child, physical altercations and the involvement of the police. There were incidents of the child attempting to harm herself by cutting herself. The child has attempted and threatened to run away and has jumped out of bedroom windows.
[17] In the period of May and June 2019, the number of incidents of the child running away and self-harming herself increased. The police have been involved in retrieving the child and returning her to her residence.
[18] On February 14, 2019, the child started attending the Roberts Smart McHugh School program which has fewer students in the class and behavioural support from child and youth workers. The child performed well in the circumstances. However, again there were incidents of running away and running in traffic.
[19] The child has been transported to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario in October, November and December 2018, as a result of her violent and destructive behaviour. Medication has been prescribed. The child started seeing Dr. Chang, a psychiatrist, on February 8, 2019, with follow-up appointments until the end of April 2019.
[20] On May 21, 2019, the child was moved to a new group home, the Roberts Smart Cramer Residence(“Cramer”), where the child had access to mental health and clinical support.
[21] On June 14, 2019, the child was moved to the Roberts Smart secure treatment facility on emergency placement under an emergency order for a 30-day period.
[22] On August 9, 2019, the child consented to an order placing her in the secure treatment program at the Roberts Smart Centre for a period of four months.
Analysis
[23] By consenting to the order on August 9, 2019, the child admitted that the Society had met the statutory requirements at that time set out in subsection 164(1) CYFSA.
[24] However, as the Society has made an application for extension for a 120-day period, the Society as the burden of proof to provide evidence to meet the five-part criteria set out in section 167(5) CYFSA.
Criteria #1: Mental disorder
[25] During the secure treatment application on August 9, 2019, Dr. Cheng, psychiatrist at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, testified as to the child’s mental illness and in his opinion, the child was suffering from PTSD, ADHD, sensory processing disorder and an attachment disorder. Based on such a diagnosis, Dr. Cheng concluded that the child suffers from a mental disorder.
[26] On this application for extension, counsel for the child challenged the Society for failing to provide an updated medical report that the child still suffers from mental disorder.
[27] Dr. Motayne, psychiatrist and clinical director of the secure treatment program at the Roberts Smart Centre, testified as follows:
(a) to be admitted to his program, the child must have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness. In this case, the diagnosis was made by Dr. Cheng;
(b) once a diagnosis of mental illness is made, his role as the treating psychiatrist is to manage the symptoms for stabilization and improve functioning; and
(c) in his opinion, the child suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, sensory processing disorder, ADHD, attachment disorder as well as a probable disassociative disorder and dysthymic v. major depressive disorder. Overall, in his opinion, the child suffers from a mental disorder.
[28] There is no other evidence presented. Based on that evidence, I find that the child suffers from mental disorder.
Criteria #2: The secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to themselves or another person
[29] The issue is whether the program would be effective to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury to herself or another person.
[30] In Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services v. C.S. 2016 O.J. No. 7318, Justice Starr set out certain principles to be applied in an application for extension to secure treatment program. She found that the first step was to determine whether there was a real risk that a child will cause or attempt to cause serious bodily harm to himself or others and thus there is a real need for such an extreme preventative measure as a placement in a secure treatment facility. Secondly, the use of the terms “serious bodily harm” requires both a degree of risk and the type of harm are relevant considerations and that both the risk and the likely harm must be substantial. Finally, the court must make a finding that the secure treatment program would be effective to prevent the youth from causing or attempting to cause harm. At paragraph 36 of her decision, the court stated:
- To fulfil the underlying objectives and to give meaning to the inclusion of the phrase “serious bodily harm” in this cause, the court is required, in my view, to ask three questions as part of its analysis under clause 120(5)(b) of the Act:
(a) Is it still likely that this youth will cause or attempt to cause serious bodily harm to himself or another person? If not, then there is no justification for continuing the youth’s loss of liberty, and he or she must be released,
(b) If so, what preventative measures will be on offer during the period of the extended committal to manage the risk?
(c) Will be available preventative measures be effective in preventing this youth from causing serious bodily harm to himself or to others? If not, then continued committal at the proposed secure treatment program, is not justified and the application must be dismissed.
[31] Ms. Shah, a clinician at the Roberts Smart Centre, testified that she has worked one-on-one with the child in the therapeutic setting and that her goal is to manage the treatment plan to achieve the treatment goals. She prepares a plan of care and prepares assessments on the child. She works with a team that includes herself, a nurse, the treating psychiatrist, an occupational therapist, and teachers.
[32] She testified that when the child was admitted in August 2019, she was overactive which manifested itself in the child fidgeting, being anxious and being frazzled at times. The initial goals were to stabilize the child, provide her with tools for self-regulation, teaching her how her body functions, developing social skills and preparing her for transitioning outside in the community.
[33] She stated that the child has been able to stabilize her emotions but there have been incidents, while in secure treatment, that cause her serious concerns about the child. The incidents were as follows:
(a) on August 8, 2019, after the child said goodbye to the visitors, she refused to return to her room. She refused to engage in conversation. She climbed on the window ledge approximately 10-feet high. She was directed to stop climbing and get down. She complied and got down and began kicking the door to go outside. The child threatened to kick open the door and go AWOL. Staff placed the child in an approved small child restraint as there was a risk that the child would hurt herself. She attempted to get out of the restraint five times. Within a few minutes the child had returned to baseline and the restraint was removed;
(b) on September 16, 2019, after the child had participated in a dog program, she refused to return to the building. The child picked up a rock and began attempting to cut her left forearm. The staff member attempted to have the child put the rock down at which point, the child started swinging her fists at the staff member. The child was placed in a small child restraint. The child elbowed the staff member in the head before rolling and kicking the staff member in the chest and upper body several times. The child bit the staff members left arm, but the bite did not break skin. The child was placed in a restraint to deal with her aggression;
(c) on September 12, 2019, after an incident while watching TV, the child entered her bedroom where she broke glasses into several pieces and attempted to cut her left forearm. The staff entered the bedroom as the child was a threat to the workers. The child refused to hand over the sharp pieces of glass. Staff members physically removed the glass from the child’s hands. The child became physically aggressive and attempted to bite a staff member on the arm. The child was placed in a two-person prone restraint and the child calmed down;
(d) on October 22, 2019, the child had an altercation with another peer. As a staff member intervened, the child punched the staff member in the face resulting in the child being removed to another area. At this time, the child began to struggle and was attempting to kick and bite the staff member. The child was placed in a TCI prone restraint for safety;
(e) on November 5, 2019 while starting her bedtime routine, the child became verbally the aggressive. The child cursed at staff and stormed into her bedroom. The child slammed her bedroom door and threw objects in her bedroom. She came out of her bedroom and threw a large book at a staff member’s head. Upon entering her bedroom, the child raised her fists to punch the staff member in the face. The child was restrained for approximately two minutes at which time the child stopped being aggressive;
(f) on November 10, 2019 the child ran away from supervision while in the care of her foster mother while at a restaurant. The police were called who located the child. The foster mother advised that the child had threatened suicide to the police officers who transported her to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. The child was returned to the secure treatment program. The staff implemented and upgraded risk supervision level and conducted the appropriate checks on the child to ensure her safety. There were no further incidents;
(g) on November 22, 2019, the child was leaving the Cramer residence and advised the staff member that she needed to use the bathroom. The parties stopped at McDonald’s so the child could use the bathroom. After using the bathroom, the staff member and the child sat down at a nearby table. The child refused to return to the vehicle. After approximately 30 minutes, the child ran away from the McDonald’s. The police were called. Approximately an hour and a half later staff received a call from the child’s aunt stating that she and the child were at an OC Transpo station. Police and paramedics were called, and the child was taken to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. At the hospital, the child stated her desire to run away from the hospital several times. At one point, the child began running towards the emergency room doors. She advised the staff member that she would not hesitate to bite, kick and punch them at which point the staff member deemed it unsafe to physically intervene. The police were called and within 15 minutes the police had found the child and were instructed to return the child back to the program as she was not experiencing medical distress;
(h) on December 1, 2019, the child was brought the church by staff. At the end of the service, the child refused to return to the program and attempted to leave the church. The child was restrained for approximately 15 minutes and showed signs of returning to baseline. The police were required to return the child back to the program later that day; and
(i) on December 11, 2019, the child went AWOL by a running away from an outing and was brought back to the secure program by the police.
[34] Ms. Shah testified that the child has gone outside without going AWOL such as when she visited her mother, went to appointments, visited her brother or attended at the Cramer residence.
[35] Ms. Shah testified that at times the child does not assess the risk of going through with an action. The child told the clinician that when she is bored, she thinks of going AWOL.
[36] Further, Ms. Shah testified that the child has told people she is going to hurt herself because she likes the police.
[37] Ms. Mabon, the occupational therapist, testified that the child has sensory processing issues. She has been providing occupational therapy to reduce the triggers that cause the child to either fight or flight. She indicated that the child’s level of function is very limited because she can still be easily triggered. Her concern is that if a child is triggered, she does not have the supports in place outside of the secure program. When the child is triggered, she may not make reasoned decisions.
[38] Dr. Motayne, the child’s psychiatrist, testified that when there is a trigger, the child tries to flee which puts her in danger as her impulsivity may expose her to the risk of suffering a personal injury or being exploited. He is concerned she may at react aggressively to hurt herself or someone else. He testified that she needs more time in the secure program to help her integrate safely in the community
[39] Dr. Motayne indicated that the when there was a plan in place to have the child transition to the community, namely her foster mother, there were no AWOL issues. However, once the plan changed, she began to run at various outings.
[40] Dr. Motayne testified that the child did not hurt anyone while in care. He testified that the child has difficulty to make emotionally charged decisions and that she needs an extensive support network.
[41] I accept that not all of the serious incident reports rise to the level of serious bodily injury. Many of the injuries were of a minor nature. However, there were incidents where the child’s actions were an attempt to cause serious bodily injury to herself and staff members as follows:
(a) on August 12, 2019, she threatened to go AWOL and jump from a window ledge to cause her self-harm requiring the staff to physically restrain her;
(b) on September 12, 2019, the child attempted to cut her forearm with broken pieces a glass and threatened staff. She became physically aggressive and had to be physically restrained;
(c) on September 16, 2019 she cut herself with a sharp object, was physically aggressive with staff and had to be physically restrained;
(d) on October 22, 2019 she punched a staff member in the face and had to be physically restrained;
(e) on November 5, 2019, the child threw a large book at the head of a staff member and had to be physically restrained;
(f) on November 10, 2019, the child ran away from her foster mother at an outing and threatened suicide; and
(g) on November 10, 2019 November 22, 2019, December 1, 2019 and December 11, 2019, the child went AWOL thereby increasing the possibility that she could have sustained serious bodily harm.
[42] I find that when the child is triggered, she goes AWOL and puts herself in harm’s way. I accept the evidence of the clinician and the psychiatrist that when she goes AWOL, she does not make reasoned decisions and acts impulsively and to her detriment.
[43] Despite being in the secure treatment program since August 9, 2019, I find that there is a significant risk that the child, when triggered, will cause or attempt to cause serious bodily harm to herself or another person, especially when she is AWOL.
[44] I find it to secure treatment program affords the child an environment which can prevent her from causing herself or others serious bodily harm.
Criteria #3: No less restrictive method of providing treatment appropriate for the child’s mental disorder is appropriate in the circumstances
[45] The two options that are available are either that the child remain in the secure program or that the child be released to the Cramer residence. The child’s preferred option is that she be returned to the Cramer residence as she no longer wishes to remain in secure treatment.
[46] Prior to being admitted into the secure treatment program, the child was residing at the Cramer residence where she had a on to one worker. During that time, she went AWOL and serious incidents occurred. Today, if the child was returned to the Cramer residence, there is no one-to-one care that can be provided by an individual worker that is required to monitor this child’s behaviour.
[47] Further, prior to being admitted to the secure program, the child attended the Robert Smart McHugh School program. However, her current placement in that school no longer exists. At this time there is no placement available for the child as she will require a specialized class with the hope eventually that she will transition to a regular class. However, her current behaviour prevents her from attending a regular class. The only possible option at this time for school was the Robert Smart secure program which she started in September 2019.
[48] I accept the evidence of the occupational therapist, Ms. Mabon, that the child’s level of functioning is limited because she still can be easily triggered into go into a flight or fight mode. She testified that the child needs consistency to provide stability to avoid her being triggered. She requires a controlled environment to address her issues. In her opinion, the Cramer residence is not appropriate because there are triggers that exist at that residence, there are too many exits for the child to go AWOL and the child did not feel comfortable at Cramer. In her opinion, the secure treatment program offers the time to control the child’s triggers which can be assisted by the occupational therapy. In her opinion, the child’s issues regarding triggers have not been sufficiently addressed to recommend her return to Cramer.
[49] I accept the evidence of Dr. Motayne that the child needs time to establish basic strategies to reduce her reaction to the various triggers. He indicated that that managing her medication and by the staff implementing the strategies, the child can eventually transition outside of the secure treatment program. He felt that the child was doing well in the structured environment but at times still had to be restrained. He is concerned that the child is not intentionally suicidal but could put yourself at risk.
[50] I accept the evidence of Ms. Stard, the child protection worker, that when the child was at Cramer, she ran and placed herself at risk. She testified that once the child was in the secure program insecure, there was a plan in place to transition her to live with her foster parents. After running away from her foster mother on November 10, 2019, on November 11, 2019, the worker met with the child about the reintegration plan at which time the child told the worker that she did not want to go to her foster parent’s home.
[51] Ms. Stard does not support a placement at Cramer because they do not have the staff to provide the services that are available at the secure program and there is no school program available for the child. Ms. Stard was concerned that the child had made gains with the program implemented by Ms. Shah. Her fear was that these gains could be lost by triggers at the group home resulting in the child fleeing. She is concerned for the physical safety of the child who may go AWOL and make improper decisions while on the run.
[52] Finally, Ms. Stard indicated that there will be a period of time required to develop a plan to transition the child from the secure program to a home. Ms. Stard testified the Society needs time to assess a plan with the child where she could potentially move into her mother’s care which even if approved would require a transition period. She testified that they require a four-month period to achieve that goal.
[53] Based on the evidence presented, I do not find that the Cramer residence is a viable option. While there have been delays in the occupational therapy for the child, I accept the evidence of Ms. Shah and Dr. Motayne that the child has made progress in the secure environment. I find that the lack of a one-to-one individual worker at the Cramer home is a significant risk to this child. I find that the child has not shown stability to respond well in the community and that there is a significant risk that she is an unable to manage her urges to go AWOL putting herself and others at risk of harm.
[54] I find that the secure treatment program is the only viable alternative to prevent the child from causing or attempting to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others. I find that there are no other programs or placements available at this time to ensure her safety and well-being.
[55] Consequently, I find that the Society has met its burden that the secure treatment program is more appropriate than releasing the child to the Cramer residence.
Criteria #4: The child is receiving the treatment proposed at the time of the original order under subsection 164(1), or other appropriate treatment
[56] The child conceded that she is currently receiving the treatment proposed in the original order.
Criteria #5: There is an appropriate plan for the child’s care on release from the secure treatment program
[57] Once the child was in the secure treatment program in August 2019, with the consent of the child, there was a plan to transition the child from the secure treatment program to live with the foster parents at the end of her four-month committal, Dr. Motayne and his team were supportive of this plan.
[58] On November 11, 2019, the child changed her mind, no longer was supportive of the plan and presented options such as living with her mother.
[59] The Society has now embarked on creating a new plan with the goal of the child transitioning from the secure treatment program to living in the community with significant supports. The Society admits that it has not presented a finalized plan at this time because of the child’s decision made on November 11, 2019 less than one month before the termination of the original committal order.
[60] Counsel for the child’s submits that this failure is significant and the Society is not able to meet the criteria required by the legislation. However, in Hamilton Children’s Aid Society v. S (S), 2012 O.J. No. 6382, the court held that under section 120(5)(e) of the CFSA, the predecessor of section 167 CYFSA, did not require the Society to have the finalized program in place before an extension of his secure treatment order can be granted. The court held that the Society was required to provide a specific course of action to achieve a recommended placement and services based on the child’s situation and the actual available resources at the end of the period of secure treatment.
[61] I find that the Society will require time to finalize a new plan before the end of this period of secure treatment. The current plan is that the child will continue with the occupational therapy, support the child in feeling safe in the community, addressing her ability to manage triggers without putting herself at risk by running away, continuing to attend the Robert Smart McHugh School and adjusting her medication as required.
[62] I accept that the Society will need time to assess a plan where the child could potentially move into her mother’s care or potentially another foster home.
[63] I find that the current plan presented by Dr. Motayne and his team is an appropriate protocol that can be achieved within the four-month period proposed by the Society.
Disposition
[64] Consequently, I order that the child G.L. be committed to the Roberts Smart Centre for a period of 120 days retroactive to December 12, 2019.
Mr. Justice Mark Shelston
Released: December 30, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: FC-08-973-7
DATE: 2019/12/30
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicants
and
G.L., the child
BEFORE: Shelston J.
COUNSEL: Ms. Hupé, for the Applicant
Ms. Côté, for the child
ENDORSEMENT
Shelston J.
Released: December 30, 2019