WARNING

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

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

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

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

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-00000341-0000
DATE: 2025-04-15
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:
Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services
Isaac Couto, counsel for the Applicant

Applicant
– and –
L.S.
Western Cree Tribal Council (on behalf of Horse Lake First Nation)
Respondents

Melissa Hawco, Patricia MacIvor, Jane Howlett for Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: December 11, 2024

Reasons for Decision

Justice N. Edmundson

Introduction

[1] The children who are the subjects of this case are R.W. (born xxx xx, 2013, now 11) and K.D. (born xxx xx, 2015, now 9). On September 3, 2024, they were brought to a place of safety by Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (“DBCFS” or the society).

[2] The children are members of the Horse Lake First Nation in Alberta. The Western Cree Tribal Council (WCTC) acts on behalf of the First Nation.

[3] Two motions for the temporary placement of the children are before the court.

[4] DBCFS seeks temporary care and custody. The plan being advanced is for the children to be placed in a group home supplied by the First Nation in Alberta. Their alternate plan is for the children to remain in care in Ontario with access to their family and Horse Lake First Nation.

[5] WCTC on behalf of Horse Lake First Nation advocates for R.W. and K.D. to remain removed from L.S.’s care and to be immediately returned to Alberta to facilitate the eventual reunification of the children with their family. The First Nation supports the plan for the children to be placed in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS with placement in Alberta. They have contracted with Majesty Care in Edmonton, Alberta, which is easily accessible for Horse Lake members including Elders and the girls’ biological family.

[6] The children’s caregiver prior to their admission to care was the respondent L.S. She meets the definition of a parent under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA). The respondent, Ms. L.S., seeks the return of the children to her care, alternatively to her care under a supervision order and in the further alternative she asks that the children remain in the care and custody of DBCFS in Ontario with in-person access twice a week plus virtual visits twice a week.

[7] The children are represented by the OCL who supports the plan of Ms. L.S.

[8] Ms. L.S. is not a member of the Horse Lake First Nation nor is she Cree. Ms. L.S. became a member of the Chippewas of Rama First Nation, an Anishinaabe (Ojibway) First Nation community, following her marriage to Mr. C.S.

[9] The children’s biological mother is S.D. She has two younger children Z.D. (age 6) and A.D. (age 4). They live with the children’s maternal grandmother, P.D., and are all members of and live on the Horse Lake First Nation. The children’s biological father is K.W. who is also a member of and resides on the Horse Lake First Nation. The biological parents are not parties.

Background in Alberta

[10] L.S. was originally from Ontario but following her separation from her husband, C.S., she moved to Alberta with her then partner, L.Sp. She states that she moved there to work as the Director of Health with the WCTC, a position which she occupied for 13 months before becoming the CEO of WCTC. She acted as the CEO for 4 ½ years.

[11] L.S. and L.Sp. became foster parents for WCTC. Following the removal of R.W. and K.D. from the care of their biological parents due to addictions issues, K.D. was in L.S.’s care from November 6, 2015 and R.W. from August 2016 after her previous placement broke down.

[12] On December 6, 2016, a Private Guardianship Order (PGO) was made in Alberta under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act with the consent of the parents, the Horse Lake First Nation and the Western Cree Tribal Council, with the understanding that L.S. and L.Sp. were going to support the children in remaining connected to their family and to their First Nation’s culture and community. The agreement was outlined in the home study filed to support the PGO. The agreement included monthly funding for Ms. L.S. for the children and to support the agreed upon maintenance of the children’s connection to Horse Lake First Nation and their family.

[13] From December 2016 to August 2020, there was minimal contact between the children and their family and First Nation. Ms. L.S. had separated from L.Sp. after the PGO was granted and in August 2020 she moved back to Ontario with the children.

Events in Ontario

[14] After she moved back to Ontario Ms. L.S. was living near her former husband, C.S., whom she knew should not be unsupervised around children because of his history of sexual assault towards children.

[15] Despite the home study agreement and funds, Ms. L.S. did not facilitate contact between the children and their family and community from August 2020 to August 2024. With each passing year, the children’s connection to their First Nation and family dwindled.

[16] Ms. L.S. claims that despite not following the plan in the home study she did support the children in remaining connected to their cultural background. She says that the children were connected to Rama First Nation, visited Alderville First Nation, and attended powwows.

[17] DBCFS and the First Nation submit that there are several problems with Ms. L.S.’s claims. Firstly, there is no evidence to support that Ms. L.S.’s claims are accurate. Secondly, even if these efforts were being made, this is not what Ms. L.S., the family, and the First Nation agreed to in the home study, and neither Rama First Nation nor Alderville First Nation are Cree Nations.

[18] The children were not connected to educational supports and services for Indigenous children within the school board.

[19] In May 2024, Ms. L.S. learned from K.D. that Mr. C.S. was sexually assaulting R.W. Rather than stopping the contact and alerting the authorities she allowed the visits to continue unsupervised. She set up an iPad to video record Mr. C.S. sexually assaulting R.W. In May 2024, Ms. L.S. obtained a recording of C.S. sexually assaulting R.W. She did nothing with that recording or about the sexual assaults of R.W. until three months later.

[20] On August 9, 2024, for the first time in 5 years, the children visited their family in Alberta with L.S. and her partner D.P. WCTC paid for the visit. During the visit concerns were noted by WCTC in relation to Mr. D.P.’s treatment of the children (spoke to them harshly) and Ms. L.S. (controlling), and his alcohol use in front of the children. An investigation was opened by WCTC. Ms. L.S. also refused to discuss the facilitation of a Christmas visit for later in the year in Ontario.

[21] During the visit in August 2024, the children reported that Ms. L.S. described their mother S.D. as a drunk and drug user. The children regularly referred to their mother as an addict. WCTC reports that the mother is sober and has care of her two younger children.

[22] On August 19, 2024, Rama Police contacted DBCFS and reported that they had video evidence of R.W. being sexually assaulted by Mr. C.S. in May 2024. The Agency contacted Belleville Police Services (“BPS”), and a joint investigation ensued.

[23] Mr. C.S. was charged with Sexual Assault (CC 271), Sexual Interference (CC 151) and Invitation to Sexual Touching (CC 152). Mr. C.S. has acknowledged that the sexual abuse occurred.

R.W. and K.D. are Brought to a Place of Safety

[24] On August 21, 2024, DBCFS Family Service Workers, Dayna Larson, and Alisha Parks attended Ms. L.S.’s home to bring the children to a place of safety. During the discussion, Ms. L.S. maintained that she had done nothing wrong but did sign a Temporary Care Agreement for a period of 30 days. Two days later, on August 23, 2024, through her counsel, Ms. L.S. provided written notice to terminate the TCA with 14 days’ notice.

[25] On September 3, 2024, the children were brought to a place of safety, and on September 5, 2024, a without prejudice order was made placing R.W. and K.D. in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS.

[26] Following the removal of the children DBCFS learned that there was evidence of neglect of the children as follows:

a. R.W. had an ear infection and two perforated eardrums when she came into the Agency’s care. She was in pain and required treatment. She was referred to an Ear Nose & Throat specialist.
b. R.W. had 3 cavities that needed treatment;
c. K.D. had to have two teeth removed. One because it was broken in half and the other because it was obstructing her adult teeth;
d. The children had not seen an optometrist in years. The children recently saw an optometrist and were prescribed glasses;
e. The children were not connected to counselling services;
f. The children were not having contact with their biological family or First Nation; and
g. According to Ms. L.S., R.W. had been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD). The Agency has asked her to provide documentation to support this diagnosis, but she hasn’t provided said documentation to date.

[27] On September 6, 2024, K.D.’s foster mother advised the Agency that K.D. disclosed that when R.W. was younger, a former foster sibling (who was in Ms. L.S.’s care) pushed her down on the couch, took off her pants, and touched her private areas. K.D. told her foster mother that R.W. reported this to Ms. L.S. when it happened, and that Ms. L.S. told them she would deal with it. K.D. said that she didn’t know what happened after that. K.D. has also displayed some suicidal ideation.

[28] On October 7, 2024, while R.W. was being interviewed in relation to physical abuse allegations she said that her sister K.D. started to kiss her, specifically on her chest and lips when they were at their last foster placement.

[29] During the children’s trip to Alberta in October 2024 R.W. stated that when she was living with Ms. L.S. she was made to lie down and that something happened to her. She did not elaborate.

[30] On September 29, 2024, R.W. advised the Agency that Ms. L.S. hit her and K.D. with a spatula and wooden spoons, and that Ms. L.S. pushed her up against a cabinet by her throat.

[31] On October 7, 2024, R.W. and K.D. were interviewed by police. R.W. confirmed that when Ms. L.S. got mad at them she hit them with spatulas and fly swatters on the butt or side of the leg, and that there were times it would leave a red mark. K.D. also confirmed spanking including with a spatula.

[32] R.W. reported that Ms. L.S. grabbed her neck two times and that she could barely breathe. She said that K.D. was not choked but witnessed it.

[33] Ms. L.S. has denied the allegations but did say that she “swatted” the girls on the behind when they didn’t listen.

[34] From October 16 to October 24, 2024, the children visited their family in Alberta. During the trip they exhibited highly sexualized behaviour, including dancing naked in front of the hotel window and K.D. walking around the room naked in front of the other children and masturbating.

The Law

[35] The Ontario legislation, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) in s. 94 provides a pathway of options that the court must consider in determining the placement of a child during the adjournment period prior to final resolution of the protection application. At a temporary care and custody hearing, the onus is on the society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Further, the onus is on the society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order. See: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T.. Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the society has to meet.

[36] At the temporary care and custody stage the Agency only has to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies Society intervention. See: L.D. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., para 26.

[37] At a temporary care and custody hearing the Court is asked to make decisions at a very early stage in a child protection proceeding about the placement of a child or children until the application can be considered in full.

[38] These children are First Nations children and therefore An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (“the Federal Act”) applies. While the jurisdiction to bring an application before the court is under the provincial legislation, CYFSA, the Federal Act augments the CYFSA and where there is conflict the Federal Act prevails.

[39] The relevant sections of the Federal Act for this temporary care and custody hearing are set out below.

Excerpts from the Federal Act

8 The purpose of this Act is to:

(a) affirm the inherent right of self-government, which includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services;
(b) set out principles applicable, on a national level, to the provision of child and family services in relation to Indigenous children; and
(c) contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Principle — best interests of child

9 (1) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child.

Principle — cultural continuity

(2) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of cultural continuity as reflected in the following concepts:

(a) cultural continuity is essential to the well-being of a child, a family and an Indigenous group, community or people;
(b) the transmission of the languages, cultures, practices, customs, traditions, ceremonies and knowledge of Indigenous peoples is integral to cultural continuity;
(c) a child’s best interests are often promoted when the child resides with members of his or her family and the culture of the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs is respected;
(d) child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that does not contribute to the assimilation of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs or to the destruction of the culture of that Indigenous group, community or people; and
(e) the characteristics and challenges of the region in which a child, a family or an Indigenous group, community or people is located are to be considered.

Principle — substantive equality

(3) This Act is to be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle of substantive equality as reflected in the following concepts:

(a) the rights and distinct needs of a child with a disability are to be considered in order to promote the child’s participation, to the same extent as other children, in the activities of his or her family or the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs;
(b) a child must be able to exercise his or her rights under this Act, including the right to have his or her views and preferences considered in decisions that affect him or her, and he or she must be able to do so without discrimination, including discrimination based on sex or gender identity or expression;
(c) a child’s family member must be able to exercise his or her rights under this Act, including the right to have his or her views and preferences considered in decisions that affect him or her, and he or she must be able to do so without discrimination, including discrimination based on sex or gender identity or expression;
(d) the Indigenous governing body acting on behalf of the Indigenous group, community or people to which a child belongs must be able to exercise without discrimination the rights of the Indigenous group, community or people under this Act, including the right to have the views and preferences of the Indigenous group, community or people considered in decisions that affect that Indigenous group, community or people; and
(e) in order to promote substantive equality between Indigenous children and other children, a jurisdictional dispute must not result in a gap in the child and family services that are provided in relation to Indigenous children.

Best interests of Indigenous child

10 (1) The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or the taking of actions in the context of the provision of child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child and, in the case of decisions or actions related to child apprehension, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

Primary consideration

(2) When the factors referred to in subsection (3) are being considered, primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.

Factors to be considered

(3) To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child must be considered, including:

(a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage;
(b) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;
(c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with his or her parent, the care provider and any member of his or her family who plays an important role in his or her life;
(d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;
(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(f) any plans for the child’s care, including care in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;
(g) any family violence and its impact on the child, including whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence as well as the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; and
(h) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

Consistency

(4) Subsections (1) to (3) are to be construed in relation to an Indigenous child, to the extent that it is possible to do so, in a manner that is consistent with a provision of a law of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs.

Provision of Child and Family Services

Effect of services

11 Child and family services provided in relation to an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that:

(a) takes into account the child’s needs, including with respect to his or her physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being;
(b) takes into account the child’s culture;
(c) allows the child to know his or her family origins; and
(d) promotes substantive equality between the child and other children.

Priority

16 (1) The placement of an Indigenous child in the context of providing child and family services in relation to the child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, is to occur in the following order of priority:

(a) with one of the child’s parents;
(b) with another adult member of the child’s family;
(c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child;
(d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs; or
(e) with any other adult.

Placement with or near other children

(2) When the order of priority set out in subsection (1) is being applied, the possibility of placing the child with or near children who have the same parent as the child, or who are otherwise members of the child’s family, must be considered in the determination of whether a placement would be consistent with the best interests of the child.

Customs and traditions

(2.1) The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples such as with regards to customary adoption.

Family unity

(3) In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, there must be a reassessment, conducted on an ongoing basis, of whether it would be appropriate to place the child with:

(a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), if the child does not reside with such a person; or
(b) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(b), if the child does not reside with such a person and unless the child resides with a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a).

[40] The test under CYFSA is augmented by the Federal Act. When an Indigenous child is involved, the Federal Act applies at every stage of a child protection proceeding, including when the court is determining a temporary care and custody hearing under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA. See: Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. T.E., 2021 ONSC 788, para 20.

[41] The Federal Act alters the method of analysis at s.94 hearings under the CYFSA given its paramountcy over provincial legislation. When the Federal legislation is triggered then the s.94 hearing analysis starts under sections 10 through 17 of the Federal Act. These sections take priority to the extent that the provisions in the CYFSA are inconsistent with the Federal Act.

[42] Under the Federal Act, s.16 determines the priority of placement as opposed to starting with the person who had charge of the child prior to intervention as set out in the CYFSA. See: Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services v. J.M., 2023 ONCJ 93.

[43] Section 16 states that the priority of placements is to be followed to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child. First consideration will always be given to the parent in accordance with the priority placement scheme subject to a best standards analysis as set out in the Federal Act.

[44] There is a presumption created by statute that it is in an Indigenous child’s best interests to be placed with a parent wherever possible. Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services v. J.M., 2023 ONCJ 93, paras 15 and 34.

[45] Given the priority placement is to be considered “to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child”, Section 10 of the Federal Act which defines the best interests of the Indigenous child is key.

Analysis

[46] It is acknowledged by all parties that Ms. L.S. is a parent under both the federal and provincial legislation. She is also the person who had charge prior to the intervention. Therefore under both legislative schemes, placement with Ms. L.S. is to be considered first.

[47] Under the provincial legislation I am satisfied that DBCFS has established, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if these children are returned to the respondent L.S., it is more probable than not that they will suffer harm. I also find that DBCFS and WCTC have established that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.

[48] The Federal Act requires that I consider the best interests of the children in determining their temporary placement. S.10(2) of that Act requires that the court first considers the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.

[49] Considering the best interests factors in s.10 of the Federal Act I find that it is not in the best interests of the children to be placed with L.S.

[50] The first reason is that L.S. has exposed these children to harm and risk of harm. She has failed to protect them. She arranged and allowed for contact between the children and C.S. despite knowing that he posed a significant risk of sexual harm. When she learned that the harm had happened, she sent the child R.W. back to him, unsupervised, and with some misguided plan to capture the harm on video. Her reasoning for this action is confused and unclear. If she initially intended to use the recording to report the abuse to the police then she waited three months to do so and her actions exposed R.W. to another incident of sexual abuse thereby causing her harm.

[51] The event with C.S. occurred in May 2024. Ms. L.S., her partner, D.P., and the children went to Alberta to visit the girls’ family and their First Nation on August 9, 2024, at which time an investigation was initiated in that jurisdiction. On August 19, 2024, the Rama police contacted DBCFS.

[52] There are additional protection concerns of neglect of the children’s needs while in Ms. L.S.’s care. Upon coming into care, both children required extensive dental treatment, R.W. had to be referred to a specialist due to frequent ear infections and two perforated eardrums, and both were prescribed glasses. The children also disclosed concerns in relation to physical discipline and R.W. has made disclosures about additional incidents of sexual assault.

[53] Secondly, I find that Ms. L.S. has not maintained her obligations under the cultural connection plan that was required and agreed upon when the PGO was granted on consent in 2016. While this was not the reason for the children’s removal in September 2024, it is relevant to the test to be met in any decision about placement, including a temporary placement, under the Federal Act.

[54] I find that there was minimal contact between the children and their family and First Nation between December 2016 and August 2020 when Ms. L.S. moved to Ontario.

[55] Ms. L.S. claims that she supported the children in remaining connected to their cultural background through involvement with Rama First Nation, visiting Alderville First Nation, and attending powwows.

[56] This pan-indigenous approach is not what Ms. L.S., the family, and the First Nation agreed to in the cultural connection plan. A pan-indigenous approach is not acceptable in the face of a specific agreement for cultural connectivity or the provisions of s.10 of the Federal Act which states at s.10(2):

When the factors referred to in subsection (3) are being considered, primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.

[57] Ms. L.S. is not unsophisticated in her understanding of different First Nations. She was the CEO of WCTC for several years. She states that she tried to maintain contact with the First Nation and with the family but the extent of those attempts is not clear. Ms. L.S. moved back to Ontario in August 2020. The children’s last visit with their mother was in 2019 and the first visit for the children in five years was in August 2024.

[58] No kin or out of care options have been identified by any of the parties.

[59] I find that an analysis under both Acts leads me to the conclusion that the children should be placed in the temporary care and custody of DBCFS. Under CYFSA once the decision has been made to place the children in the temporary care of DBCFS the choice of residential placement rests with DBCFS.

[60] Under the Federal Act I ask whether the placement chosen close to Horse Lake First Nation in Alberta best meets the needs of the children by applying the best interests factors set out in s.10 of that Act. Are the proposed services consistent with s.8, s.9, s.10 and s.11 of the Federal Act? I find that the placement in Alberta proposed by DBCFS and the First Nation does meet those objectives and best meets the needs of the children.

[61] The placement of the children in Alberta at the group home supplied by Horse Lake First Nation respects the wishes and position of the First Nation as well as the obligation enacted by the Federal Act to see the children reunited with their indigenous community. L.S. points to the fact that the placement is not on the Horse Lake First Nation’s territory. However, it is one that is close enough for there to be active involvement and in the First Nation’s opinion allows the services to be provided that will address the children’s trauma and needs.

[62] Section 16(2) of the Federal Act requires that when the order of priority in s.16(1) is being applied the possibility of placing the child with or near children who have the same parent as the child, or who are otherwise members of the child’s family, must be considered in the determination of whether a placement would be consistent with the best interests of the child. The placement in Alberta provides for the children to be in close proximity to their mother’s two younger children.

[63] The children currently live in two separate homes in Western Ontario. R.W. is in a group home and K.D. is in a family-based placement approximately four hours’ drive from Belleville where L.S. resides. Since being brought into care they have had access with Ms. L.S. and with their biological family in Alberta both by video and in person.

[64] The OCL has presented the children’s views and wishes indicating that they wish to return to the care of L.S. This is not surprising as both children have lived with her for most of their lives. I have considered their views and preferences but must also consider the other factors in determining their best interests, the risk of harm and their safety.

[65] The plan of DBCFS and Horse Lake First Nation has a longer term goal in mind which is the reunification of the children with their cultural identity and their community as well as with family members, specifically their biological mother and father, their maternal grandmother and their younger siblings. Such a goal is consistent with the purposes of the Federal Act and CYFSA. This is not a plan that endorses a drift towards extended society care rather it seeks reconciliation and reunification with the children’s First Nation.

[66] This is a temporary order but it is also an opportunity to reunite the children with the indigenous community and to allow that community to provide the services that will be needed for these children in the future. The children have experienced significant trauma and any placement will need caregivers with strong skills to meet their need. At this time specialized placement is required until placement out of care can be considered.

[67] As this is a temporary order it may be that the children will have to return when a final determination is made. However, they are currently separated and leaving them in limbo is not in their best interests. Currently no viable out of care plan exists. I find that risk of harm to the children if returned to L.S. is likely and that it is not in the best interests of the children for a return to occur at this time. If they are returned to her care following a trial or hearing, they will still have had the benefit of a renewed opportunity for cultural continuity as required in s.9 of the Federal Act and in accordance with the purposes of both the Federal Act and CYFSA as set out in the Preambles to both Acts.

[68] I am mindful of the requirement of s.9(2)(d) that child and family services for an Indigenous child are to be provided in a manner that does not contribute to the assimilation of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs or to the destruction of the culture of that Indigenous group, community or people. I find that the plan of DBCFS and Horse Lake First Nation best addresses this consideration.

Access

[69] Ms. L.S. has had weekly contact with the children both virtually and in-person. The children’s behaviours are reported to be difficult during and after visits. They are defiant, dysregulated, aggressive with one another, and very emotional. I am concerned that she has been unable to address the children’s needs separately from her own emotional needs. Since their removal there have been times when Ms. L.S. has communicated with the children without the approval of DBCFS.

[70] L.S. shall have supervised access with the children at the discretion of DBCFS as to times, frequency, duration, location and supervision while taking into account the children’s wishes and best interests. She shall have a minimum of one video visit each week.

Order

[71] Order to go as follows:

1. The children, R.W. (born xxx xx, 2013) and K.D. (born xxx xx, 2015), are placed in the temporary care and custody of Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services (“DBCFS”).

2. The respondent, L.S., shall have supervised access with the children at the discretion of DBCFS as to times, frequency, duration, location and supervision while taking into account the children’s wishes and best interests. She shall have a minimum of one video visit each week.

Released: April 15, 2025
N. Edmundson