COURT FILE NO.: 21-134
DATE: 20210811
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(8) and 87(9) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH and FAMILY SERVICES ACT, S.O. 2017
and in the matter of
RE: Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry vs. J.V. and M.F
BEFORE: Madam Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
COUNSEL: Tara MacDougall, counsel for the Applicant J.V., for herself Neha Chugh, counsel for the Respondent M.F. Julie Bergeron, OCL
DATE HEARD: August 10 and 11, 2021
RULING ON INTERIM PLACEMENT MOTION
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Introduction
[1] This Ruling is in relation to the Father’s motion to have the children placed in his care.
[2] A Temporary Care and Custody Hearing was held June 14, 2021 with regard to the Mother’s request to have the children B and Z returned to her care. At that time, the Father remained silent, preferring to work with the Society on his plan for an eventual placement of the children in his care. For reasons set out in that Ruling: CAS of S.D.G. v. J.V., M.F, 2021 ONSC 4312, I granted the orders sought by the Society that the children be placed in their temporary care and custody.
[3] I shall not repeat herein the background of this file, which is found in the Ruling mentioned above.
Materials reviewed
[4] The Court has reviewed and considered the following evidence filed for this motion:
(a) For the Father: a. Answer and Plan of Care of M.R., b. Affidavits of M.F., dated August 3, 2021 and August 5, 2021; c. Affidavits of H.L, dated August 3, 2021 and August 5, 2021; d. 35.1 Affidavits of M.F. and H.L.; and e. Factum of M.F.
(b) For the Society: a. Affidavits of Roger King-Poitras; Cassandra Wheeler and Meghan Hargreaves.
(c) For the Mother: a. The Mother’s prior Affidavits and materials filed in support of the temporary care and custody hearing; b. The Mother’s Answer and Plan of Care; and c. The Mother affidavit filed on August 9, 2021, including several different attachments, which totaled approximately 100 pages. While J.V. did not comply with the timelines imposed by the Court, I find that allowances need to be made for self-represented litigants. In this case, I find it meets with the primary objective and procedural fairness to consider J.V.’s affidavit.
The Applicable Law
[5] Since June 15, 2021, following the temporary care and custody hearing, there has been an order in place, placing the children in the interim care of the Society.
[6] Section 94(9) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”) permits the Court at any time to vary or terminate an order made under s.94(2).
[7] By my review of the case law, the most cited case in the temporary placement order in child protection proceedings is the case decided by Justice Stanley Sherr in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2017 ONCJ 784. Justice Sherr determines, and this Court agrees, that a material change in circumstances is not imported into the child protection context. Sherr J. states: “Domestic cases are private disputes. Child protection cases involve the intrusion of the state into the autonomy of family life.” In addition, the primary objectives under the CYFSA to protect children and help parents care for their children in the least intrusive manner appropriate in the circumstances are different than the primary objectives in domestic legislation which is designed to assist families in addressing issues that arise from the breakdown of relationships or the separation of spouses. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., supra, also see: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.P.P., 2020 ONCJ 388 at para.30.
[8] At paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 of R.M., the following was set out:
[83] It is suggested that the court consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors, where relevant, in determining whether to change a temporary access order during the adjournment of a protection application:
The nature and extent of the variation sought and the proportionality of the requested change to the change in circumstances since the making of the last court order. In particular, the court should examine the extent to which the passage of time has yielded a fuller picture to the court about the child, the parent or any family and community member involved with the family.
The degree to which the change in circumstances reduces or increases the risk of harm to the child.
The extent to which the proposed change meets the objectives set out in section 1 of the Act and the expanded objectives set out in section 1 of the CYFSA.
The best interest factors set out in subsection 37 (3) of the Act and the expanded best interest factors set out in subsection 74 (3) of the CYFSA.
The importance of:
a. Ensuring that access not remain static unless the safety of the child requires this;
b. Gradually and safely increasing access between a child and the parents; and
c. Providing the court with some basis to assess the parent’s long term parenting potential.
- The stage of the proceeding. Is a trial that will determine the issue imminent? If so, it might be in the best interests of the child to have the trial judge determine the issue.
[84] The court will apply the following legal test to change a temporary placement order during the adjournment of a protection application:
a) The moving party has the onus of first establishing a material change in circumstances since the making of the last court order.
b) The court should take a flexible approach in determining what constitutes a sufficiently material change in circumstances. What is sufficiently material will depend on the circumstances of the case.
c) Once a material change in circumstances is established, a contextual analysis should be conducted by the court to determine if the placement order should be changed. The purposes in section 1 of the Act should always be at the forefront of the analysis. The suggested, non-exhaustive list of factors set out in paragraph 69 [of the case] should be considered, where relevant. [emphasis added]
[85] The court will apply the following legal test to change a temporary access order during an adjournment of a protection application:
a) The moving party has the onus of establishing that a sufficient change in circumstances has taken place since the making of the last court order. Whether the change is sufficient to change the order will depend on the circumstances of the case.
b) The court should conduct a contextual analysis when exercising its discretion as to whether it is in a child’s best interests to change the access order, and if so, what terms and conditions are appropriate. The purposes in section 1 of the Act should always be at the forefront of the analysis. The suggested non-exhaustive list of factors set out in paragraph 83 above should be considered, where relevant. [emphasis added]
[9] Additionally, it is noted in R.M., that [i]n child protection cases, [the best interests of the child] is an important consideration, but not the sole one. The Act contains purposes that include:
a) Recognizing that parents often need help in caring for their children;
b) The help provided should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit;
c) The least restrictive or disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child or a family should be followed.
[10] I find the appropriate test to applied in child protection cases to vary a temporary placement is whether there has been a “sufficient change” in circumstances: See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., supra; and CAS v. L.L. and J.G., 2019 ONSC 853.
[11] The Court is also governed by the purpose of section 1 of the CYFSA.
The Father’s Plan
[12] The Father did not argue that the girls should be placed in his care at the Temporary Care and Custody Hearing. Instead, he filed an Answer and Plan of Care in May 2021, proposing to work with the Society to re-establish parenting time with the girls, with the hopes of an eventual integration in his care.
[13] The Father resides in Peterborough, with his spouse and newborn baby. I find that the Father has a support network in Peterborough.
[14] The Father’s parenting time has been gradually increased since the children were taken to a place of safety. The longest time the children have been with their Father has been seven days.
[15] There is no doubt that the children are enjoying their time with the Father, and this is likely a honeymoon period for them all.
[16] The Father is committed to facilitating continued access between the children and their family in Cornwall, which includes the Mother, the Maternal Grandmother, and the children’s siblings: N and H. This would include weekly telephone calls to the siblings and the Maternal Grandmother, and regular access to the Mother.
[17] The Father and his spouse appear committed to caring for both Z and B and have indicated that they will work with the specialists to manage and address B’s special needs.
[18] The Father submits that he is being held to a higher standard than the Mother in establishing his worthiness to care for the children full time. The Father submits that he has been very forthcoming with the Society, who has had ample opportunity to assess his plan and seek out any further information they required to reach a determinate on his plan. Despite being open with the Society, it was not until shortly prior to the motion being heard that the Society raised concerns about the lack of information to assess the viability and address the concerns raised by the Mother regarding the Father’s plan, such as the Father’s criminal record, which appears to consist solely of an impaired driving conviction, alcohol and/or drug addictions issues and prior domestic violence allegations, all of which is vehemently denied by the Father.
[19] The Father is prepared to comply with any Court order and has demonstrated this commitment to the Society and to the Court.
[20] The Father would propose an immediate placement of the children in his care, such that they are settled by the time school commences on September 7, 2021. Alternatively, if a gradual integration is required, he suggests it occur in time for the first day of school.
[21] The Father submits that a sufficient change in circumstances has been established by his continued, positive visits with the girls which has established a positive relationship with them, as well as the impending start of a new school year. He argues that a contextual approach would compel the Court to consider this family centered plan in Peterborough, with the constant presence of J.V. in their lives, as compared to the girls sitting on a shelf while remaining in care waiting for a possible return to J.V.’s care.
OCL’s position
[22] The OCL is unable to obtain instructions from B, as she is non-verbal. However, she was able to advocate on behalf of Z and provide the Court with important context.
[23] In this community, the girls have the benefit of a fulsome relationship with their siblings, and their Maternal Grandmother, with whom they are very close. They are doing well in their foster home, which is child focused and can meet the B’s special needs. The children have the benefit of having regular access with both their Mother and their Father.
[24] The children currently have concerns about returning to their Mother’s care, in particular Z, who can advocate for herself. Z has voiced a concern that if she and B were having in-home visits with the Mother, B may not wish to leave the house.
[25] The children want their Mother to get better, and to do it for herself, not for anyone else.
[26] While Z has mentioned that there was one dispute between the Father and his spouse during a recent access visit, it was reported that the dispute was well managed by the couple.
[27] OCL did not take a strong position at the motion but wished the Court to be aware that any placement for the children needs to be successful. OCL advocated that if the Court were inclined to change the Order, a slow integration to the Father’s care would be advisable to ensure that the visits continue to be positive over a longer time period, prior to any upheaval of the children and reorganization of any professionals, particularly given B’s challenges.
The Society’s Position
[28] The Society was not opposed to the Father’s plan but voiced some concerns about any immediate placement. They highlighted some worries as well as some positive aspects regarding the Father’s plan.
[29] For instance, the Society noted that there is a positive relationship between the girls and the Father. They agreed that where there is a plan proposed which is safe, appropriate, and stable, children should be placed with family.
[30] However, there is a mandate on the Society to return the children to the care from whom they took to a place of safety. In this case, the Society took the children from the Mother’s care. As such, their mandate is to work with the Mother to try to return the children to her care.
[31] The Society suggests that passage of time is not a sufficient change to warrant a change to the Order. However, when looking at the two concurrent plans before the Court, the Father has made significant progress, and he is ready and willing to care for the children.
[32] There are competing factors for the Court to determine, such as weighing the children being in foster care and having generous time with their siblings, Mother, Father and Maternal Grandmother versus being placed in the Father’s care, where significant travelling is required to facilitate face-to-face access time.
[33] There are heightened concerns due to the animus between the parents.
[34] Further, if the children are placed in the Father’s care, and with the children being in school, it would be very difficult for the Society to increase the Mother’s access, as required in the legislation and as referenced in R.M., such that the access not remain static. Admittedly, the Mother is still at the beginning stages of the trajectory and her access is currently supervised at the Society’s office. However, the next step would involve access occurring at her home, which would be difficult with a lengthy commute between the Mother and Father’s home.
[35] The Society raises the concern that the Father advised the CAS in Peterborough that he does not have a criminal record. While they suggest that the Father may not have thought it relevant, this nevertheless is false information conveyed to the Society, which raises a red flag from their perspective. Coupled with the Mother’s allegations of substance abuse and violent interactions, the Society suggests that at the very least, the Court should consider a slow integration to ensure that the concerns can be investigated prior to a full placement in the Father’s care.
[36] With regard to the Mother, the Society submits that her access is progressing well, and the Mother attends the visits prepared and with snacks. It took a while for the Mother to improve the state of her home, in particular regarding the strong smell of cat urine, but that appears to be remedied.
[37] The Society is on track to continue with their trajectory with regard to the Mother. To move the children would make any reintegration or testing of the Mother’s plan difficult.
[38] Ultimately, the Society voices concerns about the Father being out of the children’s lives for approximately two years, the lack of plan for ongoing access, and the lack of services in place for B should the children be placed with the Father.
[39] The Society suggests a slow integration to the Father’s care, of approximately six weeks, would permit them to verify the plan and ensure success.
The Mother’s Position
[40] The Mother strongly opposes the children being placed with their Father. She raises a number of concerns, reiterating some of the concerns argued at the Temporary Care and Custody Hearing.
[41] She argues that she has taken positive steps since the children were taken into care, and these steps are not being recognized. She is awaiting a mental health assessment and a psychological evaluation through Inspire. She indicates she has made steps with regard to her mental health despite the Society’s claims that she has done nothing.
[42] She criticizes the Society for not taking seriously her child molestation allegation raised by her against the Father, despite telling the worker that she dreamed it had occurred.
[43] The Mother has organized her support team despite allegations that she does not have one, but there has not yet been a meeting of the minds or an arranged scheduled meeting for safety planning.
[44] The Mother is concerned that the Society only has 22 days of information to go on for placing the child with the Father. She feels this is insufficient evidence to decide the issue of placement.
[45] Further, she argues that the Society's primary mandate is to return the children to their Mother, which she indicates the Society is not abiding by this mandate.
[46] She argues that Z is being destroyed the longer she is away from her Mother, she just wants to come home to her Mother. She also argues that B wants to be with her Mother.
[47] She would like all parties involved in the Father’s plan [which she states are on H.L.’s documents] and the Father to undergo a full psychological assessment through the Royal Ottawa hospital.
[48] The Mother questions what the Father’s current address is, as the one listed on the materials is his parents address.
[49] She is concerned that the Father is not on any wait list and with autism it could take months or years of waiting for services.
[50] She is concerned that a two-bedroom apartment is not large enough for the entire family.
[51] She is also concerned that neither the Father nor his spouse have taken triple P, as well as advancing concerns about the Father’s addiction issues and mental health issues, which have not been addressed.
[52] She reiterates prior concerns about non-payment of child support, and the Father’s malicious calls to the CAS. In support of same, she provides letters form CAS Ottawa confirming file closures.
[53] In support of her plan, she attaches several documents to her Affidavit, including but not limited to:
a. Calendar of access visits;
b. OCL authorizations;
c. Prior court filings including an unsworn affidavit for a motion on the issue of child support involving the Father, which includes the history of non-payment;
d. Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services - Special Services at Home – April 27, 2021 letter indicating that B was approved for the SSAH; another letter from Aug 26, 2020 from SSAS;
e. A letter dated Aug 26, 2020 from the Cornwall Community Hospital, Natasha Scott regarding B being approved for respite programming through Bartimaeus (8 hours per week);
f. An ASD respite funding application;
g. Oct 2, 2018 letter from Dr. Janine Scott regarding B’s psychological assessment (not attached to the letter);
h. May 14, 2019 Agreement for treatment in OR for Z, through Dr. Rachel Navaneelan;
i. Information re: disability tax credits;
j. B’s December 14, 2020 Occupational Therapy Assessment Report;
k. March 31, 2021 letter from Inspire Community Support Services enclosing an ASD respite application;
l. April 8, 2019 CHEO Occupational Therapy initial assessment report regarding B, signed by Claire Lafleche-Breton;
m. B’s IEP for the 2019-2020 school year from Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario;
n. Oct 23, 2019 Application for Assistance for Children with severe disabilities – for H;
o. A letter from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, undated, indicating that B is eligible for free dental services until July 31, 2021; another letter from Oct 16, 2018 indicating that B is eligible for free dental services until July 31, 2019;
p. Jan 8, 2019 Ottawa Children’s Treatment Centre Consultation report regarding B, signed by the dietician;
q. A letter dated July 5, 2021 from Dr. O’Kelley re: Z and B, addressed “to whom it may concern” where it is strongly recommended that the girls have a short bob to address the head lice issues;
r. Z’s Feb 22, 2019 Elementary Provincial Report Card, where apparently the Mother wrote “not impressed” and “will only sign once we have a sit down with the principal”, initialed J.V.;
s. A letter dated Feb 22, 2019 from CRA indicating that Z is not eligible for the disability tax credit; and
t. A letter dated July 31, 2019 from CRA re: Z’s ineligibility for the disability tax credit from 2013 to 2019
[54] Ultimately, the Mother is concerned that the Father’s plan is not complete, that though she supports him having access to the children, they should stay in Cornwall. She submits that there are more negatives than positives to the Father’s plan.
Analysis
[55] As noted above, the Court may vary at any time an order made under s.94(2). Such an order was made June 15, 2021, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society pursuant to subsection 94(2)(d) of the CYFSA.
[56] As set out in CAS v. L.L. and J.G., supra, the legal test to apply at this motion is set out in sections 94(2), (4) and (5) of the CYFSA.
[57] In this case, the onus is on the Father to demonstrate that there has been a material change in circumstances since the making of the June 15, 2021 order. A flexible approach is required in determining what is a sufficiently material change in circumstance.
[58] I find that the Father has met his onus in this regard, that there has been a sufficiently material change in circumstance since the June 15, 2021 order. In reaching this determination, I am aware that prior to the Society’s involvement and taking the children to a place of safety, the Father has not exercised access to the children for approximately two years. He has now spent a fair amount of time with the children over the past three months, including one-week unsupervised access time in late July 2021. The evidence supports a finding that this access time has been overall positive. The Father has demonstrated consistency in regularly calling the children at the foster home, and a commitment to work cooperatively with the Society. Despite the animus between the Mother and Father, I find that the Father has demonstrated that he will comply with Court Orders. The Father is financially stable and presents a plan that is child focused. While it is clear that B has special needs, the Father’s evidence, which on a balance of probabilities I accept, is that he will follow through with services to ensure B’s needs are met.
[59] I have considered all the allegations and concerns raised by the Mother regarding the Father, including addictions issues, allegations of domestic violence, and allegations of malicious reports. These allegations are all denied by the Father. On a balance, I am left with insufficient evidence to make any findings regarding these allegations, though they have been considered by the Court in reaching a determination on the issues.
[60] After the children being with the Father for numerous unsupervised visits, and the Society having the Father’s Answer and Plan of Care since May 2021, the Society only now advances some “red flags” about the Father. While the Court is concerned with the Father’s false statement given to the Peterborough CAS about him not having a criminal record, it is possible that the Father did not realize that all criminal convictions are pertinent in child protection proceedings. The Society does not raise any protection concerns regarding the Father which cannot be mitigated by way of an interim supervision order.
[61] The Court must balance the children staying in care and having fulsome access with their siblings, Maternal Grandmother and Mother versus placing the children with the Father and modifying the access arrangements between the children and their close attachments.
[62] The Court is mindful that the goal is to reintegrate the children with the Mother as she continues to make gains. This should be done gradually to ensure success, and the Court will need to evaluate how the Mother and children respond.
[63] However, should this not be possible, concurrent planning is often needed and warranted.
[64] The Father is presenting a viable plan for the children’s immediate care.
[65] Sections 94(2) and 74(3) CYFSA impose on the Court an obligation to look at alternate plans involving parents and/or kin prior to considering Interim Society Care.
[66] It has been 99 days since the children have been taken to a place of safety, and yet the Mother’s access remains twice per week, supervised by two senior staff at the Society. Meanwhile, the Father’s access has expanded, and continues to be unsupervised.
[67] I am cognizant that a new school year commences in less than four weeks. I am aware that the Father has what appears to be a strong support network.
[68] I am however concerned with the distance between the two homes, the connection between the girls and their siblings, the Mother and Maternal Grandmother, as well as the services available to B in this community.
[69] I must consider the least restrictive order available and appropriate in the circumstances of this case, which is consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of the children in question: Children’s Aid Society of Halton (Region) v. A.(J.), 2011 ONCJ 624, at para. 43.
[70] At this hearing, the children were represented by OCL. I must consider the children’s wishes, given due weight in accordance with their ages and maturity. The OCL has significant insight into the family. The girls are not ready to return to their Mother’s care. Though access between the children and the Father has not necessarily been perfect, there are no significant concerns raised by the OCL on behalf of the children that cannot be addressed by way of a supervision order.
[71] Having considered the circumstances of this case, at this stage of the proceedings, I maintain the view that the children cannot be returned to the Mother’s care, with or without a supervision order. Despite the Mother’s progress, it is premature to consider a return to her care.
[72] This leads me to the next step in the s.94(2) CYFSA analysis, which is to determine if it is in the children’s best interest to make an order placing them in the care and custody of their Father.
[73] I find that in this particular case, there has been a material change in circumstances and that as governed by the paramount purpose of the CYFSA, an order varying my Order of June 15, 2021 is required on the issue of temporary placement and access.
[74] I find that it would be in the children’s best interest, having regard to the factors set out in section 74 CYFSA, that they be placed in the interim care of their Father, subject to the supervision of the Society.
[75] I am not persuaded that the children remaining in foster care, waiting for their Mother to get better, is in their best interest.
[76] I find that the legislation mandates a placement with the Father provided that any risk can be mitigated.
[77] Though it will without a doubt be a significant adjustment to the children, I am persuaded that the Father will put the children’s needs first and ensure that B has access to services as she very much requires. This may necessitate the Father having to travel with B to Cornwall to access the services until same can be temporarily transferred to Peterborough.
[78] I am also of the view that a gradual reintegration would give the children the ability to adjust to their new situation in a more child-focused manner.
Access
[79] I turn now to the issue of interim access. Currently, the June 15, 2021 Order states that the Mother’s access is a minimum of twice per week.
[80] As previously noted, the Mother has always been a central part of these children’s lives. I find that it is important for her to continue to be a constant part of their lives. I also find that the children’s attachments to H, N and the Maternal Grandmother must be maintained.
[81] In determining what order is appropriate, the Court should consider the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1 (1) and (2) of the Act). In assessing best interests, the Court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act: Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto v. S.(H.B.),[2012] O.J. No. 5055 (Ont. C.J.); Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. C.O., 2020 ONCJ 400, at para. 15.
[82] The evidence informs the Court that it is in the children’s best interest to increase the Mother’s access as she continues to engage in services. I find that the current access, twice per week, supervised, meets the children’s needs. I find that discretion is required to permit a trajectory to continue to be expanded and complied with as the Mother continues to make gains. I am of the view that the “minimum twice per week” must be amended to recognize the distance between the two homes. I am of the view that there should be a minimum of two virtual visits per week between the Mother and the children, as well as regular in person visits. There should also be regular in person and virtual visits between the children, their siblings and the Maternal Grandmother.
Disposition
[83] Therefore, temporary order to go as follows:
- B and Z will be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Father as of September 3, 2021 pursuant to subsection 94(2)(c) of the CYFSA, subject to the supervision of the Society and with the conditions as follows:
(a) The integration shall occur gradually, with the children spending the following times with M.F and H.L.:
a. August 13, 2021 to August 16, 2021 (to be confirmed if the Father is available);
b. August 20, 2021 to August 23, 2021;
c. August 27, 2021 to August 30, 2021;
d. September 3, 2021 onward.
(b) M.F and H.L. will work cooperatively with the Society, or their delegates, which includes allowing announced and unannounced visits of their respective home and will allow Society workers to meet with the children for both announced and unannounced visits.
(c) M.F and H.L. shall attend meetings with Society workers for the purpose of planning for the children. The Society is permitted to invite individuals of the safety network to attend such meetings.
(d) M.F and H.L. will sign consents for the Society to exchange information with community professionals regarding themselves and/or the children.
(e) M.F and H.L. will advise the Society of any significant change in circumstance, including but not limited to police involvement, change of contact information, new residents in the home and/or change in their relationship status.
(f) M.F shall abstain from illicit drugs in the presence of the children and while in a caregiving role.
(g) M.F. and H.L. shall ensure that both B and Z are enrolled into programs to meet their needs, in particular B’s special needs. They shall keep the Society informed about the services, and sign consents to share information regarding these services.
(h) M.F. and H.L. will support and facilitate access, virtual and/or in person as directed by the Society, its delegate or the Court.
While the Father in his factum is asking for a s.102 order, that is premature at this time. This request is dismissed.
The Mother shall have access to the children a minimum of two virtual visits per week, as well as in-person visits at least once per week. The location and duration of these visits are to be as directed by the Society.
The children shall have access to their siblings, H and N, as arranged by the Society and the siblings’ caregivers. Access may be virtual.
Matter is adjourned to September 8, 2021 at 9:45 a.m., tbst, via zoom.
Madam Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Released: August 11, 2021