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 (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
(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-18-FO000626-0000
DATE: 2021-07-28
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO, Applicant
- AND -
D.B., Respondent
- AND -
B.M., Respondent
BEFORE: Madam Justice D. Piccoli
COUNSEL: Aisha Ghafoor, Counsel for the Applicant
Gloria Ichim, Counsel for the Respondent, D.B.
Walter Wintar, Counsel for the Respondent, B.M.
Mark Maurer, Child Counsel
HEARD: May 10, 2021
CORRECTED ENDORSEMENT: The original Endorsement was released on July 28, 2021 and has been corrected as follows: On page 2 at paragraph 1, the child’s date of birth has been redacted; on page 4 at paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, the child and parents’ dates of birth have been redacted and on page 44 under Orders Granted, paragraphs 1(a) and 2 the child’s date of birth has been redacted.
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] The Applicant, the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (the “CAS”), has brought a summary judgment motion dated November 28, 2019, and January 29, 2021. I have reviewed both of the Notices of Motion. Although in oral argument and in its factum the CAS seeks an order pursuant to r. 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, that the child, A.M., born [date of birth redacted] (age nine) (the “Child”), is in need of protection pursuant to ss. 74(2)(b)(ii), (f) and (h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Schedule 1 (“CYFSA”), in fact, section 74(2)(b)(ii) was not referenced in either Notice of Motion. None of the parties raised this issue. The CAS seeks an order that the Child be placed in the care of B.M. (the “Father”) for a period of six months under the supervision of the CAS. In addition, the CAS seeks terms of supervision in reference to both parents. The CAS also seeks an order that access to the Child by D.B. (the “Mother”) be at the discretion of the CAS and supervised as deemed necessary by the CAS.
[2] The protection application dated December 11, 2018, seeks a protection finding in accordance with ss. 74(2)(f) and (h). The amended amended child protection application dated December 16, 2019, seeks to include a finding under s. 74(2)(b)(ii).
[3] The Father supports the relief the CAS is seeking and consents to the terms of supervision.
[4] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) supports the relief the CAS is seeking.
[5] The Mother seeks an order that the Child be returned to her. She requests a trial.
[6] The CAS relied on the following documents:
(a) motion for Summary Judgment dated November 28, 2019 and dated January 29, 2021;
(b) affidavit of Edda Kerr (child protection worker) dated November 29, 2019;
(c) affidavits of Catherine Bird (child protection worker) dated November 28, 2019, January 10, 2020, March 10, 2020, January 29, 2021 and April 8, 2021;
(d) affidavit of K.M. (principal at the school the Child attended when apprehended from the Mother’s care), dated November 29, 2019;
(e) affidavit of J.C. (teacher at the school the Child attended when apprehended from the Mother’s care) dated November 29, 2019;
(f) affidavit of R.K. (the Child’s classroom teacher at the school the Child attended when apprehended from the Mother’s care), dated November 29, 2019;
(g) affidavit of A. C. (social worker at the school the Child attended when apprehended from the Mother’s care), dated November 29, 2019;
(h) affidavit of Amy Bannerman (family and community worker with the CAS) dated November 27, 2019;
(i) affidavit of Cathy Gavel, (supervised access worker employed by the CAS) dated November 28, 2019;
(j) affidavit of Chris Gatten (employee of the CAS) dated November 28, 2019;
(k) amended amended protection application dated December 16, 2019;
(l) endorsement of Broad J. dated March 11, 2021;
(m) the CAS’s document briefs (2); and
(n) the CAS’s factum filed on March 4, 2021.
[7] The Father relied on the following material:
(a) his affidavits sworn December 12, 2019, February 12, 2021, and April 15, 2021; and
(b) his factums dated January 15, 2020, and March 5, 2021.
[8] The Mother relied on the following material:
(a) her affidavit sworn January 5, 2020; and
(b) her factum dated May 7, 2021.
[9] During argument of the motion, the Father received the Discharge Report from CARIZON Family and Community Services Trauma Treatment Services (the “Report”). On consent, the Report was provided to the court and each party was given the opportunity to make submissions in reference to it.
Background
[10] The Child, who is the subject matter of these proceedings, is A.M., born [date of birth redacted].
[11] The Mother of the Child is D.B., born [date of birth redacted].
[12] The Father of the Child is B.M., born [date of birth redacted].
[13] The CAS initially became involved with the family in September 2014, shortly following the Mother and Father’s separation. The Father reported concerns about the Mother’s behaviour and mental health. The Father advised that he was not being allowed parenting time with the Child, who was then three years of age. He was told to seek a custody order.
[14] In November 2014, the CAS received reports from a local counsellor regarding verbal and physical conflict between the parents to which the Child was exposed.
[15] On February 4, 2016, Neill J. made an order on consent that the parties share joint custody (the “Custody Order”) of the Child. The CAS terminated its involvement in May 2016.
[16] The CAS initiated a protection application in October 2018, initially seeking to place the Child with the Mother, under terms of supervision and with access to the Father.
[17] On November 8, 2018, Rogers J. made an interim interim without prejudice order placing the Child with the Mother under terms of supervision. Among other terms, the Mother was ordered to cooperate with the CAS, meet with a worker from the CAS as requested, ensure the Child attends school consistently and on time, ensure the Child’s educational needs were met and attend all required school meetings. The Mother was also required to meet with a physician and discuss mental health symptoms. This is the order that the CAS states the Mother breached.
[18] The Child resided continuously with the Mother until December 2018.
[19] On December 13, 2018, Rogers J. ordered that the Child be removed from the care of the Mother and placed in the care of the Father under terms of supervision. The Child’s access with the Mother was ordered to be at the discretion of the CAS and supervised as deemed necessary by the CAS. The Police assisted in removing the Child from the Mother’s home.
[20] Since the Child was removed from the Mother’s care, she has had sporadic access with him, as described in the “Access” section below. The Mother has not had access with the Child since October 3, 2020.
Parties’ Positions
[21] The CAS states that the Child is in need of protection for the following reasons:
(a) the parents’ ongoing conflict and aggression towards each other as substantiated by, among others, the school and police records;
(b) the Mother’s verbal and physical aggression towards the Child;
(c) the Mother’s mental health issues;
(d) the Child’s serious school attendance issues;
(e) the Child’s poor academic performance which the Mother was not able to address;
(f) the Mother’s emotional conflict with the Child;
(g) the Mother’s failure to co-operate with the CAS, the school and other third parties;
(h) the Mother’s late or non-attendance for access with the Child; and
(i) the Mother’s failure to understand the impact of her actions.
[22] The Father’s amended plan of care dated January 2, 2019 requests that the Child be placed in his care. He asserts that placing the Child in his care will allow the Child the stability and support he needs for his development. The Father indicates that, for months prior, he has been very concerned about the Mother’s mental stability, the Child’s lack of attendance at school and the Child’s alienation from him by the Mother. He further asserts that placing the Child with him will ensure that the Child is not isolated “from the world”.
[23] The Father states that, as a result the parties’ inability to communicate and make changes to the schedule in the Custody Order to accommodate his work, and the high level of conflict between the parents, he did not exercise equal parenting time as set out in the Custody Order. In fact, for periods of time, he did not see the Child.
[24] The Mother’s amended plan of care dated February 14, 2019, seeks that the Child be returned to her. She argues that she is the Child’s mother and has been his primary caregiver since birth. She loves him and he loves her. She is able to meet his needs. Despite the Custody Order, the Child has continued to live with her because the Father has been too busy working.
[25] The Mother asserts that, given the Father’s refusal to follow the Custody Order, she found herself in a difficult situation, as she had full parenting responsibilities without any supports. For example, she was not eligible for a daycare subsidy because of the shared parenting order, she did not receive full child support and she only received one half of the child tax benefit for the same reason. The Father’s unpredictable parenting time was difficult for the Child. She notes that the Custody Order provides for a police enforcement clause and that the Father could have used police assistance if, as he asserted, the Mother withheld the Child from him. She further argues that the Father has a history of mental illness, that he would attempt to engage her in manipulation and conflict and that he would make reports against her to the CAS and police in an attempt to depict her as mentally ill.
[26] The Mother states that there are triable issues: namely, the child’s credibility and whether the Child is being coached by the Father to make statements against her, as the Child’s sudden change in position regarding the Mother is suspicious.
[27] In regard to the Child’s credibility, the Mother asserts that the Child has language issues and, as such, his statements cannot be taken as true. Furthermore, she notes that, at one point, the Child told the Mother that a CAS worker had physically harmed him, which the CAS determined was untrue. Therefore, if that is untrue, then it stands to reason that his statements to the teacher about the Mother’s use of physical discipline and to the Father and the CAS about the October 2020 incident are also untrue. Finally, she notes that there have been no criminal charges laid against her.
[28] The Mother points out that, when the Child was in her care, she involved him in many activities, including martial arts, YMCA, soccer, and swimming. He also had a fitness pass. She printed Kumon exercises to assist the Child with his education.
[29] The Mother asserts that she has met or attempted to meet the Child’s educational needs and that she attempted to get him the resources to assist him, but that the school did not follow through.
[30] The Mother states that, initially, she agreed to cooperate with the CAS, as she believed they would provide her with the necessary supports. According to her, they did not.
[31] The Mother argues that, because of cultural differences, she has been misunderstood by the CAS and by the Child’s schoolteachers and principal.
[32] For the reasons that follow, I find that I can decide the matter by summary judgment motion, that the Child is in need of protection, and that he should remain in the care of the Father, subject to a supervision order. There are terms to the supervision order. The Mother has not seen the child since October 2020. Prior to that there were serious issues with access. The Child has clearly stated that he does not want to see his Mother. I am not going to make an order for specified face to face access. I am going to make an order that letters can be exchanged. I am also going to make an order that the CAS put in place reunification counselling for this family with a culturally appropriate counsellor if possible.
Is the Parental Behaviour and Conflict a Protection Concern?
[33] Other than blaming each other for the conflict, neither parent denied the high level of parental conflict. Regardless of any issues that the Mother might have with the Child’s credibility, at the time of the apprehension (and after), the high degree of parental conflict is a protection concern.
[34] After the Custody Order was granted, the CAS continued to receive various reports from the Waterloo Regional Police (the “Police”) regarding conflict between the parents during access exchanges in the presence of the Child, and regarding enforcement of the Custody Order. The Police observed the Mother to be “pushy” with the Child and the Child was observed to be in an emotionally conflicted situation.
[35] Between November 2016 and June 2018, the CAS received phone calls from the Child’s school advising that the Child was reporting that there was verbal and physical conflict between the parents. The Child disclosed that his parents had punched him all over his body. However, no marks or bruises were noted. He reported to the school that the Mother tells him he is “stupid” and one time he kept repeating “I am stupid…I am stupid”. He also reported that the Mother would scream at him, pull his hair and push his head down. The Child made these disclosures to his teacher and then asked that they not be shared. The school was concerned about his safety and emotional wellbeing.
[36] The Mother advised the CAS and school staff that the Child was not having contact with the Father and so everything was fine. The Father reported that he was experiencing great difficulty in setting up access visits with the Child through the Mother. The Father sought police assistance.
[37] The Mother advised the Child’s teacher that the Father was not a good parent and had no access to the Child. When requested by the school, the Mother failed to provide a copy of the Custody Order. At a subsequent school meeting, the Mother reported that the Child would only be seeing the Father twice a year, but was unable to provide any documentation to support this. The Child expressed his desire to the Police and the CAS to see the Father and to be with him.
[38] On July 31, 2017, the Father advised the CAS worker, Ms. Kerr, that he did not want contact with the Child because of the conflict with the Mother. He was very stressed and had switched jobs numerous times since separating to accommodate the Mother’s wishes.
[39] In September 2017, the Father advised Ms. Kerr that his work schedule was five days on and five days off. He attempted different schedules, but they were too confusing for the Child. He felt that the schedule was not structured enough and that this was a factor in the Child’s behaviour and speech delays. By September 15, 2017, the Father advised the CAS that the Mother could have custody of the Child as long as he had alternate weekend access.
[40] The Mother told Ms. Kerr on September 18, 2017, that, because the Father was not following the Custody Order, she was not willing to allow the Father parenting time with the Child until the Custody Order was changed. She said that she was going back to court.
[41] In September 2017, the Child advised Ms. Kerr that the Father would yell at him and call him bad names. He declared that the Mother was his best friend.
[42] In November 2017, the Mother reported to Ms. Kerr that the Father had sent her black lace lingerie through the Child. The Father denied this and said that the lingerie had been purchased for her a long time ago.
[43] Police reports describe an incident on November 5, 2017, where the Father was 15 minutes late returning the Child. The Mother did not want to take the Child back, and she would push him in and out of her apartment. When she finally agreed that the Child could return home, she began grabbing the Child’s arm in the presence of the Police. The Police noted that the Child appeared to be afraid and they contacted the CAS given their high level of concern for the Child.
[44] Following a November 2017 access visit, the Mother hit the Father with a pair of boots in the presence of the Child.
[45] Following a December 8, 2017 access visit when the Father was ten minutes late, the Police were called, as the Mother was screaming and yelling at the Father and telling him to keep the Child.
[46] By December 8, 2017, the Father told the CAS worker that he was seeking custody of the Child, as he was concerned about the Mother’s mental health. On that same day, he told the worker that he was going back to Serbia to live and would only be in Canada three - four months of the year.
[47] The Father did not see the Child from the end of December 2017 to December 1, 2018, when Ms. Bird arranged a visit. The access exchange was set to take place at the Police station. The Father was ten minutes late and the Child got out of the car crying, shaking and scared. At the end of the visit, the Child expressed to the Father that he did not want to go back to the Mother’s.
[48] As a result of the Mother not responding to Ms. Bird’s request for a home visit, Ms. Bird met with the Child at his school on November 27, 2018. The Child would not answer her questions and said, “my mom said she is going to fight so I can stay with her always and I don’t sleep at my dad’s”. However, the Child did proceed to provide information to Ms. Bird about his homelife with the Mother, which included that she is too busy to read to him, that she tells him that she did not choose the right dad for him, and that she would leave him alone at the YMCA, sometimes for hours. He refused to tell Ms. Bird what happened to him if he did not follow the rules except to say that the Mother became very angry and he could not tell Ms. Bird as he would get in “big, big trouble”. He did indicate that, when the Mother gets mad, it makes him sad and he cries. He told Ms. Bird that he did not want to visit with the Father, but could not tell her why. He said, “we do not want to see dad, we do not talk to dad and we do nothing with dad” and that “Mom says don’t do anything with dad”.
[49] On December 5, 2018, Ms. Bird met the Child at his school to discuss the visit with the Father. The Child advised her that, if he talks to her about his time with the Father, he will get in big trouble with the Mother: she will get very angry and send him to live with the Father and he will never see her again. He stated that he did not want to speak to Ms. Bird or anyone else – only his mother.
[50] It is clear that the Mother did not promote the relationship between the Father and the Child. It is also clear that the Father was “hot and cold” in his desire to have parenting time. Both parents put their needs ahead of the Child until the December 2018 change in residence.
[51] It is clear that the Child was caught between his parents’ struggle and that there was a high level of parental conflict between the parties to which the Child was exposed.
Did the Mother fail to cooperate with the CAS and, if so, was it because of cultural differences?
[52] The Mother’s position is that the CAS failed to recognize and take into account the cultural differences between her and the worker, Ms. Bird. The Mother takes the same position with the school, which will be dealt with under the schooling section below.
[53] The CAS states that the Mother failed to cooperate and, as a result, the Mother did not address the protection concerns.
[54] It is clear that the Mother and the CAS had a conflictual relationship. This relationship may in part be a result of cultural differences. I am satisfied that the CAS did attempt to address cultural differences. I find that the Mother failed to cooperate with the CAS.
[55] The Mother describes that she immigrated to Canada on July 8, 1998, that she is Croatian but lived in Serbia and that she moved when she was 14 years of age due to religious persecution.
[56] The Mother explains that, as a non-native speaker of English, she sometimes finds it difficult to understand rules and legal consequences, and, as such, her behaviour has been viewed as non-cooperative.
[57] The Mother asserts that, because of the Father’s physical and emotional abuse of her, she was concerned about the Child being in the Father’s care. Because of this worry, the Mother states that her emotional state is “obvious but misinterpreted” by the CAS.
[58] The child protection worker assigned in July 2017 was Edda Kerr. The Mother states that she had a good relationship with Ms. Kerr. The Mother accused Ms. Kerr of using physical force against the Child. As of December 2017, the Mother was refusing to meet with Ms. Kerr.
[59] In February 2018, Ms. Kerr advised the parents that she was switching positions and Ms. Bird would be the new worker.
[60] Issues between Ms. Bird and the Mother appear to have started in October 2018.
[61] The Mother asserts (in her only affidavit sworn in these proceedings, dated January 5, 2020) that Ms. Bird’s affidavits contain errors and falsehoods regarding her behaviour towards the Child, their life together and their then current situation. She believes Ms. Bird to be aligned with the Father and that they are attempting to alienate her from her son.
[62] The Mother requested that Ms. Bird be removed as her worker.
[63] The Mother believes that the Child was apprehended from her care in December 2018 due to a misunderstanding resulting from cultural differences between herself and Ms. Bird.
[64] Ms. Bird sets out the numerous efforts she made to meet with the Mother to address the protection concerns since the file was transferred to her.
[65] The Mother states that Ms. Bird stopped access between the Mother and the Child because the Mother spoke to the Child in Serbian. She states that Ms. Bird is negatively biased against her because of communication difficulties and because she dislikes her personally.
[66] The Mother cites the breakdown in the relationship between her and Ms. Bird to be so significant that the CAS failed to meet its obligation to work towards the least intrusive option. She feels that Ms. Bird has been condescending towards her and has not dealt with her in a respectful manner. The Mother provided the following examples in her affidavit:
(a) Ms. Bird was culturally insensitive and told the Mother that it is inappropriate to take the Child home for lunch during school hours;
(b) the Mother felt insulted when Ms. Bird examined her food;
(c) the Mother felt that Ms. Bird mocked her education from Europe and did not believe she had an education from Europe;
(d) Ms. Bird spoke inappropriately in front of the Child and said, “it is my job to protect children and I want to make sure that you [the Child] are protected.” She further said, “I want to make sure your child is not hurt.” This triggered the Child’s anxiety and he said, “mommy why does she want to protect me from you?” This interaction caused the Child to distrust Ms. Bird and close himself off. The Mother states that the Child was afraid of Ms. Bird;
(e) the Mother felt her concerns about the Father coming in and out of the Child’s life were ignored;
(f) the Child was not permitted to keep his possession, a picture of him and the Mother, at the Father’s house;
(g) the Mother felt her rights as a parent were revoked due to false accusations and perjury;
(h) the Mother was not allowed to spend time with the Child privately; and
(i) the Mother could not bring the Child’s maternal grandmother (who only spoke Serbian) because Ms. Bird allowed them to communicate only in English without providing an interpreter.
[67] The CAS, in response to the Mother’s allegations regarding cultural insensitivity, points to the following:
(a) Ms. Bird reached out to all the CAS staff to attempt to locate a person of Croatian background so she could better understand any cultural differences between herself and the Mother.
(b) Ms. Bird’s co-worker, S. Bozic, whose family background is Croatian and Serbian, responded and advised of the following:
• mental health is very much stigmatized in her culture and any mention of it would be very offensive to Mother;
• mental health and addictions are not talked about;
• parents have very high academic standards for their children, and teachers single out kids and reprimand them or shame them for not doing well;
• parents view their child’s lack of academic progress as a direct reflection of themselves;
• a parent would be very ashamed if a child was removed from their care, and it is extremely difficult to ask for help; and
• church community is strong and close for those it views as having a successful life.
It was suggested by Ms. Bozic that the Mother identify one person in her culture whom she trusts and that she be encouraged to connect with this person for support.
(c) In March 2018, the Mother accused worker Ms. Kerr of using physical force with the Child. Two workers attended appointments with the Mother and the Child for a period of time thereafter and then the matter was transitioned to Ms. Bird. Initially, the Mother was thankful for Ms. Bird’s help.
(d) On March 20, 2015, KW counselling notes reference that the Mother “stated that she still sometimes worries why some people from her country of origin tend to “back away” from her”.
(e) When the Mother requested, counselling sessions were held in Serbian.
(f) The only Serbian worker (person not identified) at the CAS was Mother’s counsellor and, as such, it was a conflict for her to be the child protection worker.
(g) The Mother had conflicts with many people, including the CAS, the Police, the Child’s school and her own school administrators.
(h) The Father shares the same cultural background and there were no issues.
(i) The Mother’s lawyer was always invited to meetings to make the Mother more comfortable.
[68] It is clear that the Mother had a conflicted relationship with the CAS. The conflicted relationship led to a lack of cooperation. Although I accept that there are cultural differences, I find that the CAS attempted to address those differences. Despite this, the Mother did not cooperate with the CAS.
[69] If the Mother has not already done so, I encourage her to connect with a person who shares her culture in the community who she trusts for support and encouragement.
Did the Mother adequately provide for the Child’s educational needs?
[70] Paragraph 10 of the Custody Order requires “both parents to ensure that that the child attends school on a regular basis when he is in their care.”
[71] It is the Mother’s position that, although school attendance and lateness were a problem, she attempted to engage the school in addressing her concerns of bullying, which the school dismissed. Furthermore, she attempted to have an Education Assistance Plan (EAP) put in place, but was unsuccessful. She states that the school did not support her, and that her emails to the school were not aggressive, but considered frank and candid in her culture.
[72] The CAS’s position is that the Mother’s failure to get the Child to school on time or at all, and her failure to work with the school in addressing the Child’s needs, constitutes a risk of physical or emotional harm and, in fact, has caused emotional harm. The Father agrees. The OCL agrees. I agree.
[73] It is clear from the evidence of the school (principal, two school teachers and school counsellor) that the Child attended when he was apprehended from the Mother’s care, that numerous efforts were made by the school to address the Mother’s concerns regarding bullying, and that the school attempted to engage her in the Child’s education and to put in place resources for the Mother and the Child. Despite all of this, the Child’s educational needs were not met while he was in the Mother’s care.
[74] It is clear that the Mother did not ensure that the Child attended school on a regular basis. Her explanations for this (cultural issues, the Child being bullied, traffic, and illness) are not accepted by me as a reasonable excuse for the Child’s non-attendance and late attendance at school, nor his poor academic performance.
[75] During the 2017/18 academic school year, the Child was late 106 times and absent 47 times.
[76] The Mother admits that the Child’s attendance record is a problem. Her explanation is that the Child was being bullied and, because the school did not address the issue of bullying, she allowed him to remain at home.
[77] The Mother further asserts that her physical health and day to day problems, like traffic, all impacted the Child’s lateness and absences.
[78] The Mother points to a note that the Child brought home from school in or about September 2018 to show that he was being bullied. It was a note from Maya (a school mate) and her parents. It read, “sorry A. for hitting you I was upset at you. I will just walk away next time.” The parents wrote below saying, “we were very upset with Maya’s behaviour. She received her share of punishment at home and lost all privileges this week-end. We are sorry this happened and hope you feel better A. Maya’s mom and dad.”
[79] The school indicates that it investigated the bullying complaints and were unable to substantiate them.
[80] The affidavits from the principal, two school teachers and school counselor (the “School Affidavits”) set out all of the efforts that the school made to address the Mother’s concerns regarding bullying, to engage the Mother in the Child’s education and to assist the Mother in ensuring that the Child attend school and be on time. These efforts included an investigation of the bullying, assigning a social worker to assist with school compliance, and English as a Second Language (“ESL”) support twice per week.
[81] The school states that the Mother refused to consent to an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and refused specific homework assignments in favour of her own.
[82] In his February 2018 report card, the Child received a D in every subject. The Mother was resistant to speech and language supports. When the need for speech therapy was discussed, she was offered a speech therapist and language worker from the school board. The Mother resisted, however, as she did not want adults that she did not know working with the Child.
[83] The School Affidavits note that the Mother was unable to stay current with what was happening in the Child’s school. For example, she would bring him to school on PA Days, not follow the school’s protocol for signing in students late, and missed scheduled meetings despite being given reminders. She would become argumentative in the Child’s school agenda.
[84] The affidavit of J.C. (the Child’s Grade 1 teacher) sets out the efforts that she made to make the Mother understand the importance of the Child attending school and being on time. This affidavit sets out the various excuses provided by the Mother (the Child’s growing pains, being 15 minutes late was “not a big deal” and the weather) and that the Child told her that, at times, the Mother was watching television and did not want to take him to school. The Child disclosed to J.C. that he wanted to be with the Father. J.C. also explains that she made a number of referrals to the CAS because of the direct reports from the child regarding conflict between his parents, physical discipline used by the Mother and the Mother treating him in an emotionally harmful way.
[85] Despite the interim interim order of November 2018, the Child continued to have significant absences and late arrivals.
[86] The affidavit of R.K. (the Child’s Grade 2 teacher commencing September 2018) describes continued issues of lateness and attendance for the Child during the September 2018 semester, as well as an escalating negative attitude by the Child. R.K also set out the missed opportunities for the Child as a result of the Mother’s failure to complete forms or provide agreement that the Child participate in different activities and events.
[87] The attendance profile for the period of September 5, 2018, to December 11, 2018, shows that the Child was late 27 times and absent for a total of 21.5 days. The explanations, as noted in the attendance profile as provided by Mother, include the inability to drive, illness, family matters and, on one occasion, religious reasons.
[88] The Child made statements to R.K. and in class which included his concern about being taken away by the CAS, how angry the Mother was at the teacher, that the Mother told him that the police were going to take him away and that the Mother did not like Canada.
[89] The affidavit of the school social worker, A.C. (who the Mother states she got along with), sets out the attempts that she made to address the Mother’s concerns of feeling misunderstood by the school and the CAS. Her affidavit also sets out that the Mother refused to sign a consent to allow her to assist the Mother in accessing trauma counselling.
[90] The Mother complains that the Father did not assist her when she had care of the Child, as he was too busy working. She asserts that the Father is able to get the Child to school on time because he has assistance from a neighbour.
[91] It is clear that school staff became very concerned about the Child’s lack of academic progress and tried to actively engage the Mother with the school social worker to address these concerns. When confronted with the school’s concerns, the Mother presented as aggressive and hostile towards the teacher and school staff. The Mother minimized the school’s concerns and was unwilling to acknowledge the Child’s academic struggles. She would refuse to follow the learning plans devised by the teacher and to follow through with the teacher’s basic requests to ensure that the Child stayed organized. The Mother was highly resistant to any support that the school had to offer the Child in order to improve his speech and language delays. Various meetings were held throughout that school year to address the Child’s school attendance and his academic struggles. These efforts were largely unsuccessful due to the Mother’s lack of cooperation and commitment to the Child’s academic improvement.
[92] It is clear that the Mother was unable to ensure that the Child’s educational needs were met. This is a protection concern.
December 2018 change in residence
[93] Because of the Mother’s continuous refusal to meet with Ms. Bird, the Child being late and/or missing school, issues raised by the school, concerns about the Mother’s mental health and concerns that Ms. Bird had from her own meeting with the Child, a decision was made by the CAS to bring a motion to place the child with the Father. The parents were told about this decision on December 11, 2018. Ms. Bird thereafter attempted to meet with the Mother alone and the Mother refused.
[94] As the parties left the courtroom on December 11, 2018, Ms. Bird contacted the Police to assist with the apprehension, as she was concerned that the Mother would flee. When Ms. Bird arrived to pick up the child, Police officers were already there and advised Ms. Bird that it looked as if the Mother was about to leave with the Child, as he had his coat on and his belongings with him. The Mother was yelling at Police. When it was explained to the Mother that the Child should not be exposed to adult conflict, she eventually calmed down and the Child left with the Father.
[95] When asked for the Child’s school bag and other items he may need, the Mother refused to provide these items. The Mother indicated that, because the Child was living with the Father, it was the Father’s responsibility to meet the Child’s needs, including purchasing a school bag and belongings for the Child.
[96] The Mother met with Ms. Bird on December 12, 2018. She did not ask about the Child or about any contact or access with the Child moving forward. Ms. Bird asked the Mother to sign a consent to speak with her doctor, but the Mother refused, saying that she wished to review it with legal counsel. On December 13, 2018, the Mother did not arrive to court until 11:20 a.m. and she refused to speak to duty counsel. On December 14, 2018, an access schedule was emailed to the parents
Mental Health Allegations
[97] The Father and the CAS assert that the Mother has mental health issues.
[98] The Mother denies having mental health issues.
[99] The Mother is adamant that she does not suffer from mental health issues. She resists this label, as in her culture this label would mean that she is crazy. She states that there is no specific evidence that she suffers from mental health issues.
[100] For the purposes of this supervision order, I decline to make a finding that the Mother has mental health issues. It is not necessary for the finding to be made. If the Mother continues to refuse to sign directions releasing information for all of her medical processionals this may impact her at the status review.
[101] In Police reports dated July 19, 2018, the Mother advised the officer that she struggled with her own mental health and that she was very thankful for the assistance of Ms. Bird.
[102] The Mother states that, in an effort to comply with the order of Rogers J., her lawyer sought a referral to the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”). The CMHA indicated that they required a doctor's referral. The Mother went to her doctor and her doctor refused to make a referral to a psychiatrist. She advises that her rheumatologist referred her to a psychiatrist who, on intake, refused to proceed. Accordingly, the Mother sought the services of a psychologist to provide a mental health assessment.
[103] Importantly, there is no report from her doctor nor were her doctor’s notes and records produced to substantiate the Mother’s statements. She refused to sign consents to allow the CAS to speak with her medical professionals.
[104] The Mother attended six counseling sessions with KW counseling.
[105] The Mother privately retained Dr. Olivera Bojic-Ognjenovic.
[106] Dr. Bojic-Ognjenovic is a registered psychologist. She had three meetings with the Mother on March 25, 2019, April 1, 2019, and on April 19, 2019. Dr. Bojic-Ognjenovic did not swear an affidavit in these proceedings, nor was a medical report filed in accordance with the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23. Instead, the Mother attached a letter from Dr Bojic-Ognjenovic dated May 27, 2019 to her affidavit. The letter, in part, states as follows:
The results of the clinical semi-structured interview and psychometric testing were unremarkable. The results on BDI-II, HADS and PAC for DSM-5 indicated clinical intactness.
There is no past psychiatric history reported and/or previous admissions to hospitals. She reported she sought counselling from K-W Counselling services in 2017 in order to cope better with emotional abuse by her ex- husband. The counselling notes from KW Counselling were reviewed and they don’t contain any mention of serious clinical symptomatology.
On examination Ms. B… looks her stated age. Ms B… was alert and oriented to time and place. She did not show psychomotor agitation or retardation and she had good eye to eye contact. Her speech was fluent.
She had no abnormal perceptual experiences no abnormal form of thought and her thought content contained themes of marital abuse by ex-husband and themes of injustice, misunderstanding, disappointment in the school and child protection services. Her affect was stable and she appeared as mildly anxious…
In conclusion, the results of semi structured interviewing, mental status observation and psychometrics testing revealed no significant clinical symptomatology.
Since she reported she faced continuous stressors, it is also not unusual that she might appear as self- protective considering her impaired trust in the system she was hoping would protect her…
[I]t is recommended to her that she might benefit from presenting herself in an assertive, but cooperative and considerate manner in order to avoid socio cultural biases and misunderstanding in future.
[107] This letter is not proper evidence. There is no evidence one way or the other that the Mother suffers from mental health issues.
Access Between Mother and Child
[108] The CAS asserts that access between the Mother and the Child has been inconsistent since the apprehension in December 2018. This has had a profound negative emotional impact on the Child. The Father and the OCL agree.
[109] The Mother seeks that the child be returned to her.
[110] The Mother argues that inclement weather, illness and miscommunication were factors in her lateness and non-attendance. She also asserts that the CAS’s cultural insensitivity caused the access visits to fail.
[111] The Father asserts that the Mother’s inconsistent access created turmoil in the Child’s life. He became worried, distraught, upset and anxious if the Mother was not on time or did not attend. When the Mother did attend, the Child’s attitude and behaviour changed negatively. The Child’s structure and routine were affected either way.
[112] The OCL’s position is that the Child does not want access. His view has been consistently and independently expressed.
[113] Supervised access started in December 2018. The Mother was consistently late. She had to be reminded not to discuss court issues with the Child. Phone calls also had to be ended for the same reason. Further, the Mother would speak negatively of the Father during access visits.
[114] During the first supervised access visit on December 17, 2018, the Mother arrived 20 minutes late, and she whispered to the Child despite being asked not to do so. The Mother and the Child sat on the sofa for the first 30 minutes. The Child declined to play with any toys except those brought by the Mother and only for the last few minutes of the 90 minute visit.
[115] During the January 2, 2019 access visit, the Mother was ten minutes late. The Mother told the Child that he would be living with her again soon and that she would “fix it”. Ms. Bird asked her not to speak to the Child about where he would be living. The Mother started to argue with Ms. Bird and the Child stepped in to say, “My mom has done nothing wrong!” The Mother told the Child that she does not think anymore and only loves. The Child told her that she needs to think, and she replied that she put her brain on pause.
[116] On January 8, 2019, Ms. Bird met with the Mother and her lawyer to discuss access and to clarify what the Mother could do to address the protection concerns. Ms. Bird offered to meet or have a phone conversation regarding these issues.
[117] The Mother missed visits and continued to be late.
[118] On July 20, 2019, CAS employees, C. Gavel and C. Gatten, observed that during an access visit the Mother talked about adult issues in the Child’s presence. Despite attempts to redirect her, she became openly hostile with the workers in the Child’s presence.
[119] On October 28, 2019, a letter was faxed to all parties regarding ongoing access. Individual access was set up starting February 1, 2019. The visits were to take place every Friday thereafter from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The letter outlined steps that the CAS and the Father were taking to ensure the Child’s emotional safety. The letter confirmed access arrangements, including calendars, and presented clear guidelines to ensure that the Child would not be stressed or worried about adult issues while at visits. A Serbian translator with advanced notice was offered to accommodate the maternal grandmother if she wished to attend.
[120] Despite the clear access schedule circulated in October 2019, the Mother continued to be late and did not comply with access protocol to confirm her attendance the day prior so that the Father could prepare the Child for the visit, the Child could end school earlier on Fridays, and a volunteer driver could be arranged.
[121] Throughout November 2019, access had to be cancelled because the Mother did not confirm the day prior that she would be attending. The CAS workers made ongoing attempts to contact the Mother and her counsel to seek confirmation of the Mother’s plan to attend each scheduled visit.
[122] On November 19, 2019, the Mother indicated that she would start attending the access visits on a consistent basis. Despite this, she did not attend the visit on Friday, November 22, 2019. The Child arrived with the volunteer driver. The Child was visibly upset and very disappointed that access did not occur. On November 26, 2019, Ms. Bird faxed a letter to counsel of all parties indicating that accesses were suspended for the Mother due to the negative emotional impact the missed visits were having on the Child.
[123] In February 2020, the Child told the worker that he wanted to see the Mother but felt that she should want to see him too. The worker contacted the Mother who confirmed that she wanted visits. A referral was made for coached visits, however, a worker was not assigned due to the COVID-19 shut down.
[124] On March 20, 2020, Ms. Bird wrote a letter to the parents and counsel explaining that video access would happen on March 22, 2020, for 30 minutes, and future calls would be scheduled depending on how the Child responded to the video access. The initial call went well and ongoing video calls were planned for Thursdays and Sundays for one hour.
[125] The Father sent the Mother videos and pictures of the Child to keep her informed.
[126] In April 2020, the Father reported that although there were issues with the Mother involving the child in these proceedings, face to face access visits occurred that month.
[127] In May 2020, the Father reported that the issues persisted and that the Mother had been recording phone calls and saying things to the Child like, “don't let them tell you what to say or do” or sometimes she would ask “ who is telling you to say that” and the Father would have to intervene and ask her to change the subject. The conversation would become highly escalated and the Mother accused the Father of turning the Child against her. As a result, the Child indicated that he wanted the Father in the room during calls.
[128] In June 2020, the Father invited the Mother to go shopping with them at Costco. The outing went well. Face to face access visits continued until October 2020, as arranged between the parents.
[129] As access was going well, and given that the Father’s home was undergoing renovations, in September 2020, the Child went to stay with the Mother for ten days. During this ten day period, the Father noticed that the Child’s behaviour towards him started to change and that the Child became distant, quieter and withdrawn. The Father proposed that access to the Mother be during the daytime only. The Mother became angry and refused to discuss her ongoing parenting time.
[130] When the Child returned from a parenting visit with the Mother on October 3, 2020, the Father describes that the Child was very upset and advised that the Mother had called him a small idiot. He also disclosed that the Mother had told him that she wanted to ruin, bury or kill the Father. The Father reached out to CAS worker Ms. Bird, who attended the home to meet with the Child.
[131] The Child has not had access with the Mother since October 3, 2020. The child does not want access.
The Child’s Current Circumstances
[132] The Child changed schools in January 2019 so that he could attend a school close to the Father's home.
[133] The Father resides with his mother and her partner in Kitchener, Ontario, and has for the past six and a half years. The Child has been residing with the Father and his paternal grandmother and her partner since December 13, 2018. They have been approved to live together by the CAS. The paternal grandmother and partner provide care for the Child when the Father works. The Child has his own furnished bedroom.
[134] The Father works in construction and his work is seasonal. He typically woks from April or May of each year to December.
[135] When the Child first changed schools, he was assessed as quiet, and delayed in reading skills, level of English proficiency, and social relationships.
[136] Since the Child commenced residing with the Father, he attends school regularly. The Father works with the school and arranged a private tutor to address the Child’s special learning needs.
[137] The Father has involved the Child in a variety of activities outside of school, including music lessons, karate and a fitness class. They engage in a number of outdoor activities.
[138] The Father has also provided many opportunities for the Child to socialize and make new friends outside of school.
[139] The Father has regular contact with the Child’s school representatives. The Child has an IEP program with the school. The Father supports the efforts being made by the school to help the Child. The Father helps the Child at home with his homework, as requested by the school. The Child’s school performance appears to be improving. The Father has found that the Child’s reading has improved, as well as his understanding of school subjects.
[140] The Child's final report card from Grade 3 dated June 26, 2020, indicated that the Child had been absent a total of six days and late a total of four times throughout the entire school year. The report noted that the Child participated positively in distance learning activities after the school closure. The report stated that the Child had a good year, that he was very social, and that he was an energetic member of the class who enjoyed engaging his classmates in conversation. He did need reminders about managing his behaviour with others, accepting responsibility and resolving conflict. He was encouraged to slow down and put forth his best effort when completing tasks. The Child was promoted to Grade 4 for September 2021.
[141] In addition to a counselling session at Front Door on December 7, 2019 with a counsellor, Sarah Francis, the child began personal counseling in October 2020. The child has also attended 15 one hour sessions of trauma counselling through CARIZON, which commenced on December 18, 2020 and ended on April 29, 2021. He was referred to the trauma treatment program “due to experiences of abuse (physical, verbal and emotional) and attachment trauma involving his biological mother”. He attended the majority of the sessions with the Father. The discharge report notes that they “presented as consistently open and engaged in the therapy, and it is noted that they worked hard to learn and practice new ways to cope, express thoughts and feelings effectively and strengthen their parent-child relationship”. He also received psychoeducation around child abuse and was supported to express his thoughts and feelings related to his exercises through the creation of a trauma narrative life-book. Overall, with these resources and supports, the Child’s resilience score improved, and his level of vulnerability decreased compared to pre-treatment. There was a slight decrease in emotional reactivity. Nine recommendations were made, including that the child could benefit from a continued living environment that provides him with a sense of safety and stability. He and his family were also encouraged to re-access services, including CARIZON. If using CARIZON, it was suggested they wait a minimum of six months after service is complete before returning to the waitlist.
[142] The Father has attended and completed an eight week parenting program entitled “Circle of Security Parenting”, which he completed on November 18, 2019, through Front Door.
[143] The Father has a good working relationship with Ms. Bird.
[144] The Father believes that it is important that the Child have a stable, secure home life with predictability and routine. He needs this type of environment to ensure that his academic progress in school is supported and not undermined.
[145] It is clear that the Father has been able to provide the child with stability, support and love. The child is doing well in his care.
The Law
A. The Test for Summary Judgment in Child Protection Cases
[146] The Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, allow for a matter to be resolved without trial by way of a motion for summary judgment. The moving party (the CAS) has the burden of proof and shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: see r. 16(4).
[147] In response to the affidavit or other evidence served by the CAS, the responding party may not rest on “mere allegations or denials” but shall set out specific facts showing that there is a “genuine issue for trial”. If the evidence supports that there is no genuine issue for trial, the court is mandated by r. 16(6) to make a final order: see rr. 16(4)-(4.1) and (6). In Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, the Supreme Court of Canada established a new approach to summary judgment motions, the details of which are described further below. In response to Hryniak, new powers were added under rr. 16(6.1) and (6.2) that permit the court to weigh evidence, evaluate the credibility of a deponent and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, unless it is in the interests of justice for such powers to be exercised only at trial.
[148] In Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, 432 D.L.R. (4th) 497, at para. 80, the Court of Appeal for Ontario provided the following concise summary of the approach that the court should take to summary judgment within the context of child protection litigation, considering the decision in Hryniak:
Hryniak’s fairness principles for summary judgment must be applied recognizing the distinctive features of a child protection proceeding. In determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial the court must exercise caution and apply the objectives of the CYFSA including the best interests of the child.
The burden of proof is on the party moving for summary judgment. Although, r. 16(4.1) sets out the obligation of the respondent to the motion to provide “in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” this does not shift the ultimate burden of proof. Even if the respondent’s evidence does not establish a genuine issue for trial, the court must still be satisfied on the evidence before it that the moving party has established that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
The court must conduct a careful screening of the evidence to eliminate inadmissible evidence. The court should not give weight to evidence on a summary judgment motion that would be inadmissible at trial.
Judicial assistance must be provided for self-represented litigants. In particular, judges must engage in managing the matter and must provide assistance in accordance with the principles set out in the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) (online) established by the Canadian Judicial Council.
The special considerations that apply to Indigenous children must be part of every decision involving Indigenous children.
[149] Hyrniak confirmed that the summary judgment procedure is designed to winnow out cases that have no chance of success. It is not an invitation to water down the rules of evidence in order to make a determination. Hyrniak states that the judge must first determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based on the evidence, without using the additional fact-finding powers set out in r. 16(6.1). If, after this initial determination, there still appears to be a genuine issue for trial, the judge may resort to the additional fact-finding powers to decide if a trial is required.
[150] 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 those facts; and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial: see Hryniak, at para. 4.
[151] In child protection proceedings, a fair and just determination on the merits must recognize that such proceedings engage the rights of a vulnerable segment of our society under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Courts have stressed the need to take a cautious approach to granting summary judgment in child protection proceedings, which apply the objectives of the CYFSA, including the best interests of the child, and which promotes Hryniak’s principle of reaching a fair and just determination on the merits: see Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., at para. 76.
[152] A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent’s desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernable from the parents’ evidence that the child faces some better prospects than existed at the time of the Society’s removal of the child from their care and that they have developed some new ability as a parent: see Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., 2000 CanLII 3158 (Ont. C.J.); Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.G., 2012 ONCJ 423, at para. 98.
[153] Children before the court deserve an answer about their future. They should not have decisions about permanency planning delayed for months, often years, while their parents present well intended and hopeful plans to the court about their future care, but are unable to take the steps to translate their proposals into a plausible reality: see Children’s Aid Society (Simcoe County) v. T.D., 2012 ONSC 6737, at para. 7.
B. Can the Child be Found to be in Need of Protection on this Motion?
[154] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G.P., 2019 ONCJ 365, at paras. 71-75, Zisman J. lays out the following applicable legal principles with respect to a finding of need of protection:
[71] The society has the onus, on a balance of probabilities, to establish that the child is at risk of harm.
[72] The risk of harm must be real and likely and not speculative.
[73] Harm caused by neglect or error in judgment can come within a finding of risk of physical harm.
[74] With respect to the timing of the protection finding, I adopt the analysis of Justice Czutrin in the case of Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. R. (K.), wherein he states:
the court should be free to consider whether the child is in need of protection at the commencement of the proceeding or at the hearing date, or for that matter some other date depending on the circumstances. There cannot be an absolute rule as to the relevant date.
[75] In adopting this "flexible approach" Justice Carolyn Horkins recently explained in the case on [sic] Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. RM:
The type of risk that can lead to a child protection order is set out in s. 74 (2) of the CYFSA. It was also defined in the predecessor Act. It is obvious from the legislation that "risk" can be caused by a variety of different circumstances and conduct.
In many protections matters the risk that is identified at the outset changes as the application progresses. The risk may be under control or resolved when the protection hearing proceeds. Depending on the type of risk, it may return. Multiple factors may be responsible for the control or resolution of the risk. Every risk is different, and some are more serious than others. A risk that is not present on the hearing day may nevertheless justify a protection order. It all depends on the facts.
[155] The finding that a child is in need of protection is an essential stage of a child protection proceeding, and if the court finds that the child is not in need of protection that is the end of the matter.
[156] The CAS advances three grounds in oral argument pursuant to which this child is in need of protection.
Emotional Harm and Risk of Emotional Harm
[157] Section 74(2)(f) of the CYFSA states that a child is in need of protection (f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious,
i. anxiety,
ii. depression,
iii. withdrawal,
iv. self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or
v. delayed development,
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
[158] Section 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA states that “there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.”
[159] For a court to make a finding under s. 74(2)(h), CAS must establish the following three things:
(a) the Society must show there is a risk that a child will suffer at least one of the emotional harms specified in the subsection (anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development);
(b) not any degree of these possible future harms is sufficient, and the Society must establish the degree of harm is one that is serious, as opposed to minimal, mild, or moderate;
(c) the Society must establish that the risk of whatever emotional harm it is alleging is causally connected to the parent’s conduct and specifically by the actions, failure to act, or pattern of neglect of the parent.
See Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. A.B, 2018 ONCJ 831, at paras. 13-15.
[160] In order to substantiate a finding of emotional harm, a clinical diagnosis is not necessary, but expert evidence is usually required: see Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.Y., 2007 CanLII 14325 (Ont. S.C.); S.(D.), Re (2001), 2001 CanLII 28177 (ON SC), 14 R.F.L. (5th) 414 (Ont. S.C.); Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.(C.), 2002 CanLII 49693 (Ont. S.C.); and N.V.C. v. Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2017 ONSC 796.
[161] Sometimes, the evidence of a child’s distressed reactions to parental behaviour is sufficiently clear that a finding can be made without the opinion of an expert: see Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.Y.; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.S., 2016 ONCJ 279; Jewish Family and Child Services from Greater Toronto v. Ki. Sl., 2017 ONCJ 447. In Jewish Family and Child Services from Greater Toronto v. Ki. Sl., the court found that all of the mother’s lack of insight and her inability or unwillingness to acknowledge her daughter’s feelings of stress, fear and anxiety, revealed to the court that there was an ongoing risk of emotional harm to the child.
[162] A child who rejects a parent and will not return to their care may be at risk of emotional harm.
[163] Exposure to a pattern of domestic violence has been accepted as creating a risk of emotional harm. Sometimes, the evidence of a child’s distressed reactions to parental behaviour is sufficiently clear that a finding of a risk of emotional harm can be made without the opinion of an expert: see Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. E.M.T., 2019 ONCJ 767, at paras. 26-27; Family Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v. M.M., 2019 ONSC 4649, at para. 64.
[164] Neglect of education can constitute emotional harm. Education of a child is the responsibility of the parents: see Durham Children’s Aid Society v. B.P. (2007), 2007 CanLII 45905 (ON SC), 287 D.L.R. (4th) 262 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 32-36 and 44-45.
[165] A parent who is unable or unwilling to ensure that their child’s educational needs are met by ensuring regular and punctual attendance at school, places the child at risk of suffering emotional harm: see Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. J.K.V., 2018 ONCJ 337, at para. 111.
[166] In Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. J.K.V., at paras. 113-114, the court states that the child’s poor school attendance, while in his mother’s care, threatened to undermine his social, emotional and educational development. Although not intentional, and most likely, due to her poor mental health and her suspicious, paranoid and delusional thoughts, these factors nonetheless prevented her from ensuring that the child’s emotional and developmental needs were met. As a result, there was a real risk that he would likely suffer emotional harm.
[167] In SMCYFS v. C.C., 2019 ONSC 4541, the court concluded that the child’s absence from school put her at risk of emotional harm. At paras. 36-37, the court stated the following:
[36] I find that S.C.’s high rates of absenteeism and late attendance at school while in the care of her mother put the child at risk of emotional harm and developmental delay pursuant to s. 74(2)(h) of the CYFSA. There is a direct correlation between regular attendance at school and academic success. Children like S.C., who have a pattern of absenteeism and late attendance, suffer from significant gaps in their education and are at a higher risk of developmental delay. If it is not caught early, the child can encounter many serious difficulties in basic skills like reading and math which are the basis for all other subjects. They will likely be challenged in achieving their potential. Additionally, like in this case, when children are habitually absent and/or late it is often a symptom of significant dysfunction or neglect in the family [emphasis added].
[37] It is not novel for a court to find that any child who is habitually absent or late from school without sufficient cause may be a child in need of protection. The court has noted that the unwillingness or inability of a parent to ensure that their child’s educational needs were met, as evidenced by having him/her attend school regularly and on time, places that child at likely risk to suffer emotional harm.
[168] Furthermore, the court in SMCYFS v. C.C. also paid attention to the Society’s additional concerns about the child’s risk of emotional harm due to the respondent parents’ conflict (and the child’s exposure to same), and the mother’s inability to cooperate with the Society. The conflicts ranged in severity over the years to include, amongst other issues: frequent problems with access exchanges; the mother withholding access; and the mother’s tendency to pathologize the child (alleging the child is seriously ill when she is not). Despite these issues, the mother declined the services offered by the Society and failed to attend meetings set up by the school and the Society: see para. 38.
[169] A pattern of not exercising access consistently may also place the child at risk of emotional harm: see Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v. M.M., 2019 ONSC 4649, at para. 77(d).
[170] In this case, I find that the child is at risk of emotional harm and has suffered emotional harm. Even though the result may not have been intended by the Mother, the fact remains that the child’s non-attendance and lateness for school has had an impact on the Child. Not only did his academic progress suffer, he was also socially withdrawn and anxious at school. Furthermore, it is clear that the high level of parental conflict and the Mother’s conflictual relationship with the Child affected him. This is clear from the CARIZON trauma therapy report. Finally the lack of consistent access between Mother and child clearly caused him distress as was witnessed by the CAS employees and the Father.
Risk of Physical Harm
[171] Section 74(2)(b)(ii) of the CYFSA states a child is in need of protection where,
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
[172] This ground was not plead in the Summary Judgment motion. In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.A., 2011 ONCJ 671, at para. 69, the court states the following:
The court has a discretion to make a finding that a child is in need of protection pursuant to a clause of the Act even if not pleaded, if justified by the evidence, and if the parent(s) had prior disclosure of the relevant evidence, is not caught by surprise and has had a full opportunity to test this evidence. See Durham Children’s Aid Society v. R.S. and J.M. (2005), 137 A.C.W.S. (3d) 566, [2005] O.J. No. 570, 2005 CarswellOnt 10570 (Ont. Fam. Ct.); and Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. K.R. (2001), 114 A.C.W.S. (3d) 71, [2001] O.J. No. 5754, 2001 CarswellOnt 5006 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
[173] As no one raised the issue that the motion failed to list this section and as the parties made argument on this section of the CYFSA, I find that I am able to consider this section.
[174] In Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. N. H., 2021 ONSC 2384, at para. 88, Madsen J. states the following:
[88] In cases where the Society is alleging that a child or the children are in need of protection due to physical harm or a risk of physical harm, the following principles have been applied:
a) The Society must prove causation by act, omission, or pattern. It is not necessary to prove intention: see Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.), 2008 ONCJ 774, at para. 28, affirmed at Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.), 2009 ONCA 903;
b) Physical harm caused by neglect or error in judgment is still physical harm. However, it must be more than trifling physical harm: see Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. P. (T.) (2003), 2003 CanLII 2397 (ON SC), 35 R.F.L. (5th) 290 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 60; Children’s Aid Society of Rainy River (District) v. B. (C.), 2006 ONCJ 458, at para. 17;
c) Harm caused by neglect or error in judgment comes within the finding: see Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. P. (T.), above;
d) The risk of harm must be real and likely, not speculative: see Children’s Aid Society of Rainy River (District) v. B. (C.), at para. 19; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC), 2000 CarswellOnt 2156 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 8;
e) A child may be at risk even if the conduct is not directed specifically towards that child: see Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. O. (L.M.) (1995), 9 O.F.L.R. 165, (Ont. Prov. Div.);
f) Limited capacity of the parents may lead to harm or risk of harm if there is an inability to sufficiently acquire or improve parenting skills: see Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. O. (E.), 2009 CanLII 72087 (ON SC), 2009 CarswellOnt 8125 (S.C.).
[175] Verbal abuse, aggression, and inappropriate situations that children are exposed to can constitute risk of physical harm: see Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. E.M.T., 2019 ONCJ 767, at paras. 16-17; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866, at para. 106.
[176] Factors that can lead to a finding that a child is at risk of physical and emotional abuse [emphasis added] include the following:
a. repeated conflict between the parents, witnessed by the children;
b. numerous police calls relating to misconduct and aggression between the parents, at times in the presence of the children;
d. verbal abuse, aggression and inappropriate situations the children have been exposed to; and
e. the physical and emotional distress the children have each experienced; the parents’ contribution to that distress; and the parents’ inability or unwillingness to appropriately respond to that distress.
See Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., at para. 108.
[177] I do not find that on the evidence before me, the child is at risk of physical harm. The evidence in this case supports the finding of risk of emotional harm and emotional harm.
Evidentiary Considerations
[178] The CAS workers, the Child’s former school principal and teachers have all provided affidavits clearly outlining their involvement with the Mother and the Child.
[179] In CAS v. K.M. and A.T., 2019 ONSC 4153, at para. 22, the court found that the hearsay evidence presented by the Society was sufficiently reliable to meet the requirement of threshold reliability, as there was a marked commonality between the past parenting evidence derived from Society records and the present case. The court also accepted that the nature of the work done by out of court declarants is high volume and the information they record at the time is likely to be more accurate than their memory of the event. These individuals are obliged to keep accurate notes, and, in the court’s view, were without motive to mislead.
[180] The Child in the present case has also made numerous statements and disclosures directly to the Police, the CAS workers, and to his former teachers, during private interviews, home visits, and access visits.
[181] Where the statements cannot be admitted for the truth of their contents, they can be admitted for the purpose of demonstrating the “state of mind” of the Child. The “state of mind” exception is a longstanding exception to the rule against hearsay. Specifically, if the out of court statement of a child is admitted to show the “state of mind” of the child, its admission into evidence need not be justified on the principled approach to admission of hearsay, which requires that the person seeking admittance show both necessity and threshold reliability of the statement in question: see Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. H.M., 2019 ONCJ 813, at para. 7.
[182] Finally, the business records attached as exhibits to the CAS’s affidavit evidence and CAS’s Document Brief classify as admissible evidence pursuant to s. 35(2) of the Evidence Act. Proper notice of intention to file was provided in accordance with s. 35(3) of that Act.
[183] Based on the applicable case law and the evidence before the court, the child in the current proceeding has suffered emotional harm under s. 74(2)(f) and is at risk to likely suffer emotional harm under s. 74(2)(h).
[184] This is based on the following evidence before the Court:
i. the high level of parental conflict in the child’s presence;
ii. the repeated number of police calls relating to misconduct and aggression between the parents in the presence of the child;
iii. the Child’s disclosures regarding the Mother’s physical and aggressive verbal discipline towards him, such as pulling his hair or, as witnessed by police, grabbing his arm forcefully;
iv. the Mother’s neglect of the Child’s emotional and educational needs, such as ensuring his attendance at school and at school related events;
v. the Mother’s inadequate structure and supervision of the Child, which is evidenced by her inability to get him to school on time or leaving him at the YMCA alone;
vi. the Mother’s inconsistent and unreliable attendance at the access visits and her failure to see the devastating effects this has on the Child;
vii. the Mother’s inability to identify, understand and work towards addressing the protection concerns;
viii. the Mother’s failure to comply with court orders by not cooperating with the CAS, not allowing the CAS access to the Child in her home, not ensuring that the Child was attending school, and not ensuring that the Child’s educational needs were met;
ix. the Mother’s refusal to cooperate with the CAS and community service providers;
x. the Mother’s high level of mistrust and suspicion of the CAS, the school, the school board, the Police, etc.; and
xi. the Mother’s overall emotional and behavioural presentation, which includes her outburst with the CAS workers, the school and the police, all in the presence of the Child.
Findings
[185] I find that, when the Child was apprehended, he was exposed to significant parental conflict.
[186] Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Child, while in his Mother’s care, was not attending school consistently or on time. Although the school’s perspective regarding the Mother’s volatility may speak to cultural differences, the fact remains that, despite numerous efforts made by the teachers, the principal and the school counsellor, the Child did not attend school regularly or on time.
[187] I also find that the lack of consistent access caused the child emotional harm.
[188] I find that I am able to make the necessary findings of fact and apply the law to the facts, and that such an approach is a proportionate, more expeditious, and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
[189] I find that the evidentiary record is sufficiently comprehensive for me to make a fair and just determination of the issues on the merits without the need for a trial.
[190] Granting summary judgment allows the court to meet the obligations of the CYFSA.
[191] I recognize, and have considered, that in child protection proceedings there are Charter implications at stake for vulnerable litigants. I find that it is in the interest of justice for the court to determine this matter summarily. This process allows the court to make the necessary findings of fact and to apply the law to the facts. The summary judgment process allows the court to fairly and justly adjudicate the dispute in a proportionate, expeditious, and less expensive manner.
C. What is the Appropriate Disposition
[192] Having now found that the Child is in need of protection, s. 101(1) of the CYFSA requires the court to determine if intervention through a court order is needed. I find that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the Child in the future. As a result, I have to consider which of the orders under ss. 101-102 of the CYFSA should be made in the best interests of the child.
[193] Sections 101(2)-(4) of the CYFSA obligate the court to consider additional factors when determining the issue of placement, including whether there are any less disruptive alternatives, such as community or extended family placements, and to make inquiries with respect to what efforts the CAS has made to assist the children before intervention.
[194] Sections 101-102 of the CYFSA provide that, where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders:
that the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the Society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months;
that the child be placed in interim Society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months;
that the child be placed in extended Society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123;
that the child be placed in interim Society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months; or,
that one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, be granted custody of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.
[195] When considering the above options, the best interests of the Child remain the governing principle for determining his placement. In applying the best interest criteria set out in s. 74(3), the court must maintain a child-centered focus, reflecting the paramount purpose of the CYFSA, as set out in s. 1, which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children: see C.A.S v. M.R., S.P., M.P.R., 2019 ONSC 4424, at paras. 63-64.
The Child’s Views and Preferences
[196] The OCL for the Child supports the CAS’s position. The OCL has met with the Child at least twelve times in total and at least six times since October 2020. The OCL states that the Child’s wishes are consistent and firm: he wants to live with his father and have no access with his mother. The OCL states that the Child’s reasons for not wanting access with the Mother are accurately reflected in the January 2021 affidavit of Ms. Bird. The Child is afraid of the Mother and even more afraid that she wants to harm the Father.
[197] The OCL states that access should not be in accordance with the Child’s wishes, as he is under ten years of age. The OCL states that his wishes should be subject to consultation with the appropriate service provider and as directed by the CAS.
[198] The OCL states the Child has made great progress since living with the Father. The Father is to be commended. The Child has made great progress in language, his ability to express himself and in his creative writing.
[199] The wording of the legislation is mandatory. I shall consider a child’s views and wishes and give them due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained. Children are individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard. The aim of the CYFSA is to be consistent with and build upon the principles expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3 (“CRC”). Canada is a state party to the CRC: see CYFSA, Preamble.
[200] In Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559, 141 O.R. (3d) 481, the Court of Appeal for Ontario emphasized the importance of the CRC and, in particular, its protection of the best interests of the children and children’s right to be heard. In doing so, it relied on the preamble of the CRC. The Court of Appeal held that children’s rights are entitled to more, not less protection, and as such, the courts must ensure they have a voice, which, in turn, serves the court process and promotes their best interests: see paras. 51, 59, 61, 74 and 129.
[201] As noted, through the evidence tendered by the CAS from its workers and by means of representation by counsel through the OCL, the Child’s views have been ascertained and I have considered them accordingly.
Best Interests
[202] The factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the children are outlined in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA which provides as follows:
(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuit or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,
i. the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs;
ii. the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development;
iii. the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
iv. the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage;
v.the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family;
vi. the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community;
vii. the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity;
viii. the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent;
ix. the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case;
x. the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent; and
xi. the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
[203] I have considered the best interests factors set out in s. 74(3) and make the following findings:
(a) since December 2018, the Child has consistently and independently expressed his view and preference to remain in the care of the Father and, since October 2020, he has not had access to the Mother;
(b) the Child is not First Nations, Inuk or Métis;
(c) the evidence before the court is clear in that the Father has attended to the Child’s, physical, mental and emotional needs, and has been actively engaged with available supports and services since the Child came into his care in December 2018;
(d) the Child will continue to be connected to his Croatian and Serbian culture, as the Father shares the same culture and language which the Child was previously being brought up in;
(e) the Child’s relationship and emotional ties with the Father and his paternal family has grown more positive since being placed in the Father’s care in December 2018. He has a secure place as a member of the family;
(f) since the Child was placed in the care of the Father in December 2018, he has resided there continuously without any issue or concern. He has a stable and structured home life and routine. He has made notable gains in all aspects of his life. Any possible disruption to his current living arrangements would adversely impact his developmental progress thus far;
(g) the plan will be beneficial to the Child – he is doing much better in school and is relaxed and happy in the care of the Father, who provides a safe and supportive environment;
(h) delay in the disposition of this case will have a negative impact on the Child, who has been clear about his views and preferences and has been clear that he wants this matter finalized;
(i) there is a real and significant risk that the Child may suffer harm if he is returned to the care of the Mother, who he has not seen or spoken to since October 2020;
(j) the Father’s plan of care is better suited to meeting all of the Child’s physical, mental, educational and emotional needs than the plan of returning him to the Mother;
(k) given the evidence before the court regarding the protection concerns and the evidence that the Mother has inadequately addressed those concerns, there exists a high degree of risk of the Child being harmed if returned to her care; and
(l) the Child requires consistency and stability which he has at the Father’s home where he has made significant gains.
[204] I find that it is in the Child’s best interests to be placed with the Father under a supervision order. The evidence satisfies me, on a balance of probabilities, that (1) intervention is required to protect the Child both at the present time and for the foreseeable future; (2) an order placing the Child in the care of the Father subject to a supervision order is the least intrusive alternative; and (3) an order placing the Child in the care of the Father subject to a supervision order would be a foregone conclusion if this matter were to proceed to trial.
Access Order as Between the Child and the Mother
[205] Where an order is made under s. 102 removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before the intervention, the court shall make an order for access by the person unless the court is satisfied that continued contact with the person would not be in the child’s best interests: see CYFSA, s. 105(2).
[206] The CAS asserts that access between the Mother and the Child has been inconsistent since the Child’s apprehension in December 2018. This has had a profound negative emotional impact on the Child.
[207] The OCL advises that the Child does not want to see the Mother and that his views and preferences are clear in that regard. The OCL requests that, before any access between the Mother and the Child resumes, there be consultation with the appropriate service provider.
[208] The Father believes that any access between the Child and the Mother should be supervised.
[209] The Father has no personal animosity towards the Mother. He had attempted to arrange additional expanded access between the Child and the Mother in the summer of 2020 so that the Child could maintain a relationship with her. He was present during those visits to ensure that they went appropriately.
[210] The Mother contends that supervised access will be problematic. She does not believe access will be encouraged by either the Father or the CAS. She points to the fact that she has not had access with the Child since October 2020.
[211] The Mother asserts that she had issues confirming access and confusion around transition. She states that she expected to be picked up and be taken to access. Furthermore, she counters that her non-attendance and lateness for access are due to miscommunication and, at times, inclement weather.
[212] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415, Benotto J.A. highlighted that “access” can come in many forms, including the exchange of gifts, emails, video chats or phone calls, and that the form and frequency of access should be tailored to the child’s specific needs and age-appropriate wishes: see para. 64. In J.S.R. v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2021 ONSC 630 (Div. Ct.), at para. 38, the Divisional Court emphasized that pursuant to s. 104, it is the court that is to impose terms and conditions respecting access “as the court considers appropriate.” This case is distinguishable as I am making a supervision order.
[213] Based on the evidence before me, face to face access is not appropriate at this time. Pursuant to the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., I find that Mother’s access at this time should be by written letter.
[214] In this case, I am also making an order that a reunification counsellor be provided by the CAS to work with the Mother and the Child in an attempt to resolve the conflicting relationships and establish a positive relationship between the Mother and the Child. If possible, the reunification counsellor should be culturally appropriate.
Orders Granted
[215] Based on the evidence that has been presented and considering the factors set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA, I make the following order:
- An Order for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 16 for the following:
(a) the name and date of birth of the Child is A.M., born [date of birth redacted];
(b) the Child is not First Nations, Inuk or Métis child; and
(c) the Child, A.M., is in need of protection pursuant to sections 74(2)(f), and (h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
- The Child, A.M., born [date of birth redacted], shall be placed in the care and custody of the Father, B.M., subject to the supervision of The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for a period of six (6) months on the following terms and conditions:
D.B., will cooperate with The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
D.B. will meet with a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at the home, agency and/or community as requested by the worker.
D.B. will allow a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to have access to the home on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis.
D.B. will sign consents to release information to allow The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to communicate with service providers and vice versa.
D.B. will advise The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in advance of any change in address and/or telephone number.
D.B. will consistently maintain a safe and stable home environment.
D.B. will not speak negatively to the Child or in the presence of the Child about Society workers, the school and teachers or B.M.
B.M. will cooperate with The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
B.M. will allow a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to have access to the home, and to the Child at home and at school, on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis and will allow the Society to meet privately with the Child.
B.M. will meet with a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at the home, agency and/or community as requested by the worker.
B.M. will sign consents to release information to allow The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to communicate with service providers and vice versa.
B.M. will advise The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in advance of any change in address and/or telephone number.
B.M. will consistently maintain a safe and stable home environment.
B.M. will ensure that the Child attends school consistently and on time, will ensure that his educational needs are met; and will attend all required school meetings.
B.M. shall ensure that the Child, A.M. attends counselling, if recommended by the Society.
D.B. and B.M. will refrain from any form of verbal or physical abuse or violence toward one another or the child.
The CAS shall retain a reunification counsellor to engage in reunification counselling between the Child and the Mother, D.B. If possible, the reunification counsellor should be culturally appropriate.
Access to the Child, A.M., by D.B. shall be by written letter once per month. Other access is to be at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in consultation with the reunification counsellor and supervised as deemed necessary by The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Approval of this Order by unrepresented parties be waived.
[216] If costs are an issue, the parties can arrange a further attendance before me within the next 30 days to make submissions regarding costs.
D. Piccoli J.
Date: July 28, 2021