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-21-CP1

DATE: 2021/06/01

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 O.J.C.L. (DOB: […], 2020)

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

C.L. (Mother)

M.C. (Father)

Respondents

Victoria Dada, for the Applicant

Francis Aheto-Tsegah, for the Respondent Mother

Mellington Godoy, for the Respondent Father

HEARD: April 20, 2021

endorsement

engelking J.

[1] A care and custody motion was heard by me on April 20, 2021. The Society is seeking an order placing the child, O.J.C.L., born on […], 2020 in its care and custody on a with prejudice basis pending final resolution of the Protection Application.

[2] The Mother, Ms. L. is opposing the Society’s request and is seeking an order placing O. in the care and custody of his parents, herself and Mr. C., subject to a temporary supervision order.

[3] The Father, Mr. C. is also opposing the Society’s motion and is requesting an order placing O. in his and Ms. L.’s care and custody subject to a temporary supervision order.

[4] Mr. Godoy appeared for Mr. C. and indicated as Mr. Aheto-Tsegah’s agent that the motion could proceed, notwithstanding Mr. Aheto-Tsegah’s absence due to illness. Under the circumstances, Ms. L.’s materials, although filed late, where accepted by the court.

[5] The following materials were reviewed by the court in determining the motion:

a. The Society’s Notice of Motion dated January 12, 2021;

b. The Society’s Factum dated April 13, 2021;

c. Affidavit of Gavin Fletcher sworn on January 12, 2021;

d. Affidavit of Kristin Moir sworn on April 9, 2021;

e. Affidavit of Michelle Mackland-Hambleton M.M.H. sworn on April 12, 2021;

f. Notice of Motion of Ms. L. dated April 16, 2021;

g. Affidavit of Ms. L. sworn on April 16, 2021;

h. Factum of Ms. L. dated April 16, 2021;

i. Affidavit of Mr. C. sworn on April 13, 2021; and,

j. Factum of Mr. C. dated April 14, 2021.

[6] The Society filed a Protection Application dated January 8, 2021 in which it requests a finding that the child, O. is in need of protection and an order placing him in Interim Society Care for a period of six months. A temporary without prejudice order placing him in the Society’s care was made on consent of the parents on January 13, 2021.

The Society’s Evidence

[7] As was indicated above, O. was born on […], 2020. He was in the care of his parents with no involvement by the Society until November 20, 2020. On November 19, 2020, Ms. L. attended the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) with O., reporting that he had been feeding poorly in the previous 12 hours and that he had a fever. During their investigation, medical staff at CHEO discovered two brain haematomas which they noted could have been the result of non-accidental injuries. Ms. L. reported that the child had fallen off the couch two weeks previously, but the medical team noted that this explanation would not be considered a reason for the injuries. The matter was thus referred to the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”).

[8] The matter was also referred to the Ottawa Police, and both parents were interviewed at CHEO on November 21, 2020 by Detective Menard of the Sexual Abuse/Child Abuse (“SACA”) unit, in the presence of Child Protection Worker (“CPW”) Genevieve Marcil. Ms. L. gave the same explanation of a fall from the couch that she had previously provided.

[9] On November 26, 2020, CPW Mr. Fletcher was provided with the results of CHEO’s investigations to date by Dr. Kowarska. They included that the abdomen was normal, the skeletal survey was normal but would need to be repeated in 10 to 14 days, that O. had retinal haemorrhages in both eyes, that infection was ruled out as the cause of the brain bleed or seizures, that the child may have had a bruise on his left arm at admission; that parts of O.’s brain had been deprived of oxygen and that O.’s seizure activity had stopped while in hospital.

[10] As a result of this information, the parents were again interviewed by Detective Menard on November 27, 2020 at the police station and in the presence of Mr. Fletcher.

[11] Due to the nature of the injuries and their undetermined cause, the Society and the parents agreed to a safety plan wherein O. would return home with the parents with supervision to be provided in the home by the maternal grandmother or maternal aunt.

[12] O. was discharged from hospital on November 28, 2020 to the care of the parents along with Ms. L.’s sister, V.L. The plan was for the parents to always be supervised with O. in their care until the cause of the injuries was determined, and various family members, including Ms. L.’s mother, sister and father, and friends were involved.

[13] A December 2, 2020 note of Pediatrician, Dr. T. Falsetto, confirms that during his hospital admission from November 19 to 27, 2020, O. was diagnosed with “bilateral fronto-parietal subdural hemorrhage, bilateral retinal hemorrhage, and seizure activity following unclear inciting event and irritability, lethargy, poor feeding and hypothermia.” The consult note indicates: “O.J. is a 10 wk old M presenting for consultation re: Suspected NAI. Accompanied by father.” Although “NAI” stands for Non-Accidental Injury, no clear finding has ever been made by medical personnel to this effect.

[14] On December 29, 2020, the Society was informed by the Ottawa Police Services (“OPS”) that Ms. L.’s mother was taken to hospital, and a back up worker followed up with Ms. L. to confirm that 24/7 supervision of the parents was required, which Ms. L. acknowledged.

[15] On December 30, 2020, CPW Justin Petitpas attended the parents’ residence unannounced and no one was present supervising the parents, though Ms. L. indicated that her sister had been over earlier but went home feeling unwell.

[16] On that date, and although Mr. C. and Ms. L. expressed their view that 24-hour supervision was not necessary, the parents agreed to be supervised until January 1, 2021, after which they advised Mr. Petitpas that they would not have supports available. Mr. Petitpas then followed the parents to the home of V.L. and reviewed the expectations of supervision with her, which she indicated she was prepared to follow.

[17] On January 4, 2021, the new incoming worker, Kristin Moir, received a call from Detective Menard advising that a complaint of elder abuse of Ms. L.’s mother by Ms. L. and Mr. C. had been made to the OPS.

[18] On January 8, 2021, Mr. Fletcher received a call from Ms. V.L. in which she shared concerns about both Ms. L. and Mr. C., including in relation to mental health and their coping strategies, which included the use of marijuana for her and alcohol for him, and she relayed that shortly after Mr. Petitpas left her home on December 30, 2020, so too did Ms. L. and Mr. C., who returned to their own home with O. without supervision.

[19] Ms. V.L. stated to Mr. Fletcher that both parents were mentally unstable, and that Ms. L. was suffering from post-partum depression as well as anxiety. She indicated that Mr. C. was drinking daily, from the time he came home from work and continuing into the night. She reported further that Ms. L. was smoking approximately three joints per day to deal with her mental health.

[20] On January 8, 2021, the Society obtained a warrant and removed O. to a place of safety. Since January 18, 2021, the parents have been visiting with O. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for two hours each. Commencing February 13, 2021, another visit on Saturdays for a few hours was added under the supervision of Mr. C.’s parents.

[21] On February 12, 2021, Ms. Moir received information from a Valoris CAS worker that Ms. L. and Mr. C.’s friend, J.B.F., who had provided some supervision while O. was still in their care, and who had been staying in their home, reported that Mr. C. drinks to the point of intoxication after work.

[22] As of February 26, 2021, Mr. C.’s parents, L.C. and M.C., were approved for overnights on weekends, which they were able to arrange directly with O.’s foster parents. Ms. L. and Mr. C. could also visit with O. under their supervision at their discretion.

[23] On March 10, 2021, Ms. Moir was advised by Detective Menard that the investigation into O.’s injuries was still open. She indicated additionally that the OPS had some reports involving Mr. C. with respect to a landlord dispute, domestic violence between the couple, an issue with a firearm and mental health struggles.

[24] On March 10, 2021, Ms. Moir met with the parents and discussed with them the information received from their friend, J., and from the OPS. Mr. C. and Ms. L. both admitted to Ms. Moir that they were struggling emotionally, and that Mr. C. was drinking too much. Ms. L. also indicated that she was using marijuana again, which she had previously stopped doing. Ms. L. and Mr. C. recognized that these were not healthy coping strategies and indicated to Ms. Moir that they were taking steps to address them.

[25] Mr. C. advised Ms. Moir that he had been admitted to the Royal Ottawa Hospital in the Meadowcreek program for substance abuse as well as to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital for drug related issues. He denied having mental health issues.

[26] Ms. L. has admitted to struggles with PTSD and Anxiety but reported that her mental health has been stable since before her pregnancy.

[27] On March 25, 2021, Ms. Moir, Ms. L., and the foster mother attended a neurology appointment with O. with Dr. Thuasirajah, where some developmental delays, which are not an unusual response to a brain bleed, were noted.

[28] On April 1, 2021, Dr. Kowarska confirmed to Ms. Moir that testing done on O. “did not raise any concerns that he has a bleeding disorder (including vitamin K deficiency of the newborn)”.

[29] Access by the parents with O. has been positive overall. The parents are consistent, prepared and attentive during visits.

[30] To the date of the motion, the parents were unable to provide the Society with a plan that would ensure the presence of 24-hour supervision should O. return to their care.

Ms. L.’s Evidence

[31] Ms. L. indicated that she and Mr. C. met in 2016 and were into the fourth year of their relationship when O. was born. Mr. C. was honest with her about his past drug use issues, upon which he was working, having completed a treatment program in May of 2016.

[32] Ms. L. was diagnosed with Complex PTSD in 2009 and also suffers from Anxiety. In or about 2017, she decided to quit smoking marijuana and drinking in order to pursue a healthier relationship with Mr. C.

[33] Ms. L. recalled the police being called to their home on one occasion during a heated argument she and Mr. C. were having. Although she felt scared, Mr. C. never physically abused her. It was at this time that they decided to completely stop using substances.

[34] In the summer of 2018, Ms. L. and Mr. C. moved into a home at 1422 Goth Avenue along with Ms. L.’s mother, R.H., who has some health issues of her own.

[35] O. was conceived in January of 2020; the pregnancy was confirmed in February 2020 and O. was born in […] of 2020.

[36] Ms. L. described that on November 13, 2020, O. fell from the couch to the floor when she turned to get a bottle. He stopped crying within in a few minutes and appeared ok to her. She and Mr. C. continued to monitor O. over the days following his fall, and noticed that he was sleeping longer and taking fewer bottles.

[37] On November 19, 2020, Ms. L. went to her work at the Dollar Tree and O. was left in the care of Mr. C. She was concerned due to him not feeding well and checked up on him often. Mr. C. advised her that O. was very fussy and also very sleepy. Mr. C. went to pick her up from work in the evening, and Ms. L. indicates she realized as soon as she got to the car that “something was really wrong when O. made a cry that was so different”. They immediately drove O. to CHEO.

[38] On November 21, 2020, Ms. L., who was staying in the hospital with O., observed him having what was later discovered to be a seizure. He had additional seizures, for which he then received treatment. According to Ms. L., O. did not have any seizures when he was returned to the parents’ care. According to the foster parents, he continued to do so and in January, his dose of seizure medication was increased to match his weight gain.

[39] Ms. L. indicates that she and Mr. C. were very cooperative with medical staff, the CAS and the OPS. She denies doing anything to have injured O., and continued to provide the explanation of O. having fallen off of the couch six days prior to admission. Rather than a sudden deterioration, Ms. L. states that O. slowly deteriorated over the span of six days from the fall.

[40] Ms. L. indicates that she and Mr. C. made every effort to follow the safety plan after O.’s discharge home, but that it was difficult to find 24-hour supervision during the pandemic and in the midst of a provincial stay-at-home order. This became particularly so after Ms. H. was admitted to hospital for her own health issues.

[41] Ms. L.’s evidence with respect to the night of December 30, 2020 is that after they were followed to V.’s home by Mr. Petitpas, V.’s partner, R.H. yelled at them and started acting violent towards them, telling them to leave O. Instead, not feeling that O. would be safe there, they left and picked up J., who continued to supervise them thereafter.

[42] Ms. L. states at paragraph 41 of her affidavit that O. was removed from her care due to her mother having stepped out for a cigarette on one occasion that she was supposed to be supervising and to “a complaint from my sister”. Her position is that the restrictions placed on her and Mr. C. by the Society were unreasonable.

[43] Ms. L. denies ever having treated her mother badly, stating rather that she and Mr. C. helped her out with her medical appointments and nutritional needs, and made sure she was ok.

[44] Ms. L. has researched what she believes to be causing O.’s difficulties, and although she has provided no expert evidence regarding O. specifically, she did attach an article to her materials from the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine written by a Dr. Steven C. Gabaeff entitled: Challenging the Pathophysiologic Connection between Subdural Hematoma, Retinal Hemorrhage and Shaken Baby Syndrome, which suggests that there are other potential etiologies of dural bleeding, including a subset of accidental falls.

[45] Ms. L. has engaged with Bethany Hope Centre for Individual Support and Grief/Loss Support since March of 2021, having had four Individual Support sessions and two Grief/Loss Support sessions by the time of the motion.

[46] Ms. L. seeks to have O. returned to her and Mr. C.’s care and notes that she is prepared to be subject to conditions that she sign consents upon consultation with counsel, advise the Society of any change of address and/or contact information, attend Family Counseling and work cooperatively with the Society to ensure the child’s medical, educational and emotional needs are met.

Mr. C.’s Evidence

[47] Mr. C.’s evidence is similar to that of Ms. L. with respect to the relationship history.

[48] He describes a history of cocaine and alcohol misuse which commenced in about December of 2012 and continued to the spring of 2016.

[49] Mr. C. describes that in the late fall of 2015, he posted a photograph on FaceBook of a legally owned firearm with a comment which worried his aunt J., who called the police. However, Mr. C. was already in attendance at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital (“QCH”) due to a near overdose. He indicates that he voluntarily handed the firearm over to the OPS and has not purchased any weapon since.

[50] Mr. C. was admitted to the psychiatric ward of the QCH on February 8, 2016 due to his drug use, which was causing him to be severely depressed. It was around this time that he met Ms. L. through an on-line dating application, and he credits Ms. L. in being extremely supportive in his recovery.

[51] In May of 2016, Mr. C. graduated successfully from the Meadow Creek Program at the Royal Ottawa Hospital (“ROH”), and thereafter attended several groups and counselling sessions. Mr. C. attests to being free from hard drugs ever since, and indicates that he has not had any mental health issues or suicidal thoughts.

[52] Mr. C. indicates that in the early years of their relationship, he and Ms. L. got into arguments, often with alcohol use involved and he recalls the police being called on two occasions, neither of which resulted in any charges against either him or Ms. L. He denies there ever being any domestic violence between them.

[53] In September of 2019, Mr. C., Ms. L.and Ms. H. moved from 1422 Goth Avenue, where they had difficulties with the landlord, to Westwood Drive.

[54] Mr. C. indicated that he received a telephone call from Ms. L. while at work on November 13, 2020 advising him that O. had fallen off the couch face down and hit his head. He was fine for the next two days and was feeding normally. However, when he returned home from work on Monday, November 16, 2020, Ms. L. mentioned that O. seemed fussier than usual and was not feeding well. The next day when Mr. C. returned from work, Ms. L. indicated that O. seemed fussier than the day before and was feeding less. This continued on November 18, 2020.

[55] On November 19, 2020, when Mr. C. returned from work, Ms. L. again stated that O. seemed even fussier and was feeding less. While Ms. L. was at work, Mr. C. attempted to get O. to eat more, however he did not. According to Mr. C., “O. was crying loudly, considerably louder than normal and he became inconsolable.” O. cried the whole way when Mr. C. went to pick up Ms. L. from work. He advised Ms. L. that he had been in that state for some time and they made the immediate decision to take him to CHEO.

[56] Mr. C. indicates that he too was as honest and cooperative with the medical staff, CAS and police as he could be. He denies ever having shaken or hurt O. in any way.

[57] Like Ms. L., Mr. C. also witnessed seizures happening to O. starting during the night of November 21, 2020, to which they alerted hospital staff. After five days in hospital, it was his observation that the seizures ceased. Mr. C. indicates that O. did not have any seizures or display seizure-like behaviour while in his and Ms. L.’s care after discharge.

[58] Mr. C. states that he and Ms. L. were supervised at all times, usually by Ms. H. or V.L., until Ms. H. was taken to hospital on December 29, 2020. Mr. C.’s evidence is that after Mr. Petitpas followed them to V.’s home on December 30, 2020, R.H. began screaming at them and becoming extremely aggressive towards them about Ms. H.’s situation, and neither he nor Ms. L. felt safe having O. there. Ms. L. called her friend, J.B.F., who along with her 1 ½ year old daughter, came to stay with them until February 2021. J. was their only supervisor from the end of December to January 8, 2021 when O. was removed from their care. However, she remained living with Mr. C. and Ms. L. for about six weeks more.

[59] Mr. C. states that between January 5 and 8, 2021, V.L. made “serious false allegations” against them, and that it was as a result of these that O. was removed from their care.

[60] Mr. C. has since been placed on a waiting list for Parental, Couples and Family counselling with Ottawa Family Services and the Pinecrest Queensway Community Health Centre, and was to commence the CAS parenting with confidence program via Zoom on April 20, 2021.

[61] Mr. C. has found the whole situation of first, investigating what happened to O.; second, having to find fulltime supervisors; third, O.’s removal from their care; and, finally the court process, exceedingly stressful. He admits to his alcohol consumption increasing shortly after O. was removed out of a sense of hopelessness, but he has since corrected that behaviour.

[62] Since March, Mr. C. has been receiving weekly peer support services from Psychiatric Survivors of Ottawa, an organization with which he was familiar from the past. He also receives support from his parents, who supervise Saturday visits with O. and who he will call otherwise when needed.

[63] Mr. C. works from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and he indicates that as soon as O. is returned to their care, Ms. L., who works in the evening, will stop working and focus on caring for him. Mr. C. is willing to sign consents requested by the CAS, continue to be fully cooperative with the CAS workers and allow announced and unannounced home visits.

[64] Mr. C. proposes supervision of O. in their care throughout the week through a combination of in-person supervision by his mother, L.G., his aunt, J.G. and/or Ms. L.’s friend, R.S., and community programming in which Ms. L. and O. would be involved. His proposal does not entail fulltime supervision. He indicates he is willing to follow any conditions imposed by the court.

Analysis

[65] The test with which the court must concern itself is contained in Section 94(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Service Act, which provides:

94(4) the court shall not make an order for care and custody under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2) (a) or (b).

[66] In Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC), [2000] OJ No 2273 (QL) SCJ at paragraph 10, Justice Blishen articulated the test for a temporary care and custody hearing to be that the Society “must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the child is returned to the parents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Further, the society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents.”

[67] The Society has, in my view, successfully demonstrated that it has reasonable grounds upon which to believe there is risk that O. may suffer harm if returned to the care of his parents. O. has suffered harm in this case, and it remains unclear at this juncture as to whether that harm was caused as a result of a non-accidental injury by one of Ms. L. or Mr. C. Unless or until that question is answered, reasonable grounds to believe in risk exist.

[68] The more challenging question in this case is with respect to the second branch of the test, namely, whether O. cannot be adequately protected by the terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to Ms. L. and Mr. C.

[69] In the case of The Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin v. L.N., 2011 ONSC 6521, which was an appeal to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario of a trial decision, Justice Gordon reviewed the case law pertaining to unexplained injuries. The court found at paragraph 25 and 26 of the decision that the “fundamental proposition that injuries suffered by an infant which are of a serious nature and which remain unexplained are in and of themselves grounds for removal of a child and for the continuation of that removal” is appropriate. Justice Gordon found further at paragraph 29 that the necessary preconditions for what he referred to as the “unexplained injury principle” are twofold: “First, that the evidence is sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child’s injury may have been caused by that parent; and, second, that the evidence is not sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the injury was caused by someone else.” Only after these preconditions are fulfilled does a parent have “to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that the injury was not intentionally caused, that there was a reasonable explanation of the circumstances in which the injury was sustained, and that those circumstances would again arise.”

[70] In this case, although no conclusion has been reached by either the medical team or the police investigating the cause of O.’s injuries, there is sufficient evidence to establish that either Ms. L. or Mr. C. may have caused them, though both adamantly deny having done so. There is no evidence that any other person had opportunity to have injured O. Thus, the necessary two-fold preconditions to the unexplained injury principle have been fulfilled.

[71] In order for O. to be returned to their care, Ms. L. and Mr. C. would therefore have to satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that a fall by O. from a couch to the floor while wrapped in a blanket six days before admission to the hospital is a reasonable explanation for the injuries he suffered.

[72] Mr. Fletcher noted in his affidavit sworn on January 12, 2021, that in both the initial referral to the CAS by CHEO and over the course of their investigation confirming O.’s two bilateral subdual haematomas, that the explanation of the child falling from the couch was not considered a plausible cause of his injuries, and, therefore, a concern for non-accidental trauma remained. When retinal haemorrhaging was later also found, this remained the case. In their November 26, 2020 telephone conversation, Dr. Kowarska indicted to Mr. Fletcher that retinal haemorrhages have a high association with head trauma and the explanation of the child having fallen from the couch would not account for these injuries. Dr. Kowarska was also of the view that given the nature of the injuries, something must have happened the day of admission to the hospital that caused them rather than them resulting from a slow deterioration over time.

[73] The parents disagree with this view, and suggest that although O. seemed fine on the day of the fall, his well-being deteriorated over the six following days until their presentation at CHEO. They remain adamant that neither of them caused an injury or injuries to O. and that there must be some other explanation for them. They posit the fall or difficulties at birth, for the latter of which there is no medical evidence before me to support.

[74] The parents are of the view, based on the article mentioned above, and their own research, that the fall from the couch by O. is a reasonable explanation for his injuries. Although the article may be “credible and trustworthy”, having been published in what is presumably a reputable medical journal, the difficulty with it is that it does not reference O.’s specific fall or specific injuries. Unlike in L.N. at the trial level, this court has had no opportunity to hear from those experts who suspect non-accidental injury and why, including cross-examination, or from any expert who might provide evidence or an opinion as to why O.’s injuries may not be non-accidental, including cross-examination.

[75] This is a Care and Custody hearing, and in order to return O. to the care of the parents, the court would have to be satisfied that it would be safe to do so, taking into consideration the “fundamental proposition” of the unexplained injury principle. The parents may be able to establish at trial that the injuries to O. were accidental. I am not satisfied that they have done so for the purposes of this hearing. Without knowing what happened to O., it is impossible for this court to conclude that he can be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents. The second branch of the test is Section 94(4) is therefore met by the Society.

[76] There shall consequently be a temporary order that O. remain in the care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa pending the outcome of the application as per the Society’s Notice of Motion dated January 12, 2021, except that access to the parents as outlined in number II shall be for minimum of four times per week.

[77] I note that Justice Blishen has scheduled the matter to a Settlement Conference on July 19, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. It is adjourned to that date.

Engelking J.

Released: June 1, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-CP1

DATE: 2021/06/01

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 O.J.C.L. (DOB: […], 2020)

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

C.L. (Mother)

M.C. (Father)

Respondents

Endorsement

Engelking J.

Released: June 1, 2021