WARNING

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

CITATION: Children and Family Services for York Region v. B.T. and R.S., 2024 ONSC 2179

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-1139

DATE: 2024/04/29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Children and Family Services for York Region

Applicant

– and –

B.T. and R.S.

Respondents

A. Harris/J. Kiang, Counsel for the Applicant

A. Dutka, Counsel for the Respondent B.T. and S. King, Counsel for Respondent R.S.

M. Polisuk, Counsel for the OCL

HEARD: October 16 – 20, 2023, October 23 – 27, 2023, November 14 – 17, 2023, February 26 – 28, 2024

THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE L. BALE

JUDGMENT

OVERVIEW

[1] This Status Review Application relates to the child G.T., now 2½ years of age. The operative order under review is the Final Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice R.T. Bennett dated September 15, 2022.

[2] The issues identified at the outset of trial were narrowed considerably by its conclusion. Specifically, at the conclusion of trial all parties agreed that:

1. G.T. continues to be in need of protection, pursuant to s. 72(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. That is, there is a risk that G.T. is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted or caused by the Respondent parents’ failure to care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child adequately, or pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervisory or protecting the child.

2. A court order continues to be necessary for G.T.’s protection.

3. The only two placement options for G.T., in consideration of her best interests, are either:

i. Placement with the Respondent mother, B.T., under conditions of supervision; or

ii. Placement with the paternal grandparents, L.S. and M.S., under conditions of supervision.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

[3] Children and Family Services for York Region, (“the York Society”), the Respondent father, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) on behalf of G.T., all seek placement of the child with the paternal grandparents, under terms of supervision, with specified access to the Respondent parents. They are opposed to placement of G.T. with the Respondent mother.

[4] The Society asserts that the majority of the protection concerns raised in the original Child Protection Application, as they existed at the time of the operative Final Order, continue to present themselves and that little to no improvement has been made by the Respondent mother in the areas of concern.

[5] The Respondent mother seeks the return of G.T. into her care under terms of supervision. She concedes that if G.T. cannot be returned to her care, it is in G.T.’s best interests to be placed in the care of the paternal grandparents, subject to a six-month term of supervision.

BACKGROUND

Family Constellation

[6] The subject child, G.T., is now 2½ years of age.

[7] B.T. is G.T.’s mother. R.S. is G.T.’s father.

[8] G.T. has two biological half-siblings:

1. I.T., age 7, is the daughter of the Respondent mother; and

2. K.S., age 5, is the son of the Respondent father.

[9] B. is the maternal grandmother of G.T. and I.T. I.T. is ‘supposed to’ reside with the maternal grandmother in Durham, Ontario, pursuant to the Final Order of the Honourable Justice J.E. Hughes dated October 22, 2021.

[10] L.S. and M.S. are the paternal grandparents of G.T., and K.S. K.S. resides with the paternal grandparents in North Bay, Ontario. The paternal grandparents also have another grandchild, “H”, age 16, (G.T.’s first cousin), and an adopted daughter, “E” (age 1½), in their full-time care.

[11] The Respondent mother now resides with her partner N.B. in Lindsay, Ontario.

[12] The Respondent father resides with his partner A.B. in Barrie, Ontario.

Litigation History

[13] G.T. was born in 2021. She was brought to a place of safety by Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services (“DBCFS”) shortly after her birth.

[14] On September 20, 2021, the Respondent parents executed a six-month Temporary Care Agreement which placed G.T. in the care of DBCFS. On December 24, 2021, the Respondent mother notified DBCFS in writing that she was no longer consenting to the Temporary Care Agreement.

[15] DBCFS commenced a Child Protection Application on January 11, 2022. DBCFS sought placement of G.T. in interim society care for a period of six months, with specified access to the Respondent parents. The stated protection concerns raised by DBCFS at the time related to:

1. Domestic violence between the Respondent parents;

2. Adult conflict between the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother;

3. The Respondent mother’s mental health;

4. The Respondent father’s mental health and anger management;

5. Drug use (particularly in relation to the Respondent father) in their home;

6. The parents’ conflict with neighbours and resultant instability in housing;

7. The Respondent mother’s minimization of protection concerns;

8. The Respondent mother’s struggles with her physical health; and

9. The Respondent mother’s stability, impulsivity, and inability to make good choices.

[16] On June 8, 2022, the child protection file was formally transferred from DBCFS to Children and Family Services for York Region.

[17] On July 28, 2022, the Honourable Mr. Justice R.T. Bennett made identification findings, including that G.T. is not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child.

[18] On September 15, 2022, the Honourable Mr. Justice R.T. Bennett made a Final Order, on consent of all parties, which found the child G.T. to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 72(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the CYFSA. G.T. was placed in interim society care for a period of six months. Access between the child and the Respondent parents and paternal grandparents, was ordered in the discretion of the Society.

[19] The Society’s Status Review Application was properly commenced on March 2, 2023, in accordance with s. 113 of the CYFSA. Within the Status Review Application, the Society sought placement of G.T. with the paternal grandparents pursuant to a six-month supervision order, with access to the Respondent parents. However, at this time the Society also continued to work towards reintegration of G.T. into the Respondent mother’s care.

[20] In April 2023 G.T. was moved to a new foster home. The Society had become concerned by opinions shared by the foster mother, and formed the opinion that the foster mother was not following expectations regarding the appropriate and timely sharing of information. The change in foster homes resulted in a significant reduction in G.T.’s travel time for access visits.

[21] On April 13, 2023, the court endorsed that:

“The court was updated on a change in the Society’s position, which is now seeking to plan with the mother for the care of the child. The Society will continue to assess the mother’s progress, adherence to the terms of her access, and cooperation with the society. [The mother’s] access will continue to be in the discretion of the Society subject to specific terms.”

[22] Amongst other terms, the court ordered that:

a. The mother shall ensure she is caring for G.T. in her home and not in the care of her mother (the maternal grandmother).

b. The mother shall parent G.T. on her own and not involve N.B. in the care of G.T. during this transition period.

c. The mother shall not expose G.T. or any child in her care to any form of conflict.

[23] On June 4, 2023, a serious car accident occurred while G.T. was in her mother’s care. An urgent motion relating to disclosure of police records was brought on June 6, 2023.

[24] On July 18, 2023, the court heard a motion by the Society for temporary placement of the child with the paternal grandparents. On July 19, 2023, The Honourable Madam Justice Daurio ruled that the issue of placement should proceed to trial, with the benefit of viva voce evidence and cross-examinations.

[25] The trial commenced on October 16, 2023, and was concluded on February 28, 2024. On November 17, 2023, G.T. was placed in the temporary care of the paternal grandparents, pursuant to terms and conditions, following a mid-trial Temporary Care Hearing.

Tracey Luberto

[26] Ms. Luberto, from the York Society, took over carriage as the child protection worker assigned to this family on November 7, 2022. She continues in this role to date.

[27] At the time Ms. Luberto took over carriage, the Society’s plan was to return G.T. into the care of the mother, provided that she could sustain her progress and stability. An access trajectory had been established, including dates and parental expectations. Within the written expectations of the access trajectory plan the Society provided to the mother the mother was instructed, inter alia, that (a) there must be no adult conflict during access visits, (b) the mother must follow the no contact order with the Respondent father, and (c) G.T. must only have access with those that have been approved by the Society. The mother was warned, in writing, that if the conditions were not followed or new concerns were raised, that the trajectory may be suspended or regressed. At the same time the Society was also simultaneously exploring an alternate (back-up) plan for the child to reside with her paternal grandparents.

[28] On November 11, 2022, the mother met with Ms. Luberto and told her that she did not plan on being in a relationship, as she had no time. Her first overnight visit with G.T. was arranged for December 3 to December 4, 2022. That visit ended at midnight. The mother called the foster mother to retrieve G.T., because she was sick. The mother cancelled the next overnight visit, on the basis that she and I.T. were now sick. Around this time, the Respondent father provided Ms. Luberto with information that the mother was in a new relationship.

[29] On December 14, 2022, Ms. Luberto asked the mother if she was in a relationship. The mother denied having a boyfriend and accused Ms. Luberto of harassing and bullying conduct. On December 19, 2022, the mother stated that she wanted to “set the records straight” and repeated that she was not seeing anyone. An extended parenting visit was arranged December 24, 2022 to December 27, 2022.

[30] On January 4, 2023, Ms. Luberto learned through G.T.’s foster parent that N.B. was residing in the home during G.T.’s overnight Christmas/New Years Eve access visits. This information was later corroborated through:

a. video evidence submitted by the Respondent mother’s neighbours;

b. N.B.’s signature on a delivery receipt at the home dated December 25, 2022; and

c. A police report dated December 25, 2022.

[31] It became evident to the Society that the mother was not being truthful about her relationship status, and N.B.’s time in her home. The mother’s access trajectory plan was scaled back at this time. On January 4, 2023, the mother admitted to being in a relationship. She then asked how long it would take to approve her new partner to attend visits. The Respondent father thereafter produced text exchanges to the Society which, in essence, suggest the mother felt her parenting time was interfering with her sex life. I have reviewed the text exchanges and have considered the evidence of both parents. I am satisfied that the Respondent mother did send those text messages, notwithstanding her denial of same.

[32] In February 2023 Ms. Luberto learned through the mother’s upstairs neighbour that N.B. was residing at the home every weekend, and that there was a lot of screaming and conflict in the home. The neighbours expressed significant concern for the children in the home. Ms. Luberto reviewed multiple audio and video-recordings provided by the neighbours which caused her a very high level of concern.

[33] As a result of this new information, a decision was made to return to full supervision of the mother’s parenting time. During a meeting on February 9, 2023, wherein the new concerns were being discussed with the mother, she indicated that she refused to listen and left the meeting. The mother started to raise her voice and swear at the supervisor.

[34] On February 11, 2023, the mother cancelled her scheduled visit with G.T., because N.B. had not been approved to participate. The mother requested to reschedule her parenting visits to weekdays so that they would not interfere with her time with N.B., who was home each week from Thursday to Sunday. Ms. Luberto received conflicting and confusing information about the mother’s work schedule around this time, as evidence by email exchanges filed. This exacerbated difficulties in scheduling the mother’s parenting time with G.T.

[35] On March 31, 2023, B.T. advised Ms. Luberto that she and N.B. “were together but not”. She advised that she was making significant life changes, focusing on herself and her children, and that her relationship with N.B. had been scaled back. She stated that she realized that she needed to turn her mind to her children, but wanted her future plan to include N.B.

[36] By mid-April 2023 Ms. Luberto had noticed an improvement in the consistency of the mother’s parenting time with G.T., and that the access coaches were reporting positive visits. The Society again began to focus its efforts back to a transition plan placing G.T. back into the mother’s care. Ms. Luberto met with the mother on April 11, 2023. The mother was made aware of the transition plan and was aware of the Society’s expectation that she should not expose G.T. to persons who were not pre-approved by the Society. The mother requested to delay the transition plan for several weekends into May due to ‘pre-planned’ events, as confirmed by emails filed. The transition plan into the mother’s care was anticipated to take approximately two months.

[37] On April 13, 2023, the case was spoken to in court and an adjournment was requested. The court noted that the Society “will continue to assess the mother’s progress, adherence to the terms of her access, and cooperation with the Society. B.T.’s access will continue to be in the discretion of the Society subject to specific terms.

[38] The mother made complaints to the Society about Ms. Luberto on April 30, 2023, and May 15, 2023: the first regarding the assessment of N.B. for access visits; the second regarding follow-up with her proposed daycare provider. The mother alleged that Ms. Luberto was emotionally and verbally abusive towards her since “day one”. The mother requested a new worker and would be moving outside of the boundaries of York because the Society was ruining her life.

[39] On May 27, 2023, the mother emailed Ms. Luberto that she would only meet her with her lawyer present.

[40] On May 31, 2023, a difficult access exchange took place following a visit. Eventually, G.T. was returned to the foster home with a fully saturated diaper, red eczema patches on her body, and stool marks on her leg.

[41] On June 4, 2023, a car accident involving the mother and the children, took place during a parenting visit. Ms. Luberto did not become aware of the event until late in the evening. She quickly learned that G.T. was released from hospital with minor injuries only (i.e., scrapes, cuts, and bruises).

[42] On June 5, 2023, after consideration of the preliminary information received relating to the car accident, a decision was made to return the mother’s visits to fully supervised visits at the Society office. At the same time the Society made the decision that they could no longer support a reintegration plan of G.T. back into the mother’s care.

[43] In speaking with the mother on June 5, 2023, Ms. Luberto noted:

a. The mother repeatedly insisted that the accident was not her fault as she was not driving;

b. The mother advised:

i. The driver stole her keys;

ii. She got in an argument with the driver and used foul language, and even while driving she was arguing with him to “pull over…I wanna fuck’n take my car”;

iii. When they were struck, the car rolled three times;

iv. She ‘kicked’ the door out to get out, and pulled I.T. and G.T. out of their seats;

v. The driver and his partner are former Fentanyl users; and

vi. She and I.T. were both assessed at hospital and were released: I.T. with a bruise to her head but otherwise okay.

c. When challenged that she was under condition not to have other adults present during her access with G.T., the mother responded that she doesn’t “live in a box”.

d. Later that day, the mother emailed Ms. Luberto and advised “Thank you. And N.B. and I have broken up… he can’t handle that CAS won’t allow him around G.T., and he had done nothing wrong…”.

[44] On June 9, 2023, Ms. Luberto received police records from York Regional Police for the past two months. From these records, it was noted that the mother reported an assault at a bar on May 13, 2023. A visit with G.T. that day had been rescheduled because the mother advised that she had to attend an out-of-town funeral.

[45] In June and July 2023, the mother missed the majority of her scheduled visits with G.T. for a variety of stated reasons (e.g., heat stroke, choking incident, not well, etc.)

[46] In August 2023 Ms. Luberto received further concerning information regarding the mother and I.T. from her upstairs neighbours. Ms. Luberto also received updated police records which noted four more police incident reports relating to the mother since the June 4, 2023, car accident.

[47] On September 8, 2023, Ms. Luberto met with the mother to further discuss issues that arose over the summer. Three of the four events related to conflict with T.S., a sexual partner who stayed with her in June 2023. The mother had not told the Society that T.S. had moved into her home. The mother acknowledged conflict, involving physical altercations with T.S., and advised that he was an alcoholic. The other event involved conflict with her mother, B, in relation to B’s efforts to have I.T. returned to her care. The information provided by the mother to Ms. Luberto regarding whether or not I.T. was exposed to the adult issues relating to T.S. was not compelling.

[48] In September 2023 the Society approved N.B.’s attendance at fully supervised parenting visits with G.T.

[49] In October 2023 the Respondent mother and Respondent father arranged a clandestine meeting during one of G.T.’s access visits, contrary to the known expectations and directions of the Society. The Respondent mother recorded the meeting. The Society was led to believe that the meeting was orchestrated by the mother in an attempt to ‘set him up’.

[50] On October 6, 2023, Ms. Luberto had a discussion with the mother about the seriousness of the car accident. In response to information that a protection finding “physical harm” was verified, as a result of the physical injuries G.T. sustained in the car accident, the mother responded, “she was fine”. When Ms. Luberto reminded her of the bruising sustained by G.T. the mother responded “Whooptie-do”.

[51] On November 17, 2023, this court made a mid-trial Temporary Order with respect to the placement of G.T. One of the terms of the order required the mother to advise the Society of any changes to her address and/or phone number within 24 hours of such change.

[52] In December 2023 Ms. Luberto was called upon to assist the Durham Children’s Aid Society regarding a referral from I.T.’s school. The mother was uncooperative in providing Ms. Luberto with her new address and telephone number.

[53] The mother did not exercise her court-ordered parenting time with G.T. in December 2023 on the basis that she was ill. The mother declined to have I.T. attend access with G.T. in her absence. The mother did not attend the scheduled video call with G.T. on Christmas Day (she reported that she slept in).

[54] Eventually, Ms. Luberto was provided with the mother’s new telephone information by the Respondent father (who asserted that the mother was texting him in violation of the terms of the November 17, 2023 court order). The Respondent father provided Ms. Luberto with the text messages, and Ms. Luberto was able to reach the mother at that telephone number. Ms. Luberto was unsuccessful in meeting with the mother in January 2024, as scheduled.

[55] The mother attended one parenting visit with G.T. in January 2024 at the home of the former foster mother. She declined the second visit with G.T. in the North Bay area. With respect to future visits with G.T. in North Bay, funded by the Society, the mother emailed Ms. Luberto “I’m never going to North Bay, I’m sick and tired of your bullshit”.

[56] On February 13, 2024, a meeting took place between the mother and Ms. Luberto in the mother’s new home. The mother led Ms. Luberto to believe that I.T. was in school. In reality, I.T. was hiding in the bedroom throughout the meeting, unbeknownst to Ms. Luberto. When the school called to inquire about I.T.’s absence that day, the mother led Ms. Luberto to believe that follow up with the maternal grandmother would be required to get to the bottom of the absence.

[57] On February 14, 2024, Ms. Luberto received a ‘frantic’ telephone call from the maternal grandmother, asking if Ms. Luberto had seen I.T. at the mother’s home. It was only then that Ms. Luberto came to learn that she had been deceived. Police attended at the mother’s home for a wellness check. An agreement was reached for the mother to take I.T. to school the following morning.

[58] On February 15, 2024, I.T. did not attend school. Police, Ms. Luberto, and the maternal grandmother attended at the mother’s home in an effort to facilitate this. I.T. started screaming at Ms. Luberto, hiding behind the couch, grunting, moaning and kicking people and objects. The mother was encouraged by police to assist, but she responded that this was “CAS’s problem”. Eventually I.T. was taken to the hospital for a mental health intervention. Ultimately, the mother and maternal grandmother were able to implement the return of I.T. into the maternal grandmother’s care on Family Day.

[59] Significant protection concerns have arisen in relation to I.T., in particular with respect to her absenteeism from school and unaddressed/unsupported mental health needs. Jurisdictional issues between the Durham/York Societies due to the location of the maternal grandmother’s home and the mother’s home, and conflicting information as to where I.T. has primarily been residing, have been complicating features. The court was advised on the close of trial that a new child protection proceeding relating to the child I.T. was commenced, and that the Society was seeking a court order (a) placing I.T. in the maternal grandmother’s care under terms of supervision, and (b) supervised access between the mother and I.T. Despite being provided with this information and having concerns, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address these issues.

[60] Ms. Luberto informed the court that the Respondent father has engaged in therapy, as directed by the Society, and that the Society has assisted the Respondent father in securing further trauma-focused counselling. The Respondent father is reported to attend his access visits with G.T. regularly, and that he has regularly engaged with the Society in a positive manner.

[61] During home visits at the paternal grandparent’s home on February 13, 2024, and February 15, 2024, Ms. Luberto observed that G.T. had settled well in her new environment. All interactions she observed between G.T., the paternal grandparents and the other children in their care were positive.

Arwin Ranjkesh

[62] Mr. Ranjkesh is Ms. Luberto’s supervisor at the York Society.

[63] In January 2023 the mother complained to him, that Ms. Luberto was a man-hater, and alleged that she was being discriminated against, that her human rights were being violated, and requested a new worker. The mother denied allegations that N.B. was present in the home during the mother’s parenting time with G.T. Mr. Ranjkesh reminded the mother of the need to be transparent with the Society.

[64] On February 9, 2023, Mr. Ranjkesh was present for a meeting with the mother at the Society office. While discussing the Society’s plan to place G.T. with the paternal grandparents, the mother became visibly upset and left the meeting. The mother proceeded to yell and swear at him in I.T.’s presence. The mother again requested a new worker.

[65] In February 2023 the Society became concerned about information being shared between the mother and the foster mother.

[66] In March 2023 a management decision was made that the mother’s request for a new worker was without merit. Mr. Ranjkesh met with the mother on March 23, 2023 to explain the basis of this decision.

[67] In April 2023 a decision was made to move towards placement of G.T. with the mother, under terms of supervision. The decision was based on (a) her reengagement with the Society (b) her willingness to meet and discuss issues, and (c) the positive reports regarding her access visits. It was determined that this would be a critical period of assessment for the mother to demonstrate that she could abide by the Society’s conditions. A meeting was held with the mother on April 11, 2023 to communicate this plan to her, including that she was to parent G.T. on her own during this period. N.B. who was present at the meeting became visibly upset, calling the Society workers “liars”, “bullshitters”, and “snakes”. N.B.’s behaviour escalated, and his voice was raised. N.B. left the meeting.

[68] The Society’s position and expectations for the expansion of the mother’s parenting time were shared with all counsel, in writing on April 11, 2023. The Society provided written “non-exhaustive” examples of negative behaviours that they would be monitoring and reinforced that they would be assessing the mother’s ability to “prioritize the needs of G.T.” and to “provide a safe and stable home environment”. In closing, they explained that if the transition period was not successful, they would be supporting placement of G.T. in the care of the paternal grandparents.

[69] Ongoing concerns were raised regarding G.T.’s (then) foster mother, including failure to report injury, a pattern of lack of communication, inappropriate comments relating to the paternal family, failure to follow recommendations, questioning society plans, and concerns regarding boundaries with the mother. Ultimately, on May 1, 2023, a decision was made to relocate G.T. to a foster home under the York Society, and closer for purposes of facilitating access between G.T. and her parents.

[70] G.T. was noted to be doing well in her new foster placement. The mother’s parenting time evolved to expanded unsupervised visits. The Society planned to bring a motion to place G.T. in the mother’s care in June 2023.

[71] On June 5, 2023, the day following the serious car accident, the Society made the decision that they could no longer support placement of G.T. in the mother’s care.

[72] On June 12, 2023, the mother requested that her file be transferred to DNAAG. DNAAG declined to accept her file. This was communicated to the mother.

[73] Only July 13, 2023, the mother advised Mr. Ranjkesh that she and N.B. were “back together”.

[74] In October 2023, the mother provided audio recordings to Mr. Ranjkesh relating to the October 6, 2023 meeting which took place between the parents. Mr. Ranjkesh did not listen to the entire audio recording – the mother played random excerpts for him. At one point Mr. Ranjkesh heard N.B. making very negative comments towards the Society, including “Fuck them. Prove them wrong and stick a bullet in their ass”.

PC Root/PC French

[75] Two York Regional Police Officers, PC Root and PC French, testified at trial as to their observations of the June 4, 2023 car accident. Photographs were filed as evidence.

[76] The court was advised of the following:

a. The two-vehicle collision took place at approximately 10:00 a.m. on June 4, 2023.

b. Upon arrival, the scene was chaotic with multiple adults and children present. The children were screaming and yelling.

c. There was a black pickup truck in the ditch, later identified as belonging to the Respondent mother, with significant damage: multiple points of impact damage, a crushed roof and windshield, crumpled doors and quarter panels, tailgate dislodged, broken windows, airbags deployed.

d. There was a significant amount of debris strewn across the roadway. A child’s car seat was found upside down outside of the truck.

e. Physical indicators and witness accounts were consistent with the pickup truck rolling several times after impact.

f. The Respondent mother initially told officers that she was driving. When she was alone in the ambulance she advised that D.B. was the driver of her vehicle. She told PC French that she was afraid of D.B.

g. The mother advised the officer of the following seating arrangement: D.B. was driving, in the middle front seat was his partner, L.L., with a child on her lap. The mother was in the front passenger seat. D.B. and L.L.’s two other children were belted together behind the driver, I.T. was belted in the middle back seat and G.T. was in her car seat behind the passenger seat.

h. The driver was known to police. He was charged with several counts of child endangerment, careless diving, and driving with a suspended licence.

i. It was later learned that the injuries to the driver of the vehicle were significant and the charges against D.B. were upgraded.

[77] The court did not receive any information as to how a child’s car seat was found upside down outside of the truck, although seen in photographs.

Kelly Emrick

[78] Ms. Emrick is a child protection worker for the Durham Children’s Aid Society (“Durham Society”). She has been working with the mother, maternal grandmother and I.T. through that agency since June 2023, following the car accident in which I.T. was involved. The Durham Society has jurisdiction over I.T., because she resides with the maternal grandmother in their region.

[79] On June 4, 2023, during a telephone conversation with the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother, Ms. Emrick raised concerns regarding reports of I.T.’s absenteeism from school. She was assured that I.T.’s caregivers were in ‘constant contact with the school’.

[80] On June 23, 2023, Ms. Emrick met with the maternal grandmother and I.T. I.T. disclosed the following information to Ms. Emrick on that day:

a. On the day of the accident, she, G.T. and three other children were in the backseat of the car. G.T. was in her car seat and the other children shared seatbelts.

b. Her mother and the other two adults were in the front seat.

c. The driver was “on methadone” and this “terrified” her.

[81] Following this meeting Ms. Emrick contacted the principal of I.T.’s school.

[82] On July 4, 2023, Ms. Emrick had a telephone conversation with the Respondent mother. The mother advised Ms. Emrick that:

a. On the date of the accident, she had taken I.T. and G.T. to her friend’s home to pick up her friend and children to go to the splash pad.

b. She exited the vehicle to get her friend. When she returned a few minutes later, her friend’s partner was sitting in the driver’s seat, and he wanted to borrow the vehicle to pick up his methadone. The mother refused, but he would not vacate the vehicle.

c. They argued. She froze due to past trauma. Her friend and her children got into the vehicle, and they left.

d. The mother continued to argue with the driver. He agreed to pull over at a stop sign. When they stopped, they were struck and involved in the accident.

e. The mother acknowledged making a poor choice and stated she will not allow her children to be transported in a vehicle without adequate seating again.

f. The mother requested a letter of support from the Durham Society, with respect to her request for a court order permitting I.T.’s care to be transferred from the maternal grandmother to herself.

[83] On July 5, 2023, Ms. Emrick became concerned about unknown third parties residing with the mother, while I.T. was in her care. Ms. Emrick placed a call to York Regional Police Service, requesting assistance in returning I.T. into the maternal grandmother’s care. The police completed a wellness check on that date. Of note, the Final Order of Justice Hughes dated October 22, 2021 provides that parenting time between the child I.T. and the Respondent mother shall be as arranged between the maternal grandmother and mother, and that “the level of supervision, frequency and duration of parenting time shall be in the discretion of [the maternal grandmother], in consultation with [the mother]”.

[84] Ms. Emrick engaged in a text exchange with the Respondent mother and requested that she assist in getting I.T. into the maternal grandmother’s care. The Respondent mother replied “There are no protection concerns and I’m hiring a lawyer. I bet [the maternal grandmother] didn’t show you her downstairs the smell of mold and I.T. has no proper bedroom… here is clean she’s fed and she’s taken care of and has her own room, goes to bed at 8:30 I have done nothing wrong and I have currently a court order to gain custody”.

[85] Ms. Emrick also spoke with the Respondent mother. The Respondent mother stated that the maternal grandmother had not been abiding by the Final Order and had been allowing I.T. to remain in the mother’s care 7 days a week. The Respondent mother made complaints regarding the maternal grandmother and the state of her home. Ms. Emrick could hear the Respondent mother yelling at the maternal grandmother. I.T. was not returned to the grandmother despite efforts of police and the Society to assist.

Karen Fitzpatrick

[86] Ms. Fitzpatrick is a child protection worker with the York Society. On July 7, 2023, she was requested to complete an interagency request for assistance regarding the assessment of I.T.’s safety in the care of the Respondent mother.

[87] Ms. Fitzpatrick interviewed I.T. on July 14, 2023. During that interview I.T. advised that she lives with her mother. Her mother works from home. If her mother is working she mostly watches TV. Her mother gets about three breaks, and they eat and spend time together during the breaks. She is not allowed to go outside if her mother is working. Her mother does not drink alcohol but sometimes she “flips and yells”, and she yells at adults if she “breaks up with people”. Sometimes she stayed at her grandmother’s home for a day or so, but she was always with her mother. Her grandmother comes over a lot. She is not afraid of either of them.

[88] Ms. Fitzpatrick also interviewed the Respondent mother on that day. The Respondent mother confirmed that I.T. has been in her primary care since August 1, 2022. Her mother, the maternal grandmother, comes over about two times per week. She acknowledged that sometimes there was conflict between them. She further indicated that N.B. does not reside with them. He was her boyfriend since last December. Her mother was concerned by the presence of T.S. on two occasions, “an acquaintance”, as T.S. is an alcoholic. The Respondent mother advised that she has a history of sexual abuse and has been diagnosed with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[89] With respect to the car accident:

1. The Respondent mother advised Ms. Fitzpatrick that:

a. She was fighting with the driver over the keys. They continued fighting while driving.

b. She knew there were too many people in the car.

c. G.T. was in her car seat and I.T. was properly buckled in the middle.

2. I.T. advised Ms. Fitzpatrick that:

a. She leaned and put her head under her arms when she felt the crash.

b. She still had a sore leg and flashbacks.

c. She was not wearing a seatbelt, and specifically that “it was too small to be around me and the other child beside me”.

[90] The maternal grandmother was also present during Ms. Fitzpatrick’s visit and did not contradict any of the information provided.

Michelle Williams, Hilary Mintz, Corelynn Moncrieffe

[91] Ms. Williams, Ms. Mintz, and Ms. Moncrieffe are access workers with York Society. They have supervised access visits between the Respondent mother and G.T.

[92] The access workers have all noted a number of strengths in the Respondent mother’s parenting of G.T. during visits. In particular, they have observed loving and positive interactions and a bond between the Respondent mother and G.T. The Respondent mother has been observed to actively and appropriately engage the child during visits and has not been observed to neglect the child’s needs during any period of supervision. She is able to complete parenting tasks such as assisting the volunteer driver install G.T.’s car seat.

[93] The Respondent mother’s home has been observed to be tidy and in clean condition. She is noted to provide the children with healthy snacks and lunches. At times, G.T. has been observed to become upset if her mother stepped out of her sight. The Respondent mother was able to effectively soothe her. G.T. often demonstrated upset when the visits ended.

[94] These workers also noted concerns about the Respondent Mother during the supervised visits relating to:

1. The Respondent mother making statements of complaint regarding the Society and her neighbours in the presence of the children, and at times having difficulty expressing her complaints without aggression;

2. Negative statements and discussions occurring between the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother about the paternal family, made in the presence of the children;

3. The child I.T. being actively discouraged from sharing information with the Society;

4. The notable presence of the child I.T. at access visits during times that I.T. should have been in school;

5. The Respondent mother’s tendency, at times, to be obstinate with workers, and not forthcoming with important information; and

6. Deficiencies in the Respondent mother’s ability to self-regulate, in moments of conflict, without anger and profanity.

[95] The Respondent mother missed access visits; sometimes without explanation. Most concerningly, on one occasion she refused to comply with the Society’s direction that N.B. would not be present. She sent a text to Ms. Mintz stating: “G.T. is always welcome home but I’m putting my foot down from now on. No one tells me who I can and cannot have in my home”. After further unsuccessful efforts to confirm N.B. would not be present the visit was cancelled, and the Respondent mother texted “So you guys are turning this on me? Wow! Have a nice day I’ll see you guys in court”.

[96] Ms. Moncrieffe also supervised visits between G.T. and the Respondent father and noted that the Respondent father was also appropriate and attentive to G.T. during these visits. He was also noted to actively engage with the child and act protectively to ensure her safety at visits. The child was also observed to be bonded with the Respondent father and comfortable in his care.

Stacey Fitzgerald

[97] Ms. Fitzgerald is a child protection worker for the Children’s Aid Society Nipissing & Parry Sound (“Nipissing & Parry Sound Society”). In November 2022 she was assigned to work with the paternal grandparents in North Bay, Ontario, originally as kinship worker relating to the placement of the child E. in their care.

[98] Ms. Fitzgerald conducted an extensive review of the child protection history relating to the paternal grandparents, including reviews of:

a. Vulnerable Sector/Criminal Records checks (both negative);

b. The Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) – provincial database for child welfare agencies, and in particular referrals, safety assessments, outcomes, dispositions, case summaries and analyses, case notes and contact logs and risk assessments;

c. Copies of the records from other child welfare agencies related to the paternal grandparents, including Kawartha-Haliburton CAS, Toronto CAS and the Nipissing & Parry Sound Society regarding previous kinship assessments.

[99] The records were extensive, and in particular, with respect to the Respondent father, R.S. R.S. was diagnosed at a very early age to have Bi-Polar Disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiance Disorder, ADHD and learning disabilities. His complex mental health issues resulted in serious issues relating to self-regulation, stress tolerance, and extreme emotional and behavioural issues. His family struggled to access appropriate services to support his special needs. At times, R.S.’s needs required hospitalizations and treatment home placements. The paternal grandparents were documented has being dedicated to their children, engaged with services and supports to the extent they were available, and doing the best anyone might do in those complex circumstances at the time.

[100] Particular focus was placed on two investigations regarding the paternal grandparents and R.S. in 2002 and 2006, both involving physical altercations, and verified findings of physical discipline (on one occasion with a belt). The paternal grandparents were cautioned, but the children were found to be safe in their care. The paternal grandparents committed to not using threatening or physical punishment again. The records note that “The CAS file history is a record of a family trying different strategies to redirect the behaviours of the children unsuccessfully. This appears to be reflective of the severity of the behaviours more than the parents’ skill level”.

[101] In 2009 R.S. was accepted into a residential treatment home but was forced to leave due to physical assaults on other residents and staff. R.S. was then brought into care pursuant to a Temporary Care Agreement. His violent and unpredictable behaviours continued. The paternal grandmother was sometimes on the receiving end of his aggression. In late 2011/early 2012 R.S. was involuntarily hospitalized under a Form 1. He was admitted into a 30-day crisis admission program, and later into long-term care at a secure treatment facility.

[102] Ms. Fitzgerald ascertained that the paternal grandmother had operated a home daycare for approximately 20 years without any allegations, concerns or investigations. The paternal grandparents were approved as kin care providers to K.S.’s half sister, P, in 2020 and E. in 2022, and they fulfilled this role without issue or concern. On February 2, 2023, a final order was made granting the paternal grandparents custody of E.

[103] Ms. Fitzgerald has been in regular contact with the paternal grandparents during the whole of her involvement. She is in constant communication with the paternal grandmother and has regular visits with the family at home and in the community. Ms. Fitzgerald was present for many of the early access visits between G.T. and the paternal grandparents.

[104] Ms. Fitzgerald has observed G.T. to be comfortable in the home of the paternal grandparents and comfortable in their care. The interactions between G.T. and the paternal grandparents and the other children in their care are described as positive and genuine. She observed the paternal grandmother to demonstrate considerable skill in handling any negative emotions.

[105] Ms. Fitzgerald has met privately with the other children in the care of the paternal grandparents. No concerns have been raised.

[106] The paternal grandparents have been very receptive to support services and programming. They have completed over 16 parenting courses in the past two years, many directed at managing challenging behaviours. The paternal grandparents are working regularly with a Child and Youth Worker to support G.T.’s transition into their care.

[107] The Nipissing & Parry Sound Society approve and support the kinship placement of G.T. in the care of the paternal grandparents.

Elizabeth Holmes

[108] Ms. Holmes is a Resource Support Worker for the Nipissing & Parry Sound Society. She received carriage of the file in September 2021.

[109] She has observed the home of the paternal grandparents to be spacious, clean, safe, and child friendly. They follow best practices relating to children’s sleep and nutrition. The paternal grandparents are both in good health, do not drink or smoke.

Zhong Fu Tan/Alicia Rees

[110] Mr. Tan was the Children’s Services Worker at the York Society assigned to G.T. for the period of January 2023 to August 2023. Ms. Rees was his supervisor.

[111] Mr. Tan’s Affidavit is primarily focussed on growing concerns regarding G.T.’s previous foster mother, and the eventual transfer of G.T.’s care into a new home. Of particular concern to Mr. Tan and Ms. Rees were:

a. A breakdown in communication between the foster mother and the Society in January 2023 wherein the foster mother delayed in sharing information regarding the presence of an unauthorized party, N.B. at the mother’s parenting visit;

b. The foster mother’s mischaracterization of ‘conflict’ over G.T.’s belongings with the paternal grandmother in February 2023 and frequent criticism of the paternal grandparents and the society’s consideration of them for placement;

c. A general concern that the foster mother was demonstrating an alignment in favour of the Respondent mother and unfair critique of the paternal family;

d. The foster mother’s expressed frustration with Society requests to take G.T. for medical care in March 2023; and

e. Evidence of inappropriate communications between the foster mother and respondent mother, including statements such as ‘the Society is setting the mother up for failure’, discussions regarding the paternal grandparents’ child welfare history, and a text message the foster mother sent to the mother in March 2023 asserting that “the Society’s plan of a seamless transition is bullshit” etc. The foster mother did not appear receptive to these concerns.

[112] On April 17, 2023, a foster home, internal to the York Society was found in close proximity to the Respondent mother’s home. G.T. was moved into a new foster home on May 1, 2023. The decision was made by Mr. Tan’s supervisor and manager of service.

[113] Mr. Tan attended the home of the paternal grandparents in North Bay over the weekend of July 31, 2023 and August 1, 2023. It was a positive visit in all respects.

[114] Mr. Tan noted that the Respondent mother missed scheduled access visits with G.T. on July 3, 2023 (no show), July 8, 2023 (no show), July 19, 2023 (no show with reason), July 23, 2023 (no show with reason), August 9, 2023 (cancelled by Respondent mother), August 13, 2023 (cancelled by Respondent mother), and August 16, 2023 (cancelled by Respondent mother due to illness)

[115] It was evident to the court that Mr. Tan had very little recall of his involvement with this family, independent of his notes.

Paternal grandparents

[116] The paternal grandparents are both retired and home full-time. They reside in a large 5-bedroom home, on an acre of land in a rural community in North Bay. At the outset of the trial, they were caring for their grandsons H. and K.S. pursuant to final orders of the court. The child E. (half-sibling to K.S., although not biologically related to the paternal grandparents) has recently been legally adopted by the paternal grandparents. The paternal grandparents also previously provided care for another half-sibling to K.S., P., as arranged through another protection agency. The paternal grandparents now facilitate sibling access as P. is in the care of her biological father. Each of the children in their present care have their own bedroom. Both paternal grandparents were approved by the Society as kinship care providers in this case, and by previous child protection agencies with respect to the other children in their care.

[117] The paternal grandparents have dated child protection histories relating to the parenting of their own sons, primarily with respect to the Respondent father. Their oldest son has struggled with addiction issues, their middle son is hearing impaired, and their youngest son, the Respondent father, has struggled with significant mental health and behavioural issues since early childhood.

[118] Both paternal grandparents were subject to vigorous cross-examination at trial. Hundreds of pages of historic child protection records were disclosed to the parties, and counsel were able to review the contents at length with both the paternal grandmother and grandfather. Significant time was spent in cross-examination exploring the past use of physical discipline in their home.

[119] Both paternal grandparents acknowledged their past mistakes and offered insight as to how they could have managed challenging behaviours differently in the past. Since that time both paternal grandparents have taken extensive parenting courses, with a particular focus on special needs and difficult behaviours in children. They both testified to the significant evolution of their parenting techniques over the past twenty years. They also testified to the evolution of mental health awareness generally, and the increased availability of resources and supports. They do not employ any form of corporal punishment in their home. They welcome opportunities to learn new parenting techniques and are open to all forms of professional supports that may assist them.

[120] By all accounts, personal and professional, the children presently in the care of the paternal grandparents are thriving. The children are doing well in school. There are no issues with their attendance. The paternal grandparents are proactive in meeting the needs of the children in their care.

[121] On November 17, 2023, this court made a temporary ruling placing G.T. in the care of the paternal grandparents, subject to terms of supervision. On resumption of the trial in February 2024, the court heard updated evidence that G.T. was thriving in their care.

[122] The paternal grandparents are supported by a child and youth worker who visits their home once per week, and an infant development worker who visits their home once per month. In addition, they meet regularly with an Early Childhood Educator, an in-person child protection worker from the Nipissing & Parry Sound Society, and virtual and, on occasion, in-person visits with the York Society. G.T. is enrolled in music and movement classes, gymnastics, swimming lessons and horseback riding. She is fully potty-trained and meeting developmental milestones. She is now on a lactose-free diet which has improved her eczema, is under the regular care of a physician, and has been referred for physiotherapy and allergy testing.

[123] The paternal grandparents are facilitating the court-ordered parenting time between the Respondent parents and G.T. The paternal grandmother described the Respondent father’s access with G.T. as positive and engaging. The relationship between the Respondent father and paternal grandparents is much stronger. They text and call regularly.

[124] The paternal grandmother also provides weekly updates to the Respondent mother through a parenting app, including a weekly photograph of G.T. The paternal grandmother indicates that the communications have been pleasant, respectful and child-focused to date. The paternal grandmother facilitates G.T.’s scheduled zoom calls with the Respondent mother. The paternal grandmother indicated a willingness to facilitate access, in whatever form may be viable, between I.T. and G.T.

[125] The court heard that G.T. has grown accustomed to the schedules and routines of the household. The bond between G.T., her brother K.S. and the other children in the household is growing stronger by the day. The paternal grandparents are prepared to care for G.T. for so long as may be required.

K.T. and R.H.

[126] K.T. and R.H. were the Respondent mother’s upstairs neighbours for the period from July 2022, until the Respondent mother’s relocation at the end of 2023. K.T. is the mother of R.H. Neither witness wished to attend court to give evidence but were summonsed by the Society.

[127] K.T. has resided in the home for 21 years. Prior to the Respondent mother’s residency in the downstairs unit, the previous tenant resided there on a long-term basis until her death. They had very few issues as neighbours. K.T. described herself as a homebody. She is quiet and prefers to keep to herself.

[128] R.H. is K.T.’s daughter. Due to the hours of her part-time employment, she is home at various hours. She testified that I.T. resides with the Respondent mother the majority of the time, and that her bedroom is directly beneath the bedroom of R.H. Last year R.H. became concerned that I.T. rarely seemed to go to school.

[129] R.H. has never contacted the police or the Children’s Aid Society but is aware that her Respondent mother has. R.H. presented and testified to some recordings she made of circumstances occurring in the Respondent mother’s home:

a. In December 2022, R.H. made a video of I.T. having a prolonged screaming attack outside the residence. She was repeatedly screaming “mom”. A man, later identified as N.B., can be seen restraining I.T. and carrying her kicking into the home while the Respondent mother gets into a vehicle.

b. On December 25, 2022, R.H. made a recording of the Respondent mother repeatedly screaming at I.T. to go to bed and swearing at her, while the child is crying and whimpering. Both children were in the home. A male voice later identified as N.B. can later be heard offering Cheerios to a child.

c. In February 2023, loud and prolonged obscene noises could be heard from the home. R.H. believes the noises were intentionally staged for nuisance purposes, as N.B. could be heard saying “ok, take fuckin’ photos and video, goddamn it”. This was shortly after K.T. placed a call to the Society, and shared recordings of her concerns. I.T. was home at the time.

d. In the summer of 2023, R.H. observed and videotaped the Respondent mother, I.T., T.S., and another unknown man in the back yard one evening. The adults were drinking beer and smoking marijuana. The Respondent mother was behaving in a sensual manner towards the unknown man. R.H. found it disturbing that the Respondent mother was conducting herself in this fashion in I.T.’s presence.

e. In a final video during the summer of 2023, following issues with Animal Control, the Respondent mother’s dogs ran off the property and the Respondent mother yelled at I.T. for not watching the dogs. She was concerned because the Respondent mother appeared to grab I.T.’s arm aggressively.

[130] Due to her own history as a victim of violence K.T. has had two home surveillance cameras at her home: one at her front door, and one pointed at the driveway. One of the cameras also has audio recording. K.T. also at times, made recordings on her phone. The court was provided with the following recordings:

a. Recording of I.T. (age 6 at the time) yelling at the dog: “Trudy you’re bad… You’re a fucking psychopath, you’re a psycho (indiscernible) bitch!!!”. The neighbours testified that the Respondent mother, maternal grandmother and I.T. were together at the time.

b. November 2022: Front-door recording of the Respondent mother yelling at the maternal grandmother, in the presence of I.T., apparently about driving somewhere: “I don’t give a shit if the kid is getting on your nerves, it’s your responsibility. Why aren’t you doing it? Step up! Stop being a lazy bitch. Come on [I.T.], let’s go”.

c. On March 28, 2023, both children were present, and a Society worker had attended at the home. K.T. believes that the following references were made regarding her daughter, R.H.:

i. Recording of the Respondent mother and another female in the presence of G.T.: #1: “what a little bitch she is. She goes and makes a phone call and leaves”. #2: “All right, let’s get your boots on, boo. I don’t know where the hell they put your socks”.

ii. Recording of the Respondent mother: “can you open your car? I’m going to fuckin’ snap on the bitch. If I fuckin’ see her, she’s getting’ it... No more Mr. Fuckin’ Nice Guy”.

iii. Recording of the Respondent mother: “I’m gonna fuckin’ beat the shit out of this woman. I swear to God”.

d. Video recording of the Respondent mother giving the finger to the camera and saying, “some people can fuck off and go to hell”. K.T. believes this was directed at herself.

e. In September 2023 the Respondent mother, an unknown female and I.T. are overheard on the camera at approximately 10:30 p.m. The adults are overheard making the following statements while discussing K.T. and R.H. and their cameras:

i. “I think this bitch wants me to pay her a visit”;

ii. “…do you want to stop harassing my best friend before I kick your teeth in”;

iii. “…give me a fuckin’ break. Buckle up there, pussy”; and

iv. “we’ll figure something out (indiscernible)… we’ll figure something out”.

[131] K.T. approached the York Society in February 2023 regarding her increasing concerns for the safety of the children and her duty to report. In addition, she called the police with respect to (a) the conflict in the Respondent mother’s home on Christmas Day, (b) the Respondent mother’s threat to ‘beat the shit’ out of her daughter made in March 2023, and (c) in February 2023 to report a false allegation made by the Respondent mother to K.T.’s employer (a Pharmacy), alleging that K.T. was stealing and dealing drugs from the pharmacy. K.T. confirmed that the telephone number of the anonymous informant belonged to the Respondent mother and felt that this was an incident that should be reported to police.

[132] K.T. also made multiple complaints to the landlord and was under the impression that efforts were being made to have the Respondent mother evicted. She testified that she was concerned for the children and at times has been concerned for her own safety and the safety of R.H. During one particularly bad week, the Respondent mother had several different men over. On one occasion she left I.T. alone with one man while she went out with another. She has observed the Respondent mother to leave G.T. crying for long periods of time without consoling her.

[133] R.H. testified that N.B. has resided with the Respondent mother from Thursday to Sunday since November 2022 and has been there almost every single weekend since that time. In June 2023, other men named Thomas, Chris, and Charlie, also seemed to be living there.

[134] Both K.T. and R.H. saw social media posts by the Respondent mother, that they believe were directed at them, referring to them as ‘CAS and cop callers’ and ‘rats’. K.T. described the year of residing above the Respondent mother as one of the worst of her life. She appeared to demonstrate genuine distress at being called upon to give evidence in this case.

Respondent Father

[135] The Respondent father testified that he moved in with the Respondent mother in January 2020. They resided in Cannington, Ontario until they were evicted. They then resided briefly in Markham, and then in Keswick, Ontario until separation on July 23, 2022. The Respondent father acknowledged that, during the period of their cohabitation, they had numerous noise complaints, primarily relating to fighting between himself and the Respondent mother.

[136] The Respondent father described their relationship as toxic. On the date of their separation, he was charged with domestic assault. The Respondent father testified that on that date they were arguing, and the Respondent mother was packing up to leave. She attempted to punch him and threatened to kill him. The Respondent father made an audio recording which was played at his criminal trial. The Respondent father was acquitted of his charges in April 2023.

[137] The Respondent father described the Respondent mother as aggressive, manipulative, controlling, narcissistic, and violent. He cited her control over his relationship with his parents as an example of how these characteristics impacted his life. She did not like the paternal grandmother. He was discouraged from talking to her, which ultimately impacted his ability to have a relationship with his son K.S. The Respondent father feels that he was codependent upon her, and very much under her influence and control. He testified that his initial opposition to the placement of G.T. in his parents’ care was done under the coercion of the Respondent mother.

[138] Since their separation, the Respondent father and his parents have been slowly repairing their relationship and have come a long way in understanding each other and sorting through their historical issues. The Respondent father provided a very calm, insightful, and heartfelt recount of his childhood struggles. His evidence was compelling. I accept as truth, the Respondent father’s recall of his childhood observations and experiences, to the extent he was capable of perceiving and understanding the events at the time. He is grateful for the love and care that his parents are providing to his son K.S. and has observed them to behave in the same manner towards G.T. and the other children in their care. He now speaks to his mother almost every day.

[139] Following separation, the Respondent father resided in various shelters in Toronto. He has been in a relationship with his current partner, A.B., since September 2022 and they now reside together in Barrie, Ontario. A.B. has only met G.T. on two occasions (both society-approved visits). The Respondent father is cautious in this regard, and he recognizes that he and A.B. both have their own individual issues that they need to work through. He is hopeful to remain living in Barrie, and to secure long-time employment.

[140] The Respondent father has not observed the Respondent mother’s interactions with G.T. since separation. From G.T.’s birth until July 2022 he and the Respondent mother had the supervised access with G.T. together. He described the Respondent mother as an attentive parent, but easily overwhelmed and easily sent into a hyper or heightened emotional state. In the past he observed that the Respondent mother would quickly get agitated and start yelling at I.T. At times, he would step in. At other times, his physical health was bad, and he could not get out of bed for long periods of time. He observed conflict between the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother in the presence of I.T. ‘too many times to count’. On one occasion, the Respondent mother advised the Respondent father that the maternal grandmother pushed the Respondent mother out of a moving vehicle, with I.T. sitting in the back seat. The Respondent father testified that the recordings played in court with respect to the Respondent mother’s treatment of I.T. are consistent with the observations he made during the period of their cohabitation.

[141] The Respondent father’s most current psychiatric assessment occurred in the spring of 2022. Counselling was recommended and engaged with the assistance of the York Society. Long-term, specialized therapy is now in place. He believes that counselling is finally helping him to slow down and ask: ‘why am I feeling like this?’, “is this a rational way to react?’. He believes it is making a positive difference in his life. The Respondent father remains under the care of his family physician. He takes his medication as prescribed. He acknowledges that he still uses marijuana, but to a far lesser extent than he used to (i.e., now once in the morning, and once at night, but no longer all day every day). He has a prescription for his marijuana use and finds that it assists with the symptoms of his anxiety and ADHD. The Respondent father testified that he does not use it when in a caregiving role.

[142] D.B. and his partner L.L., are known to the Respondent father. He described them both as hard drug users, with Fentanyl being their drug of choice. The Respondent father has witnessed D.B. use these drugs. He is aware that they have child protection issues of their own and describes D.B. as an aggressive, violence-prone individual. The Respondent father was also able to recognize the second voice on one of the recordings submitted at trial through K.T. and R.H. Specifically, he identified the individual who stated “I think this bitch wants me to pay her a visit” as S.H, mother of K.S. The Respondent father advised that she is not stable and was arrested for kidnapping a 13-year-old girl.

[143] The Respondent father was having access with G.T. every Friday, unsupervised in his home, until October 2023. In October 2023, while playing an online group video game, he realized that the Respondent mother was one of the other group players. He recognized her username and heard her voice on game chat. She messaged him through the game chat that she wanted to talk so he told her to call him. Notwithstanding directions from the Society that he not communicate with the Respondent mother, they made arrangements to meet during one of his scheduled access visits. When the Society learned of this meeting, the Respondent father’s parenting time with G.T. moved back to supervised status. The Respondent father acknowledged the basis of the Society’s concerns. He testified that he understands they were acting protectively in G.T.’s best interests. The Respondent father recognizes that contact between himself and the Respondent mother is not ideal as he believes she attempts to manipulate and provoke him. He was not surprised to learn that the Respondent mother advised the Society that she arranged the meeting in an effort to ‘set him up’. She does not want to see him get ahead in life. The Respondent father has no issue with N.B. He only ever met him at the meeting of October 6, 2023.

[144] The Respondent father recognizes that he is not in a position to provide full-time care for G.T. He does not wish to have any more children. He believes he has a good working relationship with the Society. The Respondent father is hopeful that his parenting time will soon graduate back to unsupervised, and ultimately will include overnights and weekends. He testified that he is content that his access to G.T. be in the discretion of the Society at this time.

Respondent Mother

[145] The Respondent mother’s evidence was given over the course of multiple days. At the outset of her evidence, she confirmed that her position had changed. Specifically, she was now advancing that G.T. should be placed with herself or the paternal grandparents and not placed in extended society care.

Housing

[146] The Respondent mother initially confirmed that she would be vacating her residence by December 1, 2023. Her new accommodations had not yet crystallized. Initially, she was contemplating residing with her mother. The following day, the Respondent mother’s plan had changed, and she was contemplating a 2-bedroom apartment in Stouffville, with a six-month Airbnb in Holland Landing as her backup plan.

[147] Ultimately, the Respondent mother vacated her existing home in a ‘cash for keys’ arrangement wherein she received an incentive of $20,000.00 to vacate the home. She was able to secure a two-bedroom apartment in Lindsay, Ontario. She advised the court that N.B. formally moved in with her on February 9, 2024.

[148] The court is advised that the Respondent mother would not disclose her new address to Ms. Luberto. The Society was unaware of her new accommodations until approximately February 2024.

Employment

[149] The Respondent mother previously worked from home as a Collections Officer for BMO during the period of October 2022 to June 2023. The hours of her employment were not made clear through her evidence. The Respondent mother advised that she been on leave since June 2023, receiving short-term disability and is not presently working. She is hopeful that she will be approved for long-term disability income.

Health

[150] The Respondent mother testified that her current health challenges include neck and back issues, Meniere’s Disease, dizziness, migraines, general anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. She is taking prescription medication in relation to her anxiety. She too has a prescription for medicinal marijuana use. She has not drunk alcohol in four years.

[151] The Respondent mother’s dizzy spells occur approximately three times per week and last between 2-3 hours in duration. She has to lie down when experiencing these spells and acknowledges that she is not in a position to care for a two-year old when that occurs.

Therapy and Education

[152] The Respondent mother has completed domestic and sexual violence counselling, STAIR (Skills Training in Affect and Interpersonal Regulation) from April to June 2023, personal counselling with Mr. Sandre, online courses, and psychotherapy. She received a “Strength and Courage” Award in 2023 from the Women’s Support Network of York Region. She continues to see her family physician regularly.

[153] The Respondent mother’s sexual violence trauma counsellor, Suzan Abdelnour, testified at trial. She confirmed that the Respondent mother attended 26 counselling sessions over the telephone between January and September 2023. Ms. Abdelnour confirmed that she had no information with respect to the Respondent mother’s parenting and provided information as to the meditation, visualization, breathing, journalling and positive focus techniques as tools of stress management for the Respondent mother. She described the Respondent mother as engaged in the sessions.

[154] Mr. Loris Sandre, therapist, also testified at trial. Mr. Sandre has been providing counselling services to the Respondent mother, intermittently, since September 24, 2021. Their counselling sessions occur approximately every 3-4 weeks for one hour. All sessions occur by telephone. The longest gap in appointments was for six months, from approximately March to September 2023. The primary focus of their counselling was dealing with stressors in her life. The stressors in the Respondent mother’s life changed over time: childhood traumas, housing instability, interpersonal relationships with the Respondent father and maternal grandmother, health challenges, conflict with neighbours, and her relationship with the Society. Mr. Sandre characterized the Respondent mother’s life as one full of stress and challenges. The therapy he provides is ‘supportive’, solution-focused therapy: that is, employing techniques to stay focused on how to move forward in productive fashion. Mr. Sandre also lauded the Respondent mother for her strength and determination to carry on in the face of a difficult life history.

N.B.

[155] The Respondent mother has been in a relationship with N.B. since December 2, 2022. The Respondent mother reports him to be a great support to her. She advises that he has no children of his own, is gainfully employed as a forklift operator, and has no criminal record.

[156] In January 2023 the Respondent mother requested approval for N.B. to attend her access visits with G.T. This approval was not granted by the Society until September 2023. In addition to completing background checks, the Society wanted the Respondent mother to prioritize her one-on-one parenting time, and to provide an opportunity to assess the Respondent mother’s parenting of G.T., independent of assistance from others. The Respondent mother is critical of this delay. The Respondent mother presently describes N.B. as her primary support.

[157] The Respondent mother asserts that if G.T. is returned to her care, she will have the support of N.B., the maternal grandmother, and G.T.’s former foster mother, M.R. The Respondent mother did not call N.B. as witnesses at trial.

I.T.

[158] I.T. is now 7 years of age. I.T. was initially brought into foster care as a toddler as a result of concerns relating to the Respondent mother and I.T.’s father. I.T. was in care for approximately six months, before being returned into the care of the Respondent mother. I.T. remained in the care of the Respondent mother until February 2020, at which time she began residing with the maternal grandmother pursuant to a temporary kinship arrangement. The Respondent parents were residing together at this time. The Respondent mother acknowledges that she and the Respondent father had a toxic relationship and that I.T. was sometimes exposed to their conflict.

[159] The Respondent mother initially testified that I.T. was again in her full-time care commencing by December 2022. Specifically, the Respondent mother testified that I.T. started coming to her home every weekend, but the Respondent mother was staying with the maternal grandmother Sunday to Thursday each week, so effectively I.T. was always in her care.

[160] With respect to I.T.’s absences from school, the Respondent mother testified “that’s not on me”, pointing to a variety of reasons for the absences including severe bullying at school, covid, access visits with G.T., concussion protocol, etc. When I.T.’s attendance records were put to the Respondent mother in cross-examination, she deflected responsibility on to the maternal grandmother. Her previous evidence about being I.T.’s primary caregiver then changed.

[161] The Respondent mother advised the court that I.T. is still experiencing trauma from the car accident, including having flashbacks. She described that I.T.’s behaviours now include violence, screaming and cursing. At times she is inconsolable. The Respondent mother advised that I.T. initially saw a counsellor, arranged through her personal injury lawyer, but the Respondent mother could not remember the name. She testified that I.T. is on a waitlist for a psychiatrist and counselling and is not currently attending school regularly.

[162] The Respondent mother acknowledged that she initially withheld her new address and telephone number from Ms. Luberto. On February 15, 2024, she met with Ms. Luberto in her new home for the first time. The Respondent mother acknowledged that she deceived Ms. Luberto into believing that I.T. was at school or in the care of the maternal grandmother. The Respondent mother told Ms. Luberto that ‘if it were up to her, she could meet with I.T. any time’. In fact, I.T. was hiding in the Respondent mother’s bedroom throughout the meeting.

[163] The Respondent mother advised the court that I.T. is once again residing with the maternal grandmother during the school week, and with the Respondent mother on weekends. Specifically, I.T. is picked up from school on Friday, and returned into the care of the maternal grandmother on Sundays at approximately 2:00 p.m.

Maternal Grandmother

[164] The Respondent mother testified that her relationship with her mother is conflictual and that they sometimes get angry with one another and raise their voices. She acknowledges that I.T. has been present for this and agreed that she called the grandmother a ‘lazy bitch’ in I.T.’s presence.

[165] The Respondent mother testified that the maternal grandmother does not like the Respondent father and often disparages him in the presence of the children. The Respondent mother is not able to effectively redirect the maternal grandmother when this occurs.

[166] After a break in the trial between November 2023 and February 2024, the court was advised that police were again involved with the Respondent mother, arising from her failure to return I.T. into the care of the maternal grandmother. The Respondent mother acknowledged that on February 14, 2024, she told police that the maternal grandmother is verbally abusive and reported to Ms. Luberto that her mother is toxic, often swears and yells and threatens I.T.

Car Accident

[167] With respect to the car accident of June 4, 2023, the Respondent mother has been consistent in her evidence that both I.T. and G.T. were properly secured in a seatbelt and car seat respectively.

[168] The Respondent mother’s evidence with respect to many circumstances of the car accident were internally inconsistent. Her narrative changed multiple times in cross-examination with respect to the circumstances in which I.T. and G.T. were left alone in the vehicle at D.B. and L.L.’s house, how it came to be that D.B. was driving the vehicle, how and when the other children entered the vehicle, and how I.T. and G.T. were removed from the vehicle after the crash, etc. Regardless of these inconsistencies, the Respondent mother did not dispute that:

a. The vehicle was overcrowded;

b. Three children in the vehicle were not properly buckled;

c. She was aware that D.B. was addicted to Fentanyl, and had a past criminal record relating to drug charges;

d. D.B. was not licensed (although she was not aware at the time);

e. She and D.B. were screaming at one another for an extended period of time prior to and during the drive;

f. The children were present for this conflict; and

g. The Respondent mother was initially untruthful with police regarding the driver of the vehicle.

[169] In her trial affidavit the Respondent mother stated, “I understand now that the Society was acting in good faith when they re-examined their plan to place the child with me, as a result of the car accident”. Her oral evidence suggested otherwise.

T.S.

[170] The Respondent mother acknowledged that T.S. resided in her home in June 2023. She testified that he was only there for two weeks, and that he moved out on June 30, 2023. She acknowledged that she observed him drinking to excess during that time and that he was charged with assault against her. The Respondent mother initially denied that I.T. or G.T. were ever in his presence. Later, the Respondent mother agreed that I.T. was present at a bonfire in her backyard while T.S. and another man were drinking. The Respondent mother acknowledged that she did not advise the Society that T.S. was residing there, temporarily or otherwise. She denies that any other men were residing in her home during that time period.

Access with G.T.

[171] The Respondent mother advised the court that she consistently attended her scheduled parenting time with G.T. in September and October 2023.

[172] During her evidence in November 2023 the Respondent mother advised that she would be willing to travel to North Bay once per month to visit G.T. if the Society paid for a hotel room and transportation. She acknowledged that it could be disappointing for G.T. if she committed to these visits and then did not attend. On resumption of the trial in February 2024, the Respondent mother did not dispute that:

a. Her December access with G.T. at the home of M.R. was cancelled at her request due to illness. She did not accept the offer to have I.T. and G.T. to have access with each other at M.R.’s home in her absence.

b. She did not attend the court-prescribed visits with G.T. in North Bay in December, January, or February. She advised Ms. Luberto that she will “never” attend these visits.

c. The Respondent mother’s January access visit with G.T. took place at the home of M.R.

d. The Respondent mother’s February access with G.T. at the home of M.R. did not take place due to G.T.’s health. Efforts are being made to reschedule this visit.

e. The Respondent mother missed three scheduled virtual visits with G.T., including one on Christmas Day (she slept in).

Foster Parents

[173] G.T.’s first foster mother, M.R., testified as a witness for the Respondent mother. She has had opportunity to observe the Respondent mother’s parenting of I.T. and G.T. and described a fun, outgoing, and attentive parent. She never observed the Respondent mother to raise her voice or yell at the children. She observed both children to be attached to her. She testified that her own children are bonded to G.T. and I.T. She has maintained a friendship with the Respondent mother. By contrast, she had concerns with G.T.’s relationship with the paternal grandparents, and with her behaviours following her visits with them. She raised these concerns with the Society and was not satisfied by their investigations. M.R. was upset by the Society’s abrupt decision to place G.T. in a different foster home on May 1, 2023, and by the lack of notice to everyone, including her own family. M.R. testified to her willingness to act in a supervisory capacity, if needed, over the Respondent mother’s parenting time with G.T. She confirmed her willingness to comply with any court ordered terms relating to supervision and indicated that she would have no hesitation in contacting police or the Society in the event of serious concern.

[174] T.C., G.T.’s second foster mother, also testified at trial. T.C. described G.T. as a lovable, energetic, beautiful, vocal, and funny little girl. T.C. has not observed any differences in her presentation or temperament following visits with the paternal family.

Police Records

[175] Evidence Act notices were served by the Society and police occurrence reports were filed in evidence. For purposes of the information contained within the police records, I rely upon them only in accordance with the following principles:

a. Police records, including both criminal offence records and occurrence reports, are generally admissible as business records under s. 35 of the Evidence Act, as a record of the act, transaction, occurrence or event;

b. Police records, including both criminal offence records and occurrence reports are presumed to be reliable as they are:

i. typically made in usual and ordinary course of policing and/or the administration of criminal justice; and

ii. typically recorded at the time of the event or within a reasonable time thereafter;

c. The first-hand observations of police officers, as recorded within the police records and reports, are generally admissible;

d. The comments of the parties, as recorded in police records may be admitted as statements against interest;

e. Section 35 of the Evidence Act is not intended to permit the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence;

f. Third-party statements recorded within the police records are not admissible for the truth of their contents;

g. Opinion evidence recorded within the police records or occurrence reports is not admissible;

h. Information that is not relevant to the issues for determination is not admissible. The probative value of the evidence must outweigh any prejudice to its introduction; and

i. The presumption of reliability of police records may be rebutted: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.(L.) 2010 ONCJ 48.

[176] There are many police historic incident records relating to adult conflict between the Respondent mother and others. For example, there are multiple instances of police responding to calls relating to:

a. Conflict between the Respondent mother and Respondent father;

b. Conflict between the Respondent mother and various sets of different neighbours;

c. Conflict between the Respondent mother and various acquaintances and strangers, including physical violence;

d. Conflict between the Respondent mother and multiple past partners, including allegations of physical violence;

e. Conflict with family members and acquaintances of past partners;

f. Conflict between the Respondent mother, maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother;

g. Allegations of theft, damage and mischief to property;

h. Allegations against the Respondent mother of harassment, unwanted contact, and cautions relating to ‘inciting breaches’ of court orders; and

i. Other, nuisance-related calls of a more minor nature.

[177] The Respondent father has a lengthy criminal record, including a prior conviction of assault against the Respondent mother.

[178] More recently, subsequent to the September 2022 Final order of Justice Bennett, the court’s attention is drawn to the following police incidents:

a. On May 13, 2023, police were dispatched to a bar regarding an assault in progress in the early morning hours. The Respondent mother advised police that her breast was squeezed by an unknown third party without her consent. This resulted in a physical fight between the third party and her companion. The third party was charged with sexual assault against the Respondent mother.

b. On July 5, 2023, police received a request for a child welfare check at the Respondent mother’s home by the maternal grandmother. On attendance at the home, the Respondent mother advised police that the maternal grandmother is angry with her because she has a new boyfriend. The maternal grandmother had arrived late at the Respondent mother’s home to pick up I.T. so she told her to leave.

c. On July 25, 2023, the Respondent mother called police to make a report relating to T.S. She advised police:

i. On June 9, 2023, she began talking to T.S. on Facebook. She had known him since high school but lost touch.

ii. On June 16, 2023, she let him stay at her house. Their relationship was sexual, and he would stay for a few days and then leave, as she was also on/off with her previous boyfriend.

iii. On June 20, 2023, he urinated on her in the shower without her consent and turned the water very hot.

iv. On July 5, 2023, T.S. used her Bell account to order a new phone. It was delivered on July 7, 2023, when she was not at home. She did not become aware of this theft until later.

v. On July 18, 2023, they got in a physical altercation. She was repeatedly asking him to leave the home and he refused. She gradually backed him to the door and kneed him in the testicles. As T.S. was partially on the ground, he kicked her leg causing her to fall and hit her face on the cement outside the door.

vi. On July 20, 2023, T.S. again used her account to order an engagement ring online, using her name and address and payment information.

vii. On July 24, 2023, she noticed scratches on her door and that her doorknob was loose, and believed these were the actions of T.S.

viii. The Respondent mother declined to attend the police station to give a videotaped statement, as she works very early.

ix. On August 9, 2023, T.S. was charged with two counts of assault in relation to these events.

x. On August 15, 2023, the Respondent mother advised police that the phone/ring issues had been resolved to her satisfaction.

d. On August 15, 2023, the Respondent mother was cautioned by police regarding criminal harassment and inciting a breach (of criminal conditions), relating to T.S. The Respondent mother denied T.S.’s allegations and was noted as “not cooperative” by police. The Durham Society was notified of the dispute.

I.T.’s Attendance Records

[179] A copy of I.T.’s School (Daily) Attendance Record was filed. In grade one (i.e., September 2022 to June 2023 inclusive), I.T. missed 114.5 days of school and was late a further 28 times. Specifically:

a. I.T. missed approximately 60% of her scheduled days in school; and

b. Of the days that I.T. did attend school, she was late approximately 40% of the time.

THE LAW

Status Review Applications

[180] In considering any case under of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, S.O., 2018, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (“CYFSA”), the court must take into consideration the paramount purpose of the CYFSA, as articulated in section 1(1), which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. To the extent that they are compatible with this paramount purpose, the court must also consider the additional purposes articulated in s. 1(2) of the CYFSA.

[181] Status review applications are specifically governed by sections 113 and 114 of the CYFSA, the relevant portions of which are produced as follows:

113 (1) This section applies where a child is the subject of an order made under paragraph 1 or 4 of subsection 101 (1) for society supervision or under paragraph 2 of subsection 101 (1) for interim society care.

Society to seek status review

(2) The society having care, custody or supervision of a child,

(a) may apply to the court at any time for a review of the child’s status;

(b) shall apply to the court for a review of the child’s status before the order expires, unless the expiry is by reason of section 123; and

(c) shall apply to the court for a review of the child’s status within five days after removing the child, if the society has removed the child from the care of a person with whom the child was placed under an order for society supervision.

Court may vary, etc.

114 Where an application for review of a child’s status is made under section 113, the court may, in the child’s best interests,

(a) vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 101 (1), including a term or condition or a provision for access that is part of the order;

(b) order that the original order terminate on a specified future date;

(c) make a further order or orders under section 101; or

(d) make an order under section 102.

[182] The two-part process for determination of status review applications, established thirty years ago in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), 1994 CanLII 83 (SCC), remains good law:

1. First, the court must first determine whether the subject-child continues to be in need of protection and as a consequence requires a court order for his or her protection. In this respect:

a. The original order is presumed to be correct. This is not a re-hearing of a previous order made.

b. The court must consider the degree to which the risk concerns that formed the basis for the original order still exist.

c. The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of circumstances that triggered the original order for protection, or from circumstances which have arisen since then.

2. Secondly, the court must consider the best interests of the child, conducted from the child’s perspective.

[183] In this status review proceeding, the parties do not seek an order under s. 102 of the CYFSA. Rather, all parties ask this court to terminate the Final Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice R.T. Bennett dated September 15, 2022, and make a further order under s. 101 of the CYFSA. The relevant portions of s. 101 are as follows:

Order where child in need of protection

101 (1) 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 or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:

Supervision order

1. 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.

Interim society care

2. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.

Extended society care

3. That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision

4. 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.

Court to inquire

(2) In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or section 102, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.

Less disruptive alternatives preferred

(3) The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non-residential care and the assistance referred to in subsection (2), would be inadequate to protect the child.

Community placement to be considered

(4) Where the court decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall, before making an order under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (1), consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family under paragraph 1 of subsection (1) with the consent of the relative or other person.

Terms and conditions of supervision order

(7) If the court makes a supervision order under paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the court may impose,

(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision;

(b) reasonable terms and conditions on,

(i) the child’s parent,

(ii) the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order,

(iii) the child, and

(iv) any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward or would participate in a plan for the care and custody of or access to the child; and

(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or purchase any goods or services.

Order for child to remain or return to person who had charge before intervention

(8) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection but is not satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall order that the child remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part.

[184] In determining the best interests of a child under the CYFSA, and in particular in assessing plans under s. 101, the court must consider the enumerated factors contained within s. 74(3):

Best interests of child

(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, Inuk 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.

[185] In this case, the only relief being sought for G.T. is a supervision order under s. 101(1)1 of the CYFSA. In Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. P.W. and M.T., Justice Madsen highlighted a (non-exhaustive) list of additional considerations relevant to assessing the appropriateness of supervision orders:

a. The parent must meet a minimum threshold of co-operation and reliability; there needs to be a trusting relationship between the parent and the society; there needs to be clear and accurate information exchanged between the parties; there should be demonstrable evidence that the parent would be compliant with the terms; there needs to be evidence that the society could monitor a parent’s compliance; and a supervision order should not be imposed if a parent is ungovernable. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.R., 2020 ONCJ 22, 2020 CarswellOnt 441 at 620.

b. The question is whether the parenting that could be provided with a return of the children is below the minimum standard tolerated by the community, not whether the children will be “better off” with parents other than their own. Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v. C. (A.), 2013 ONCJ 453, 2013 CarswellOnt 11701 at 158.

c. Courts must recognize that families living in poverty may face challenges. Parents are not to be judged by a “middle class yardstick… provided that the standard used is not contrary to the child’s best interests.” Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. J.D., 2018 ONSC 6193, CarswellOnt 19221 at 79; C.C.A.S. of Hamilton v. I.(J), 2006 CanLII 19432 (ON SC), 2006 CarswellOnt 3510 at 38.

d. “A supervision order requires some element of confidence that the parent being supervised shows awareness of the alleged problems and a real commitment to cooperate and ensure that problems do not re-occur… The likelihood of a supervision order adequately addressing concerns about a parent must be considered in the context of that parent’s past and present behaviours.” Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. R.(A), 2011 ONSC 7248, 2011 CarswellOnt 14519 at 20, 22: see 2022 ONSC 4340 a para 127.

[186] Finally, the Respondent father, and the Respondent mother in her alternative plan, seek access to G.T. pursuant to s. 105 of the CYFSA:

Access: where child removed from person in charge

105 (1) Where an order is made under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection 101 (1) removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, 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.

[187] All parties agree that continued contact between G.T. and both Respondent parents, and her half-siblings, is in her best interests.

ANALYSIS

Framework for Analysis

[188] All parties ask this court to make a further and varied supervision order under s. 114 of the CYFSA. That is, all parties request a Final Order which removes G.T. from interim society care, and places her in the care of the Respondent mother or the paternal grandparents under terms of supervision:

a. The Society, Respondent father and OCL seek placement with the paternal grandparents. They do not support the return of G.T. into the care of the Respondent mother; they assert that the protection concerns cannot be mitigated by terms of supervision if G.T. is in the Respondent mother’s care.

b. The Respondent mother seeks the return of G.T. into her care, under terms of supervision. The Respondent mother’s alternative position is for G.T. to be placed in the care of the paternal grandparents under terms of supervision, with liberal access to G.T. in her favour.

[189] The appropriate starting point for analysis in this case is the assessment of the plan of the Respondent mother. In this status review application, the court is asked to make a further order under s. 101 of the CYFSA. Under this section, lesser disruptive measures must be considered before making an order which removes a child “from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part”: s. 101(4). Only where the court “decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part”, does the court turn to alternative placements with relatives, neighbours, or other members of the child’s communities or extended families, or indigenous communities: ss. 101(4) and 101(5). Ultimately, any placement ordered for G.T. must be found to be in her best interests.

[190] G.T. was removed from the care of both Respondent parents at birth. This initial fact was not changed by reason of G.T.’s subsequent placement in interim society care. The Respondent father is not advancing a plan for the return of G.T. into his care. The legislation therefore requires that priority attention be given to the Respondent mother’s plan under the CYFSA.

[191] As a practical consequence of status review applications generally, when assessing a child’s best interests under s. 114, the longer a child remains in the care of an alternative caregiver (i.e., not the person who had charge of the child immediately prior to state intervention), the greater the weight certain factors may have in assessing best interests. For example, it is easy to imagine that a child’s views and preferences may evolve, the strength of his or her relationships with alternative caregivers may increase as time passes, and the weight to be attributed to continuity of care and security within a family unit may become more prevalent.

[192] I specifically pause to note that this ‘order of operations’ does not run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision in B.J.T. v. J.D., 2022 SCC 24. The closer biological connection between G.T. and the Respondent mother than between G.T. and the paternal grandparents is not to be conflated with a ‘tiebreaker’ between two prospective caregivers. Rather, it is the specific terminology ‘the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention’, and not biology, which dictates the order in which the plans should be considered. This is in keeping with the balance that child protection legislation attempts to strike between a child’s best interests and preserving their existing family unit: B.J.T., at para. 97.

[193] After assessing the Respondent mother’s plan, if the return of G.T. into the Respondent mother’s care is not deemed to be in G.T.’s best interests, then by default, all parties agree that (a) it is in G.T.’s best interests that she be placed with the paternal grandparents, and (b) that she can be adequately protected by terms of supervision while in their care.

Assessment of Risk

[194] On September 15, 2022, the court made a finding, on consent, that G.T. was a child in need of protection as a result of risk that she was likely to suffer physical harm by the Respondent parents, arising from their inability to adequately care for provide for, supervise, or protect G.T. The Respondent parties (correctly) concede that G.T. continues to be a child in need of protection under these grounds today and that a court order is needed for her continued protection.

[195] The degree of risk which formed the basis of the original Child Protection Application and Final Order of the court was high, and related to:

1. Domestic violence between the Respondent parents;

2. Adult conflict between the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother;

3. The Respondent mother’s mental health;

4. The Respondent father’s mental health and anger management;

5. Drug use (particularly in relation to the Respondent father) in their home;

6. The parents’ conflict with neighbours and resultant instability in housing;

7. The Respondent mother’s minimization of protection concerns;

8. The Respondent mother’s struggles with her physical health; and

9. The Respondent mother’s stability, impulsivity, and inability to make good choices.

[196] At this trial, many of the themes of risk previously identified in relation to the Respondent mother continued. For ease of reference, those areas of concern will be addressed under the following headings:

1. Intimate partner violence;

2. Adult conflict;

3. Mental and physical health and the impact on the Respondent mother’s ability to care for her children;

4. Inability to prioritize the children’s needs and implement effective parenting techniques;

5. Housing instability;

6. High risk behaviours, impulsivity, and failure to make good choices; and

7. Minimization of child protection concerns and lack of cooperation with the Society.

Intimate Partner Violence

[197] The Respondent mother has a history of victimization through intimate partner violence, relating to at least four male partners in recent past, including the Respondent father.

[198] Children who are exposed to family violence are at risk of emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives. Harm can result from direct or indirect exposure to domestic conflict: see Barendregt v. Gebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 at para. 143.

[199] The Respondent parents separated on July 22, 2022, approximately two months prior to the Final Order of Justice Bennett dated September 15, 2022. Although the Respondent father was ultimately acquitted of these charges, both parties acknowledged that their relationship was very toxic, and involved a high incidence of screaming, yelling, name calling, throwing items, and other forms of emotional abuse. The parties agree that this family violence occurred in the presence of I.T.

[200] In December 2022, after dating N.B. for only a short period of time, the Respondent mother deliberately contravened Society directives not to expose G.T. to any adults during access visits, who not were approved in advance of Society. The Respondent mother was not truthful with Ms. Luberto when directly questioned about her relationship status and was not truthful about her cohabitation with N.B. She permitted prolonged contact between N.B., I.T., and G.T. before discovery by the Society. These facts are particularly concerning in the historical context of the Respondent mother’s abusive intimate relationships. I find that I.T. and G.T. were put at risk of harm by the Respondent mother’s actions.

[201] The Respondent mother has now been in partnership with N.B. for over one year, with one short period of separation. There are no known allegations of domestic violence between the Respondent mother and N.B. It is however concerning that in April 2023 N.B. became aggressive at a Society meeting, called a worker a ‘snake’ and a ‘liar’ and referred to the Society’s position as ‘bullshit’, and that in October 2023 he suggested ‘sticking a bullet in their ass’. It would have been helpful to the court to have heard viva voce evidence from N.B. to explain these sentiments, and to provide evidence regarding his views on the stability of their relationship and his proposed role as a parenting support to the Respondent mother.

[202] In June 2023, the Respondent mother permitted another male partner, T.S., to move into her home without Society knowledge or approval (during a break-up period from N.B.). I find that the child I.T. was residing primarily with the Respondent mother at the time, and was likely subjected to some adult conflict and intimate partner violence between the Respondent mother and T.S. Again, I find that I.T. was put at risk of harm by the Respondent mother’s actions.

[203] I accept the Society’s position that, at times, the Respondent mother has prioritized her romantic interests over the best interests and safety of her children.

[204] The Respondent parents no longer cohabit and have not reconciled. Ongoing domestic violence between the Respondent mother and Respondent father is now of lesser concern given the termination of their relationship. However, the Society has lingering concerns about communications between them, and the potential for mischief arising from their toxic history and propensity for conflict. I find that in October 2023 both Respondent parents directly contravened the directives of the society by engaging in communications with one another and arranging to meet in the presence of G.T. Further, I find that the Respondent mother recently breached paragraph 1(p) of this court’s order dated November 17, 2023, as it relates to approved communications with the Respondent father.

[205] I conclude that the Respondent mother does not appreciate or accept the potential danger she has placed her children in by their early exposure to intimate partners. She has repeatedly demonstrated that she will not abide by terms and conditions intended to minimize their potential exposure to domestic conflict and violence. Notwithstanding the purported stability of the relationship between the Respondent mother and N.B., I find that the degree of risk of exposure of G.T. to intimate partner violence remains moderate to high.

Adult Conflict

[206] The Respondent mother agrees that she has a highly conflictual relationship with the maternal grandmother. This concern existed at the time of the September 2022 Final Order and continues today. Notwithstanding that the Respondent mother testified that the maternal grandmother is one of her primary parenting supports, their relationship remains a volatile one. I find that the Respondent mother and maternal grandmother continue to frequently raise their voices with one another and use foul language in the presence of I.T. Police intervention continues to be employed as a method of conflict resolution between them. This chronic exposure to conflict is harmful to I.T.

[207] The Society initially identified concerns relating to the Respondent mother’s conflict with her previous neighbours, and her resultant housing instability. This concern repeated itself at this trial, culminating in significant uncertainty following the Respondent mother’s November testimony as to where she would be residing when the trial resumed. I accept the evidence of K.T. and R.H. that they felt threatened by the Respondent mother and they overheard her (and her acquaintance) making such threats towards them as: “I’m going to fuckin’ snap on the bitch. If I fuckin’ see her, she’s getting’ it... No more Mr. Fuckin’ Nice Guy”, “I’m gonna fuckin beat the shit out of this woman, I swear to god”, “some people can fuck off and go to hell”, “I think this bitch wants me to pay her a visit”, “…do you want to stop harassing my best friend before I kick your teeth in”, etc. I find that both children were present when some of these remarks were made. I find that the Respondent mother instigated most, if not all of the conflict with her neighbours.

[208] I find other examples of the Respondent mother inciting mischief against third parties. For example,

a. I accept the evidence of K.T. that, as a retaliatory measure for contacting authorities, the Respondent mother made a false allegation of theft by K.T. at her place of employment and made derogatory statements about K.T. and R.H. on social media.

b. I agree with the paternal grandmother’s and the society’s suspicion that the Respondent mother was the source of the false and malicious complaints made against the paternal grandmother to the Nipissing & Parry Sound Society.

c. I am alert to the repeated warnings the Respondent mother has received from police cautioning her against inciting breaches of non-contact as against multiple people, including most recently T.S.

[209] The Respondent mother asserts that her conflict with the Society is specific to her present worker, Ms. Luberto, and that she previously enjoyed a positive working relationship with DBCFS. I reject this evidence. The initial Child Protection Application reflects that in November 2021 the Respondent mother filed an internal complaint with DBCFS relating to her assigned child protection worker. The agency offered a change in worker, which was not accepted. Instead, the Respondent mother proceeded to file a formal complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board. In December 2021 the board concluded that the Respondent mother had been provided equitable service and the matter was closed.

[210] I do not accept that Ms. Luberto treated the Respondent mother with unfairness or bias or that Ms. Luberto’s conduct resulted in heightened conflict between the Respondent mother and the Society. Rather, this court was impressed with the child-focused professionalism displayed by Ms. Luberto in her carriage of this file. At the outset of Ms. Luberto’s carriage of the file, the access trajectory plan had been presented to and discussed with the Respondent mother, including in writing. Almost immediately the Respondent mother lied to Ms. Luberto about her relationship status and allowed N.B. to have contact with G.T. during her December 2022 access visits, in direct contravention of the Society’s written expectations. It was Ms. Luberto’s duty to address this breach. The Respondent mother was well aware of the potential consequences of breaching the expectations of the access trajectory plan. Her access was scaled back. Ms. Luberto’s actions were not personal, or because she is a ‘man-hater’; they were grounded in the Society’s duty to protect G.T. The consequences which arose from the Respondent mother’s actions were even-handed and responsive to the breach. I find that Ms. Luberto’s conduct towards the Respondent mother has remained respectful, professional and appropriately cautious during her carriage of the file. The Respondent mother should look inward to understand the true cause of what she perceives as a conflictual relationship with her worker.

[211] On June 4, 2024, the Respondent mother admits to engaging in a prolonged screaming match with D.B. in the presence of G.T., I.T., and three other children. Ultimately, a very serious car accident ensued endangering the lives of five children. The Respondent mother’s inability to effectively navigate adult conflict likely contributed to the serious harm these children were exposed to.

[212] The Respondent mother offered little insight in the adult conflict which seems to follow her. Adult conflict was a pressing concern in September 2022, and remains a pressing concern today. Little has changed in the Respondent mother’s ability to navigate conflict in a mature fashion. She continues to resort to screaming, yelling, swearing, name-calling, threats and malicious conduct when she feels challenged. Both of her children have been repeatedly exposed to these negative behaviours. The child I.T. herself now appears to be modelling these anti-social behaviours. The risk of exposure to adult conflict by G.T. (and I.T.) while in the Respondent mother’s care remains high.

Mental and physical health and the impact on the Respondent mother’s ability to care for her children

[213] At the time of trial, the Respondent mother had made an application for long-term disability arising from a neck and back injury, and Meniere’s disease. She testified to her ongoing physical health struggles, including pain and dizziness, migraine headaches, PTSD, and panic attacks. In cross-examination the Respondent mother acknowledged that she suffers from dizzy spells approximately three times per week. They are often caused by stress-induced triggers and sometimes last two-three hours. She is required to lie down during these episodes and is not in a position to care for a toddler at such times.

[214] The Respondent mother acknowledges past struggles with alcoholism but advises that she has been sober for four years. She has a prescription for medicinal marijuana use relating to her PTSD. There is no evidence that the Respondent mother is presently abusing alcohol or drugs.

[215] The Respondent mother testified that she was previously diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, but that is not a recent diagnosis. The most current mental health assessment provided to the court is a short report from January 2018. The assessment discusses a complex history of physical and sexual abuse and provides impressions/diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia. The Respondent mother was prescribed medication and referred for cognitive processing therapy. As noted above, the Respondent mother has engaged in therapy with Mr. Sandre and Ms. Abulmour, and has enrolled in Dialectical Behaviour Therapy, which was delayed as a result of this trial. The Respondent mother denies that she suffers from any anger-management issues but does acknowledge that she gets upset and frustrated and sometimes lashes out at others as a consequence of same.

[216] Regardless of diagnosis, it is apparent to this court that the Respondent mother’s mental health issues are quite complex, and she still struggles considerably with emotional and behavioural control. Of utmost concern to this court is the Christmas Day 2022 recording made by K.T. and R.H. depicting the Respondent mother’s efforts to put I.T. to bed. G.T. was also in the Respondent mother’s care on that special day. The recording depicts an atmosphere of terror. I find that the Respondent mother engaged in extreme verbal abuse towards a young and vulnerable child on that occasion. The Respondent mother did not provide any indication to this court that she appreciates the harm this abuse has likely caused to I.T. and may have caused G.T. through her exposure on that day. It is evident to this court that the Respondent mother continues to struggle with mental health issues.

[217] I conclude that the combination of the Respondent mother’s current physical, mental health, and self-regulation challenges, and the lack of progress she has made (notwithstanding professional support), deprive her of the ability to provide a stable, safe, and consistent parenting environment for G.T.

Inability to prioritize the children’s needs and implement effective parenting techniques

[218] I.T. is not the subject-child in this proceeding. However, section 93(1) of the CYFSA permits the court to consider the Respondent mother’s past conduct towards any child. The Respondent mother’s parenting of I.T. therefore demands special attention.

[219] Notwithstanding the Final Order of Hughes J. dated October 25, 2019, placing I.T. in the care of the paternal grandmother, I find that I.T. has been in the Respondent mother’s de facto primary care since August 1, 2022. This court’s impression is that the Respondent mother is very headstrong and determined, and that the maternal grandmother is regularly overpowered by the decisions and actions of the Respondent mother. This is easily evidenced by the documented requests of the maternal grandmother seeking police or Society assistance for wellness checks and assistance in having I.T. returned to her care.

[220] I.T. has unfortunately become a watermark for the level of skill and parental care one might expect for G.T., if returned to the Respondent mother’s full-time care:

a. The December 2022 Christmas Day bedtime event relating to I.T. bears repeating under this heading. Prolonged screaming at a young child to ‘to go fucking bed’ shows either a fundamental lack of knowledge or a complete inability to implement effective parenting techniques.

b. When I.T. had a behavioural outburst in December 2022, having only recently met N.B., the Respondent mother permitted and relied upon N.B. to use physical force to remove her from the scene.

c. I.T. has missed an inexcusable amount of school at her young age. I hold the Respondent mother primarily responsible for I.T.’s educational neglect. The Respondent mother’s evidence that when she was working from home, she would set I.T. up with a laptop or computer or TV and tell her she couldn’t bother her, and that they would eat lunch and take breaks together is an inadequate substitute for a formal education.

d. Unsurprisingly, I.T. is now exhibiting signs of a child in crisis. The Respondent mother is not taking adequate measures to address I.T.’s serious mental health needs. To complicate these issues, it also appears that the Respondent mother is using her influence over I.T. to cause her to fear and distrust the Society, and to actively discourage I.T. from sharing information with professionals who could assist her.

[221] Child protection intervention for I.T. is again necessary. This does not bode well for the Respondent mother’s proposed parenting of G.T.

[222] I agree with the Society’s position that the Respondent mother has shown a propensity to prioritize her romantic relationships and other issues of self-interest over her parenting time with G.T. This was a concern originally identified by DBCFS (in relation to I.T. and the Respondent father), and continues to be a concern today:

a. I find that the Respondent mother sent the Respondent father a text message complaining that her parenting time was interfering with her intimate partner time.

b. In January 2023 the Respondent mother’s parenting time was reduced as a result of her failure to follow society directives relating to N.B.

c. After that time, I find that scheduling access visits became overly complicated, primarily as a result of the Respondent mother’s efforts to schedule her time with G.T. around her time with N.B.

d. An access visit was cancelled in February 2023 because the Respondent mother refused to confirm N.B.’s absence from her home. She wrote “G.T. is always welcome home but I’m putting my foot down from now on. No one tells me who I can and cannot have in my home”.

e. In June and July 2023, when the Respondent mother was engaged in an intimate and volatile relationship with T.S., she failed to attend many of her scheduled access visits with G.T. I am not satisfied with the Respondent mother’s explanations for her missed visits. I find that she did not prioritize her visits with G.T. over other aspects of her personal life.

f. During her cross-examination in November 2023, the Respondent mother testified that if the Society was prepared to pay for a hotel room once per month in North Bay, where she could stay and spend weekend time with G.T. and I.T., she would do so. She acknowledged that it would be disappointing to G.T. if she committed to these visits but then did not attend. However, during the break in trial from November 2023 to February 2024, the Respondent mother opted not to exercise these funded visits, on the basis of her travel time. She advised the worker that “I’m never going to North Bay. I’m sick and tired of your bullshit”. This court acknowledges that the travel time is significant. However, it is unfair to the child for the Respondent mother to expect G.T. to bear all of travel time for their visits to take place. The Respondent mother has prioritized her own convenience over the interests of the child.

g. The Respondent mother also more recently missed some of her weekly video access visits with G.T. during this time period including one on Christmas morning 2023 that she ‘slept through’.

[223] I acknowledge that the Respondent mother is observed to employ loving and appropriate parenting techniques during her scheduled access with G.T. She continues to have positive attributes and qualities that should be shared with her daughters. However, the evidence suggests that the mother is still struggling to manage the consequences of her own complex trauma and life experiences. The totality of the evidence suggests that she does not presently have the requisite level of stamina, patience, and skill needed to parent G.T. on a full-time, long-term basis.

Housing instability

[224] The status of the Respondent mother’s housing changed during the conduct of this trial. At the outset of trial, the Respondent mother was residing in Jacksons Point, Ontario. During her initial testimony the court was advised that she received a ‘cash for keys’ ($20,000.00) incentive to move out and was looking for alternative housing. The Respondent mother testified that a lease that she had signed in Lindsay, Ontario had fallen through. She was contemplating a 2-bedroom basement apartment in Stouffville or a six-month Airbnb. Her back up plan was residency with the maternal grandmother if housing could not be secured. At the re-commencement of trial in February 2023, the Respondent mother had secured another two-bedroom home in Lindsay, Ontario. The home was observed to be appropriate, with a suitably furnished bedroom for I.T. The home does not have a separate bedroom or furnishings for G.T.

[225] Affordable and suitable housing has been secured for the Respondent mother. Whether she is able to maintain this new housing on a long-term basis will likely be contingent upon her ability to act in a responsible and respectful manner towards others.

High risk behaviours, impulsivity, and failure to make good choices

[226] Many of the circumstances referenced under the headings above are also examples of high-risk behaviour, impulsivity and a general failure to make good choices (e.g., exposure of the children to new partners, allowing an individual with known addiction issues to reside in her home, threatening conduct and disputes with neighbours, etc.) and need not be repeated. However, a major area of focus at this trial was a car accident which took place on June 4, 2023. The circumstances of this event highlight the Society’s concerns under this heading.

[227] I find that on June 4, 2023, the decisions made by the Respondent mother resulted in both I.T. and G.T. being placed in a situation of immediate physical danger. The circumstances of the car accident were dangerous in many respects:

a. The Respondent mother’s vehicle was over-crowded;

b. Minor children were not properly buckled in the vehicle;

c. The Respondent mother and the driver were in a heightened and volatile emotional state prior to and during their travel in the vehicle;

d. The driver was known to the Respondent mother to have addiction issues; and

e. The driver did not have a valid driver’s licence.

[228] The Society sought to lead evidence of statements made by I.T. to professionals relating to whether or not she was wearing a seatbelt during the car accident. A voir dire was held. Save and except for the double-hearsay statements purportedly made by I.T. to an emergency room nurse, I find that all of the statements meet the threshold level of necessity of reliability to be admissible in this child protection proceeding. However, I give the statements limited weight, and when considered as against the evidence of the Respondent mother and the information provided to and by the police who attended the scene of the accident, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Society has established that I.T. was not wearing a seatbelt. This finding does little to negate the otherwise unsafe parenting choices made by the mother on this day.

[229] The accident was serious and could have had devastating consequences for all of the occupants of the vehicle. It is significant that the Respondent mother allowed her children to be placed in this dangerous situation while at a crucial juncture of her reintegration plan. The Respondent mother was aware that the eyes of the court were upon her during this important phase of G.T.’s reintegration plan. Under this lens, the Respondent mother behaved imprudently, and harm was caused to her children. The Society was correct in its assessment that the reintegration plan for G.T. could not proceed as scheduled.

Minimization of child protection concerns and lack of cooperation with the Society

[230] In October 2023, when the Society raised the physical injuries caused to G.T. in the car accident (i.e., minor bruising and lacerations), the Respondent mother’s response was “Whooptie-doo” and “she was fine”. G.T. was not yet two-years of age at the time of this accident. The Respondent mother’s response demonstrates very little empathy for the physical harm caused to her infant child, or the danger she exposed the child to. The Respondent mother’s response lends strong support to the Society’s assertion that the Respondent mother trivializes legitimate protection concerns.

[231] During the Respondent mother’s evidence, it also became apparent to the court the Respondent mother rarely accepts responsibility for her own actions. She seems to blame everything bad that happens on someone else. Some of the many examples of this, which were presented at trial are as follows:

a. She blamed her break up with N.B. on the Society’s, ‘deliberate’ efforts to schedule her parenting time at times that interfered with their schedule.

b. She blamed I.T.’s absences from school on the maternal grandmother and on school officials.

c. She blamed the dangerous circumstances of the car accident on the driver.

d. She blamed her conflict with neighbours on their purported intrusiveness.

e. She blamed any behavioural issues displayed by G.T. from time to time on the Respondent father and paternal grandparents.

f. She blamed her conflict with the Society on Ms. Luberto.

g. She blamed the decision not to call the maternal grandmother or N.B. as witnesses at trial on her lawyer.

[232] This is not an exhaustive list. The Respondent mother showed little to no insight as to her own role in the negative circumstances she often finds herself in.

[233] I find that the Respondent mother was intentionally dishonest with Society workers both by omission, in failing to disclose information that ought to have been volunteered to her worker, and by actively providing misleading information. The most recent and salient example of the Respondent mother’s active dishonesty with her Society worker was the meeting held between the Respondent mother and Ms. Luberto in her new home on February 13, 2024, wherein the child I.T. was hiding in a room that was inaccessible to the worker. The Respondent mother deliberately and deceitfully led Ms. Luberto to believe false information with respect to the child’s whereabouts. The evidence suggests that the Respondent mother only admits to such wrongdoings when they are caught on tape, documented in police records, or proven by other third-party sources first. As a result, the Society cannot rely upon information received by the Respondent mother without extreme caution.

[234] I find that since September 17, 2022, the Respondent mother has continued to act in a manner that is contrary to the expectations articulated by the Society. In September 2022, the Society was concerned by exposure of the child I.T. to conflict, contrary to the terms of the Final Order of Justice Hughes, dated October 25, 2019. At this trial it became evident that the Respondent mother continues to breach court ordered terms. For example, I find that during the break in this trial the Respondent mother breached the following paragraphs of this court’s Temporary Order dated November 17, 2023:

a. Paragraph 1(i): by failing to cooperate with a scheduled meeting requested by

Ms. Luberto;

b. Paragraph 1(p): by sending text communications to the Respondent father; and

c. 1(q): by failing to disclose her new address and telephone number to Ms. Luberto.

[235] Unfortunately, this court is left with the ultimate impression that:

a. The Respondent mother has little insight into the very legitimate child protection concerns raised by the Society. At times, her words acknowledge the concerns, however her actions suggest otherwise.

b. The Society cannot be confident that the Respondent mother will exchange accurate information with her worker.

c. The Respondent mother will not consistently abide by Society recommendations.

d. The Respondent mother will not consistently obey Orders of the court.

[236] I conclude, from the evidence heard at this trial, that the Respondent mother has not demonstrated the requisite ability or willingness to cooperate with the Society that would permit sufficient monitoring of terms of supervision. The Society provided the Respondent mother with a road map to follow to have the child reintegrated into her care. Despite being advised of clear expectations to achieve the result she sought; she did not meet these expectations. The Respondent mother cannot or will not be governed by court ordered terms of supervision.

Conclusion Regarding Risk

[237] I am not satisfied that the risks which existed in September 2022 have abated in any meaningful way. The circumstances of risk which triggered the original order for protection, have not been mitigated and continue today. There are no terms of supervision which could adequately protect G.T. in the Respondent mother’s primary care.

[238] The Respondent mother’s request to have G.T. placed in her care pursuant to terms of supervision is dismissed.

Placement with the Paternal Grandparents

[239] I accept the position of the Society, the Respondent father, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer that it is necessary in G.T.’s best interests to terminate the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice R.T. Bennett dated September 15, 2022 and to make a new Order under s. 101 which places G.T. in the care of the paternal grandparents pursuant to terms of supervision. I note that this is now also the alternative position of the Respondent mother, having dismissed her request for return of the child into her care.

[240] G.T. is supported in North Bay by a child and youth worker, an infant development worker, and an early childhood educator. She has settled into a daily routine in the paternal grandparents’ home. G.T.’s diet has been modified, her eczema has cleared up, she is fully potty-trained, and she is no longer using a bottle. She participates in swimming lessons, horseback riding, gymnastics, and music and movement classes. She receives regular medical care, and all of her needs are being met. The paternal grandmother is complying with her obligation to provide weekly updates and photographs of G.T. to the Respondent mother through a communication application, without issue.

[241] On the strength of the evidence before the court, I specifically find that G.T. is physically, mentally, and emotionally safe in the care of the paternal grandparents. I am further satisfied that G.T.’s physical, mental and emotional needs are presently being met by the paternal grandparents and that they will continue to seek out appropriate supports and treatments to assist them in meeting G.T.’s specific needs. The paternal grandparents have, by their testimony and by their recent history of caring for other young children with special challenges, demonstrated that they are fully equipped to care for G.T. at her present stage of development. The evidence confirms that the paternal grandparents have made significant effort to ensure that G.T. develops strong and meaningful relationships with themselves and with the other children in her home, whether connected through biology or not. G.T. appears to have already secured a special place and become comfortable as a member of their family.

[242] I am satisfied, by the conduct of the paternal grandparents relating to the other children in their care, that they appreciate the importance of promoting positive relationships with parents and siblings. I am confident that the paternal grandparents will accept and follow any directives of the Society, or the court pertaining to access or contact between G.T. and her family. I accept that they have complied with all terms relating to access and communication, as ordered by this court on November 17, 2023. I heard no evidence that they have failed to implement any recommendations or directions given to them by any Society relating to the children presently in their care. The placement of G.T. with the paternal grandparents has offered her a stable family placement, including a residence for the first time with one of her biological siblings, K.S.

[243] Any concerns of risk relating to the paternal grandparents arising from their dated child protection history, can be adequately monitored and managed by terms of supervision. The terms of supervision required to mitigate the risk were provided by the Society. The paternal grandparents do not oppose the terms. The Respondent mother did not argue that any additional terms, above and beyond those contained within this court’s Temporary Order of November 17, 2023, were necessary.

Access

[244] All parties agree that G.T. should have ongoing access to both Respondent parents and to I.T. The evidence clearly establishes that G.T. is connected with each of her mother, father, and sister in a positive, loving, and familiar way, and that these relationships must be preserved in G.T.’s best interests.

[245] Neither parent raised specific concerns relating to the terms of supervision proposed by the Society relating to their access with G.T. Given the risks identified, terms are required and in G.T.’s best interests.

Respondent Father

[246] The court is advised that the Respondent father is faithfully exercising his access with G.T. twice a month, and regularly participates in scheduled video chats. His visits with G.T. are described as positive and engaging. The Respondent father, with the assistance of the Society secured further psychotherapy and trauma counselling. He continues to work cooperatively with the Society. His relationship with the paternal grandparents has undergone major repair.

[247] Save and except for a contravention of the Society’s directive that the parties not communicate directly with each other in October 2023, this court heard no evidence that the Respondent father has failed to follow any recommendations or specified terms of his access with G.T. In his testimony, the Respondent father acknowledged that the Society has acted fairly in the evolution of his visits with G.T. and accepted that the society was justified in reinstating previous restrictions upon learning of his breach of their expectations. The Respondent father has made significant and commendable gains in his mental health and general lifestyle. He is on a very positive path.

[248] The Society acknowledges the Respondent father’s recent gains and has indicated that they are again in the process of moving towards unsupervised visits. That expansion could well have occurred by the date of release of this judgment. Given the Respondent father’s very complex history of mental health, substance abuse, and criminal activity, I am reluctant to make a blanket order for unsupervised access at this time, notwithstanding the recent remarkable changes the Respondent father has made in his life to date. In the unique circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the Society to proceed with caution in monitoring the further expansion of his time with G.T. over a six-month period and to maintain a residual ability to require supervision if deemed necessary to maintain G.T.’s safety. I have removed any previous terms relating to the Respondent father’s parenting time which place ‘maximum’ restrictions in frequency and duration of visits.

Respondent Mother

[249] With respect to the Respondent mother, all evidence suggests that she manages short, structured access visits with G.T. well. Despite this court’s critique of her conduct in consideration of G.T.’s primary placement, it remains evident to the court that the Respondent mother is highly intelligent and has many positive attributes which should be shared with G.T. It is presently in G.T.’s best interests that these positive qualities be shared in a supervised setting. For the reasons given on November 17, 2023, this court is satisfied that M.R. is a suitable supervisor of the Respondent mother’s access visits at this time. Moving towards unsupervised access will depend to a large degree on the Respondent mother’s transparency and cooperation with the Society. The Temporary Order of November 17, 2023, makes provision for relaxation of supervision terms and expansion of parenting time moving forward if progress is made.

[250] It is unfortunate that the Respondent mother has chosen not to exercise the additional access visits offered to her in North Bay, at the expense of the Society. It is not in G.T.’s best interests to travel the distance between their respective residences two times per month. It is unreasonable to expect this young child to bear all of the burden of travel to access visits. It makes little sense to grant additional access time to the Respondent mother, when she is not availing herself to all of the state-funded access provided under the terms of the existing order. It is hoped that during the period of supervision which follows, the Respondent mother will recognize that it is in G.T.’s best interests to have frequent and meaningful access with her mother and sister, and she will demonstrate to the court that she is prepared to do all that is necessary to support G.T.’s relationship with her and I.T.

I.T.

[251] The Respondent mother agrees to facilitate sibling contact between I.T. and G.T. during her access visits. However, in December 2023, when the Respondent mother was unable to attend a scheduled access visit with G.T. due to illness, neither the Respondent mother nor the maternal grandmother were supportive of a visit between I.T. and G.T., at the home of M.R. in the absence of the Respondent mother.

[252] Sibling access between I.T. and G.T. is important. To the extent it may be possible, the Society should explore further sibling access alternatives, which are not contingent upon the circumstances of the Respondent mother. This may prove easier moving forward if a protection order has indeed been made with respect to I.T. which requires access between these siblings.

ORDER

[253] On the basis of the above, there shall be a Final Order to go on the following terms:

1. The child G.T. (born ***) (“G.T.” or the “child”) continues to be a child in need of protection, pursuant to s. 72(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

2. Pursuant to sections 113 and 114 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the child, shall be placed in the care and custody of L.S. and M.S. (“the paternal grandparents”) subject to the supervision of Children and Family Services for York Region (the “Society”) for a period of six months, pursuant to the following terms and conditions.

3. The paternal grandparents, L.S. and M.S., shall:

a. Cooperate with the Society including meeting with the Society worker(s) as required and permitting the Society worker(s) to attend the family home on an announced and unannounced basis and shall allow for the Society worker to meet with the child at home or in the community and in private during these visits if so requested.

b. Sign consents permitting the Society to exchange information with any service providers that they or the child are or may become involved with after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

c. Advise the Society of any change of address and/or telephone number within 24 hours of such change.

d. Ensure that G.T. is not left in the care of any other person unless pre-approved by the Society in writing.

e. The paternal grandparents shall ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any form of adult conflict (verbal and physical).

f. Use positive parenting techniques and refrain from the use of physical discipline on the child.

g. Send one weekly update which will include a picture of G.T. to the Respondent mother. This update can be communicated through Family Wizard or AppClose or a similar app. This update shall not be posted on social media by any party or caregiver.

h. Ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any negative messaging or derogatory comments about the maternal family.

4. The Respondent mother, B.T., shall:

a. Cooperate with the Society, including meeting with the Society worker(s) as required and permitting the Society worker(s) to attend the family home on an announced and unannounced basis.

b. Sign consents permitting the Society to exchange information with any service providers that she or the child are/or may become involved with after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

c. Continue to fully participate in personal counselling to address her emotional regulation, relationship issues that led to domestic violence, and the impact of this on her children.

d. Make best efforts to maintain G.T.’s schedule and routine when G.T. is visiting with B.T.

e. Refrain from any negative talk or age-inappropriate discussions in the presence of the child.

f. Ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any form of adult conflict (verbal and physical).

g. Ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any negative messaging or derogatory comments about the paternal family.

h. Refrain from posting on Facebook or any other internet site or social media that may identify G.T. as the subject child in this proceeding.

i. Limit her communication with R.S. (the Respondent father) unless it pertains to G.T., and if communication with respect to G.T. is necessary, they shall use a communication application such as Family Wizard, or similar application to communicate.

j. Advise the Society of any changes to her address and/or phone number within 24 hours of such change.

5. The Respondent father, R.S., shall:

a. Limit his communication with B.T. unless it pertains to G.T., and if communication with respect to G.T. is necessary, they shall use a communication application such as Family Wizard, or similar application to communicate.

b. Ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any form of adult conflict (verbal and physical).

c. Locate and participate in therapy, and the Society shall assist in making appropriate referrals for such therapy.

d. Not leave G.T. in the care of any other adult, unless pre-approved by the Society, except for the paternal grandparents.

e. Not have any other adults attend his visits with G.T., unless pre-approved by the Society, except for the paternal grandparents, M.S. and L.S.

f. Advise the Society of any changes to his address and/or phone number within 24 hours of such change.

g. Refrain from posting on Facebook or any other internet site or social media that may identify G.T. as the subject child in this proceeding.

h. Refrain from any negative talk or age-inappropriate discussions in the presence of the child.

i. Ensure that G.T. is not exposed to any negative messaging or derogatory comments about the maternal family.

6. Pursuant to section 105 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the mother, B.T., shall have access to the child, G.T., as follows, subject to the Society’s discretion to make necessary modification to access exchange times to facilitate transportation for access visits, and/or to otherwise relax the requisite level of supervision required:

a. The Respondent mother shall have supervised access (parenting time) with G.T.

b. The Respondent mother shall have minimum access (parenting time) with G.T. once per month on Saturdays and Sundays for at least 4 hours, on the third weekend of each month.

c. M.R. shall be an approved supervisor of the Respondent mother’s access visits with G.T., subject to the following terms and conditions:

i. M.R. shall at all times supervise the access visits.

ii. M.R. shall cooperate with the Society and shall permit the Society worker(s) to attend her home on an announced and unannounced basis (at any time that she is supervising the Respondent mother’s parenting time) and shall allow the Society worker(s) to meet with the child in her home or within the community in private during these visits if so requested.

iii. M.R. shall forthwith report any concerns or incidents occurring at the Respondent mother’s access visits to the Society.

iv. M.R. shall not allow any person who is not pre-approved by the court (as per below) or in writing by the Society to attend at any portion of the Respondent mother’s access visits.

v. M.R. shall ensure that there is no discussion of these legal proceedings, the paternal family, or the Society in general in the presence of G.T. during the Respondent mother’s access visits.

d. The Respondent mother’s partner, N.B., G.T.’s sibling, I.T., and family members of M.R. are permitted to be present during B.T.’s access (parenting time) with G.T. N.B. shall not be present during overnight parenting time.

e. The Respondent mother shall be offered one additional access visit per month in North Bay on the first weekend of each month for a period of six hours which will depend on the caregivers, the Respondent mother and access supervisors’ schedule. If this additional visit is accepted, the cost of transportation and accommodation will be reimbursed by the Society provided such expenses have been pre-approved by the Family Services Supervisor. The Respondent mother shall notify the Society in writing by 9:00 a.m. on the Monday of the week of the scheduled visit of her intention to exercise this additional visit, failing which the proposed visit shall be cancelled.

f. The Respondent mother shall have video or telephone calls with G.T. a minimum of once per week:

i. The virtual/telephone call will be facilitated by a Society worker.

ii. The duration of the call will be 10 to 30 minutes.

iii. The Society worker will initiate the call.

iv. B.T. is to ensure that the Society has her updated contact information so that the calls can take place.

g. No other person shall attend B.T.’s access visits unless pre-approved by the Society.

7. Pursuant to section 105 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the father, R.S., shall have access to the child, G.T., as follows, subject to the Society’s discretion to make necessary modification to access exchange times to facilitate transportation for access visits, and/or to otherwise modify the requisite level of supervision required.

a. The Respondent father shall have minimum parenting time with G.T., once per month at the Respondent father’s home (or an alternate location pre-approved by the Society) on Fridays for 6 hours. The paternal grandparents and R.S. shall make arrangements to transport G.T. to and from the visits.

b. The Respondent father shall be offered one additional visit per month in North Bay for a period of twelve hours which will depend on the caregivers’ and the Respondent father’s schedules. If this additional visit is accepted, the cost of transportation and accommodation will be prepaid or reimbursed by the Society provided such expenses have been pre-approved by the Family Services Supervisor.

c. The Respondent father shall have video or telephone calls with G.T. a minimum of once per week.

i. The virtual/telephone call will be initiated by the Respondent father.

ii. The duration of the call will be 10 to 30 minutes.

iii. Should any issues arise, the Society will exercise its discretion to facilitate the calls and the Society worker will initiate the call.

iv. The Respondent father shall ensure that the Society has his updated contact information so that the calls can take place.

d. No other person shall attend the Respondent father’s visits unless pre-approved by the Society. The paternal grandparents will attend the visits for the purpose of access exchange.

Released: April 29, 2024

CITATION: York Region Child and Family Services v. B.T. and R.S., 2024 ONSC 2179

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-1139

DATE: 2024/04/29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

York Region Child and Family Services

Applicant

• and -

B.T. and R.S.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Bale J.

Released: April 29, 2024