Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.P. et al, 2025 ONSC 2857

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-CP64
DATE: 2025/05/12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.
AND IN THE MATTER OF VP

BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicant
– and –
S.P., T.W., S.V., J.V., G.C., Respondents

Appearances:

• Mark Hecht, for the Applicant
• Cedric Y.L. Nahum, for S.P.
• Kristen Robins, for T.W.
• Self-represented: S.V. and J.V.
• Self-represented: G.C.

Heard: February 18, 19, 20, 2025, March 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, and 28, 2025

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.

87(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.

Reasons for Judgment

M. Smith

Overview

[1] This child protection trial is about VP, born […], 2019. S.P. is her mother and T.W. is her father.

[2] S.V. is S.P.’s niece and VP’s first cousin. S.V. and J.V. are married, and they have been kin caregivers to VP since June 8, 2023. VP has remained in their care and custody since that date.

[3] G.C.’s sister was VP’s foster care provider between February 2022 and June 2023. During this time, G.C. lived with her sister. G.C. cared for VP as an Assisted Care Provider (“ACP”). G.C. had a close relationship with VP and S.P. G.C. was added as a party on February 1, 2024. G.C. then brought a motion for interim access to VP. This request was denied by Audet J. on September 13, 2024.

[4] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) seeks a custody order pursuant to s. 102(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”) placing VP in the care and custody of S.V. and J.V.

[5] S.P. seeks an order for the gradual return of VP to her care, through a supervision order with the Society.

[6] G.C. seeks an order that VP be placed in her care permanently or on an interim basis, with or without supervision, or alternatively that VP be placed in her care until she is returned to either S.P. or T.W.

[7] On February 11, 2025, the Society, T.W., S.V., and J.V. entered into Minutes of Settlement, which provides, amongst other things, the following:

i. VP shall be placed in the care and custody of S.V. and J.V.
ii. S.V. and J.V. shall be responsible for making all major decisions for VP. T.W. shall provide his input in advance to the decision being made.
iii. T.W. shall, at a minimum, have access with VP every other Saturday, from 10:30am to 6:30pm.

Issues

[8] The issues to be determined are:

i. Is VP in need of protection?
ii. If yes, what disposition order is in VP’s best interests?
iii. What access orders are in VP’s best interests?

Introductory Comments

[9] The Society had nine witnesses. I found these witnesses to be credible and reliable. G.C. and S.P. were very critical of the conduct of the Society workers, claiming that they mismanaged the file since the beginning. I do not share the same view as G.C. and S.P., and in any event, I do not believe that any criticism of the Society has any bearing in my determination of what disposition order is in VP’s best interests. I therefore do not plan on commenting on G.C. and S.P.’s concerns regarding the Society.

[10] VP has had a difficult life thus far. But this trial has shown me that VP is a resilient young girl, and she has been able to adapt, due in large part to the fact that she is surrounded by people who love her and are genuinely interested in her well-being.

[11] S.P. cares deeply for her child. Her testimony confirms this fact. However, S.P. has been struggling with mental health and substance abuse issues for years. While S.P. has been working hard in addressing her issues and she should be commended for doing so, I do not find that her issues have not been sufficiently resolved. While I found S.P. to be candid at times, there were other times where her evidence was not credible or reliable. Also, some of S.P.’s testimony was concerning because it established that despite her love for VP, she would nonetheless continue to put VP at risk.

[12] T.W. filed a comprehensive affidavit as his evidence in chief. He has overcome many challenges in his life, and he should be commended for all his efforts in making healthy choices. He has struggled in the past with substance abuse, but he has made great strides in conquering it. He is now focused on establishing a strong bond with VP. It is quite evident that T.W. deeply cares for VP, and he only has her best interests at heart. T.W. was not challenged during cross-examination, and I found him to be a credible and reliable witness.

[13] I was impressed with S.V. and J.V.’s testimony and the way that they have been caring for VP since June 2023. They have a child of their own (“E.V.”) and they have kindly welcomed VP into their family, providing her with the best care, all while navigating the difficult waters of a child protection application. I found them both to be credible and reliable witnesses.

[14] G.C. has been hurt by the Society’s actions. Throughout the trial, I found her focus to be primarily directed towards how she had been wronged and treated by the Society. I do not doubt that G.C. cares for VP. Clearly, G.C. wants to be part of VP’s life, in one way or another. However, based on her questioning of the witnesses, her testimony, and her closing submissions, I conclude that G.C. was first and foremost seeking some form of vindication with this trial.

[15] I do not intend on reviewing all the evidence at trial, whether it be documentary evidence or oral testimony. That is not to say that the evidence not specifically mentioned in these Reasons for Judgment was not a factor in my decision.

Legal Principles

[16] Section 74(2)(b) of the CYFSA provides that a child is in need of protection where “there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s, (i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.”

[17] The Society must prove that risk of physical harm. It must be real and likely, not speculative: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. A.L., 2018 ONSC 5973, paras. 37-38.

[18] Section 102(1) of the CYFSA says that if a court finds that an order under this section would be in the child’s best interests, then the court may make an order granting custody of the child to one or more persons, other than a foster parent of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.

[19] When considering a placement, the governing factor is the child’s best interests. Section 74(3) of the CYFSA sets out several factors to consider, including, without limitation, the following: the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs and level of development; the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family; 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; the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; the merits of a plan for the child’s care; 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 the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

[20] Section 105(2) of the CYFSA contemplates access when an order is made under s. 102. In such an event, the court shall make an order for access unless the court is satisfied that continued contact will not be in the child’s best interests.

[21] Access is the right of a child. The court must balance the benefits of a parent’s care, the risk of harm to the child when in the parent’s care and the measures in place to reduce the risk, including supervised access: C.A.S. v. C.F., 2020 ONSC 3755, paras. 32-34.

Analysis

[22] The parties filed an agreed statement of fact regarding S.P.’s partner, D.G.L., and his criminal matters. His criminal convictions include assault causing bodily harm on a female complainant, assault with a weapon, driving with over .80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, and operating a motor vehicle while prohibited. D.G.L. has outstanding charges, which have resulted in him being held in custody and it is unknown as to when he will be released. He is accused of causing a disturbance in public, uttering threats to cause death, assault, wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering and/or injury to a dog, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, obstructing, interrupting, or interfering with lawful use and enjoyment of property, and causing a disturbance at an LRT train station.

Issue #1 – Is VP in need of protection?

[23] There is overwhelming evidence that VP is in need of protection. There is no real dispute that a protection order is necessary.

[24] S.P. has been a victim of abuse, and she became addicted to alcohol and drugs at a very young age. There is ample evidence in the record to confirm that S.P. has struggled and continues to battle with addiction and mental health issues. Because of these struggles, S.P. has not made good decisions in her life, including her relationship choices.

[25] In January 2023, S.P. was charged with several offences including assault with a weapon or imitation weapon. A forensic psychiatric assessment was ordered and in October 2023, the psychiatrist concluded as follows:

i. S.P.’s primary risk factor for violence is her alcohol and cocaine use disorder.
ii. S.P. would benefit from a detoxification and residential substance use treatment program.
iii. S.P. would benefit from further counselling or therapy related to both addictions and also with regard to emotional regulation.
iv. Without treatment of her substance use disorders, S.P. is likely to continue reoffending.

[26] S.P. testified that she tried to get into a residential treatment, but she was ineligible. There is no evidence to corroborate this statement. While S.P. has started some treatment programs and has been sober since November 2024 (save and except that she smokes 2-3 grams of marijuana per day), the evidence shows that S.P. struggles with attendance (missing weeks at a time) and she is unable to complete the programs. Recently, she has started the DBT program (Dialectical Behaviour Therapy) to assist with her emotion regulation. It appears to be going well but given S.P.’s past struggles in completing programs, it is simply too early to assess her commitment and determine if she will benefit from the program.

[27] In September 2021, VP was removed from S.P.’s care because of concerns regarding substance abuse, partner violence and neglect. S.P. initially testified that she does not have a recollection of the events in September 2021, however later during cross-examination, she said that it’s possible that VP was with her during those events. I find that the evidence credibly reveals that VP was heard screaming and crying while S.P. was enjoying a party in her home. VP was at risk and in need of protection.

[28] Since September 2021, there have been repeated examples where S.P. continued to abuse drugs, including crack cocaine. S.P. testified that for most of 2023, she was using drugs regularly which impacted her mental health. Clearly, S.P. would not have been able to properly care for VP during 2023. VP was at risk and in need of protection.

[29] There have been periods of sobriety, but S.P. has relapsed on several occasions during the last four years, as reported by the police in the occurrence reports and various medical professionals in clinical notes and records. Because of her substance abuse, S.P. has made a series of bad decisions that have put VP at risk. This is a concerning pattern and I am of the view that VP continues to be at risk and is in need of protection because S.P. has not sufficiently resolved her addiction and mental health issues.

[30] In terms of S.P.’s relationship with D.G.L., S.P. testified that she has no plans to end her relationship with him, despite the domestic violence. Since D.G.L.’s incarceration, S.P. has visited him in jail more than eight times. S.P. lacks insight into this issue. She does not understand the risk that such a relationship may have on VP. S.P.’s repeated pattern of involvement with a physically abusive partner and VP’s resulting exposure to domestic violence, coupled with S.P.’s failure to leave the abusive relationship with D.G.L., are reasons to conclude that VP is at risk of likely suffering physical harm and is therefore in need of protection.

Issue #2 – What disposition order is in VP’s best interests?

[31] There are three competing plans to consider: one from S.P., another from G.C. and finally, the one from S.V. and J.V., as supported by the Society and T.W.

The Plans

S.P.’s Plan

[32] S.P. says that the Society mismanaged her file from the beginning, because the Society did not truly make an effort to work with her on a reintegration plan. For example, S.P. testified that she only met with her first Child Protection Worker (“CPW”) on two occasions. That is inaccurate. The evidentiary record demonstrates that S.P. met with her first CPW 15 times in her home and 10 times in the community.

[33] S.P. asks that VP be returned to her care because she says that she is now in a good position to care for her daughter. That said, S.P. submits that it is probably more realistic that the return be subject to Society supervision to ensure a smooth reintegration. S.P. is prepared to sign all required consents, allow the Society to have private meetings with VP, follow all treatment recommendations, and continue working with the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”). Also, S.P. suggests that G.C. could form part of the order as her support, and that G.C. would have an obligation to share information with the Society. S.P. is agreeable to the access terms provided by T.W., and she would also maintain relationships with S.V. and J.V. Alternatively, S.P. believes that it would be appropriate to have an order for shared parenting with S.V. and J.V.

[34] S.P. says that she was able to address her substance abuse when she was pregnant with VP, with not much support in the community and significant financial instability. Today, she finds herself in a much better place.

[35] For the past few years, S.P. has been receiving assistance from the CMHA where she has access to services including one-on-one counselling. S.P. regularly meets with a CMHA worker to manage her finances, connect with resources, and help her develop insight to adapt and move forward in the right direction.

[36] In terms of other support, G.C. is a very strong support for S.P. G.C. has assisted S.P. in developing her self-worth and self-esteem. G.C. would also provide any and all necessary support in caring for VP. S.P. did testify that she has friends in a nearby apartment building to support her; but very little is known about them, as they were not witnesses at trial. S.P. also says that she attends church, and they support her because they are non-judgmental and welcoming. However, no one from the church testified regarding the support being provided.

[37] S.P. has been living in a two-bedroom apartment in downtown Ottawa for the last four years. She lives in the same apartment building as the maternal grandmother (“MGM”). If they were to live together, VP would have her own bedroom. S.P. was almost evicted from her home; however, with the help of a CMHA worker, this situation appears to have stabilized. S.P. has suggested that VP would continue attending the same school, but I note that S.P. resides outside of the school catchment area, and she has not presented any evidence that such an arrangement is feasible.

G.C.’s Plan

[38] G.C. is seeking that VP be placed in her care. Alternatively, G.C. would be prepared to work with the Society under the terms of a supervision order, either on a temporary or an interim basis. At trial, G.C. testified that she would like VP to be placed in her care only until such time as VP is ready to return home with either parent, which is somewhat different than her Amended Answer and Plan of Care.

[39] G.C. has been involved with foster children for over 20 years. When she was in high school, her parents became foster caregivers. G.C. then became an approved ACP, driving and caring for the foster children when her parents were unavailable. In late 2021, G.C., her sister (“M.H.”) and her sister’s husband (“W.H.”), moved in together. In February 2022, VP was placed in the care of M.H. and W.H., as foster parents. G.C. said that she was an ACP for VP. However, based on the evidence heard in this trial, G.C. was much more than an ACP for VP. G.C. was involved in every aspect of VP’s life, ensuring that all of VP’s needs were met. In my view, G.C. acted as a foster parent, without having been approved as one.

[40] G.C. testified that she wants to be part of VP’s life. She fell in love with VP, and G.C. wants her to be a part of her family. G.C. has been clear in her testimony: she will never stop fighting for VP. G.C. does not want VP to believe that she was abandoned by her. This appears to be one of the main purposes for G.C. in advancing her plan – to show VP that she was not abandoned.

[41] In addition, but more importantly, much of the evidence led by G.C. at trial was not about her plan. G.C.’s focus was primarily about the manner in which the out of care assessment was completed and how she was treated, including, amongst other things, the following: (i) there were many factual inaccuracies in the out of care assessment report and the Society was not prepared to amend the report; (ii) there were transparency issues raised in the report about the references and addresses provided by G.C. and her husband, but G.C. was not able to provide clarification because the Society was not interested; (iii) G.C. was not told that the assessment was not approved; and (iv) the report did not reflect a true representation of what was told to the Society.

S.V. and J.V.’s Plan

[42] S.V. and J.V. seek an order that VP be placed under their care pursuant to 102(1) of the CYFSA. The Society and T.W. support this plan.

[43] S.V. is VP’s cousin. S.V.’s mother and S.P. are sisters.

[44] VP has been under the care of S.V. and J.V. since June 2023. When VP arrived in their care, she was struggling with emotional dysregulation, and she had issues trusting others. S.V. and J.V. welcomed VP into their family, including E.V. who is younger than VP.

[45] S.V. and J.V. say that since June 2023, they have worked tirelessly in helping VP manage her emotions. They sought support from teachers and therapists. It is submitted that VP now resides in a safe, stable, and loving home, and she has developed a healthy routine. VP is thriving in this environment. S.V. and J.V. have supported the child’s relationships with T.W. and S.P., as well as their extended families, and they plan on continuing to maintain those relationships in the future.

Assessment of the Plans in VP’s Best Interests

[46] While the goal is to return the child to a parent whenever possible, it is not a viable option in this case. T.W. supports S.V. and J.V.’s plan, and he is not presenting his own plan. With respect to S.P., given her circumstances, it is not in VP’s best interests that she be returned to her mother.

[47] S.P. is taking positive steps towards dealing with her struggles, but it is insufficient. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that the protection concerns about S.P. remain profound, rendering it impossible to make an order placing VP in her care, even if it was subject to the Society’s supervision.

[48] First, despite the recent progress, I am not confident that S.P.’s alcohol and hard drug addiction has been addressed in a comprehensive manner. S.P. has not followed a medical recommendation that she attend residential treatment. Although I accept that S.P. has tried various other programs throughout the years, the evidence clearly demonstrates that none have been successful in maintaining her long-term sobriety. At present, S.P. is in the Smart Recovery program. However, as has occurred in the past, she has not consistently attended (7 out of 9 times in person; 8 out of 12 times online).

[49] S.P. has not been truthful about when last she took hard drugs. The evidence confirms that S.P. told her first CPW that she stopped taking hard drugs in April 2024. Yet, she told her CMHA worker that it was in July 2024. S.P. was unable to explain this discrepancy. S.P. said that she stopped drinking alcohol approximately six months ago, but she was unable to explain the circumstances of her last drink. I also find that, at times, the Society has had difficulties in working with S.P. because of her failure to always be transparent and honest. There are many examples given by Society workers and the MGM regarding S.P.’s failure to talk about her substance abuse issues and romantic relationship. Often, the Society and those closest to S.P. were unaware of her struggles because S.P. was not forthcoming as to her challenges and what was happening in her life.

[50] S.P. testified that she has abused many different substances throughout her lifetime: mushrooms, ecstasy or MDMA, acid, crystal meth, heroin, oxytocin, Xanax, and DMT. S.P. continues to smoke marijuana daily which is concerning, especially when her psychiatrist opined that she “uses cannabis in a problematic way, and this has impaired her ability to maintain the responsibilities in her life.” I would add that those responsibilities include caring for and parenting VP.

[51] The evidence clearly demonstrates that S.P. has had periods of sobriety and when this occurs, things appear to be going well: S.P. is engaged, and access is consistent. But S.P.’s periods of sobriety are followed by dark episodes of substance abuse. Given that S.P. has failed to pursue the necessary long-term treatment and has repeatedly demonstrated inconsistency in completing essential recovery programs, it is very possible that she will relapse into using hard substances again. This possibility of relapse, coupled with her continuous and chronic use of cannabis, can impair her parenting capacities, thereby putting VP at significant risk.

[52] Moreover, the evidence about the concerning events in S.P.’s life between September 2021 and as recent as October 2024, such as repeated police and medical interventions for domestic violence, intoxication, and assault, all lead me to conclude that VP would not, at present, be safe within S.P.’s care and control.

[53] Second, S.P. has had difficulty managing her physical and mental health.

[54] When she was a teenager, she was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes, and she is insulin dependent. S.P. testified that she has not always been able to properly manage her medical condition. For example, she lost her insulin pen, and she has fallen asleep during access with VP. S.P. denied that it occurred more than once, but the records show that it was at least six times.

[55] According to S.P.’s medical records, she had an extensive history of adverse childhood experiences, including sexual abuse by her father and mental illness. S.P. confirmed that she started drinking at a very young age and using various substances. She has had a history of major depressive disorder, also starting at a very young age. Recently, S.P. has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. She has had several suicidal ideations. S.P.’s psychiatrist has opined that S.P.’s mood is likely impacted by alcohol and cocaine use.

[56] S.P. is working with a CMHA worker which has been helpful and is another positive step. Last summer, S.P. was referred to a social worker and psychotherapist at Bruyère Hospital, someone that she had seen many years ago. The social worker testified, as reflected in the clinical notes and records, that S.P. was using crack cocaine at the beginning of the month in July 2024 and intended to limit her use to only once per month, as a reward for paying her bills. Since July 2024, S.P. failed to attend any future sessions with the social worker from Bruyère Hospital.

[57] I do not find that S.P.’s physical and mental health is sufficiently stable to return VP to her care. That is not to say that S.P. is not making progress, but as noted earlier, S.P. continues to struggle with stabilizing both her physical and mental health challenges. VP cannot afford to have an unstable caregiver.

[58] Third, S.P. has not consistently made sound decisions in her relationships, and she continues to demonstrate poor judgment by maintaining a relationship with D.G.L. S.P. met D.G.L. in September 2021. S.P. acknowledged that in the past, she has told the Society that her relationship was over, but she has had a difficult time in breaking off the relationship. S.P. confirmed during cross-examination that, at present, she still speaks to D.G.L., has seen him several times since his incarceration, and would like to continue their relationship once he is released from jail.

[59] S.P. does not acknowledge being a victim of intimate partner violence at the hands of D.G.L., despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. S.P.’s counsellor at CMHA testified that S.P.’s relationship with D.G.L. is concerning. S.P. did not agree with her counsellor’s views. S.P. testified that her relationship with D.G.L. would not be an issue because he would not be around VP. S.P.’s relationship with D.G.L. is important to her, but it is to the detriment of VP’s safety and well-being. Clearly, S.P. has shown that she lacks insight as to the impact that her relationship with D.G.L. may have on VP, thereby once again putting her child at a risk of harm.

[60] Fourth, I am concerned that S.P.’s support network is limited. S.P. did not call any witnesses at trial to support her plan and during cross-examination, she questioned why she needed to do so. S.P. says that the MGM is a support for her, but the MGM testified (called as one the Society’s witnesses) that she does not support S.P.’s plan. Rather, the MGM supports G.C.’s plan. S.P. testified that she had other supports (i.e. friends in a neighbouring building, people at her church, etc.) but in the absence of direct evidence from these people, I am unable to conclude that such persons would support S.P. if VP was returned to her care.

[61] G.C. did testify that she would support S.P. any which way that she requires such as driving VP, offering food, providing emotional support when S.P. finds it difficult, or stepping in and taking over when S.P. needs a break. In my view, G.C. does not believe that S.P. is ready to assume full-time parenting of VP. G.C. did not endorse S.P.’s plan. She limited her testimony to saying that S.P. has made progress, and she is on the right track. Without G.C.’s support, S.P. finds herself alone in advancing her plan.

[62] Fifth, I am not satisfied that S.P. believes that she is ready for the return of VP to her care. While I can accept that S.P. may lack some self-esteem, she candidly admitted to her probation officer that she is not ready for having full custody of her daughter. I agree with S.P., she is not ready. She is doing better but it is not enough to have VP returned to her care.

[63] In sum, S.P. did not provide a realistic plan that is in VP’s best interests. S.P.’s physical and mental health remains precarious, and if VP were to be returned to her care, she would face additional pressures. In the absence of proper support and without having appropriately addressed her substance abuse, I am not confident that S.P. would be able to parent VP without putting her at risk. S.P. is not in a good position to care for VP. S.P. is unable to meet VP’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. She is unable to provide a stable and secure environment for VP, and I do not believe that S.P. currently possesses the capacity to ensure continuity of care for her child.

[64] S.P.’s substance abuse, her choice of relationship, and her unresolved physical and mental health challenges continue to negatively impact her parenting capacity. Based on the evidence of long-standing concerns, and S.P.’s ongoing struggles to complete the necessary health and treatment programs, I am of the view that the emotional and physical risk to VP remains. I do not believe that S.P. can offer and maintain the stability that VP requires, either alone or in a shared parenting manner with S.V. and J.V. In addition, even with a supervision order, based on the totality of the evidence before me, I am not confident that the risk issues can be mitigated.

G.C.’s Plan (Assessment)

[65] The Society, T.W., S.V. & J.V. are not in support of G.C.’s plan. S.P. supports G.C.’s plan.

[66] G.C. became involved in VP’s daily life because M.H. and W.H. were VP’s foster caregivers, and they were all living in the same home. G.C. was a Society approved ACP. Because of G.C.’s work schedule, G.C. would be the principal driver for VP, and they spent a lot of time together. G.C. testified that VP was her little shadow, always being at her side. She described VP as a wonderful, happy, and sweet little girl, who was feisty and not intimidated by anyone. There is no doubt that G.C. developed a close bond with VP for a period of approximately 16 months (February 2022 – June 2023).

[67] G.C. testified that in early 2023, she was told by the Society that there were concerns regarding M.H. and W.H. G.C. obtained the details of the concerns when they were all interviewed by the Society on June 1, 2023. The records submitted by the Society indicate concerns related to W.H.’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) issues, including nightmares and rages, as well as adult conflict and allegations that W.H. hit M.H. during incidents involving W.H.’s treatment of M.H. Furthermore, there was a reported fight between W.H. and another foster child during a Christmas event in 2022, as witnessed by VP. G.C. denies having observed any incidents of domestic violence between M.H. and W.H., and she denies having failed to protect VP during adult conflict.

[68] On June 8, 2023, G.C. brought VP to a visit at the Society. At that time, the Society decided to remove VP from M.H. and W.H., without any notice, for verified concerns. The Society’s foster care department decided to close M.H. and W.H.’s foster care home.

[69] In July 2023, the Society contacted G.C. and asked if she would like to present a plan for VP because there had been a breakdown in the placement. G.C. agreed and the Society started the out of care assessment process. The initial plan was that the assessment be completed by the next court date, being August 21, 2023, but it was completed in September 2023. The Society met with G.C. and her husband J.M. on three occasions. The Society did not approve the placement for several reasons:

i. G.C. and J.M. were not transparent as to the identities of their references and provided names that were part of G.C.’s family. J.M.’s adult children failed to return the assessors text messages and calls.
ii. When VP lived in the foster home, she called G.C. “mummy” and J.M. “dad”.
iii. T.W. did not support the placement. VP’s behaviour during access was challenging. T.W. believed that G.C. and her sister spoke negatively about him.
iv. J.M. was a frequent visitor at the foster home. He participated in VP’s daily routine without having advised the Society.
v. G.C. failed to act protectively towards VP when living with M.H. and W.H. A protection investigation into the foster home resulted in verification of adult conflict.

[70] I do not find that G.C.’s plan is in VP’s best interest. In no particular order, my reasons are set out below.

[71] First, G.C.’s plan does not offer permanency to VP. G.C. testified that as another alternative to her plan, VP could stay in her care until such time as VP can be returned to one of the parents. VP has been living in a stable home with S.V. and J.V. for approximately two years. G.C. suggests that VP would temporarily move in with her to then move again into the care of one of her parents. This is not in VP’s best interests.

[72] Second, despite G.C. saying that J.M. is going to be an integral part of her plan, he was not called to testify, nor is he a part of the custody order being sought by her. Concerns were raised about J.M. during the out of care assessment which should have been addressed by him at trial. Moreover, during his testimony, T.W. stated that he had observed J.M. driving outside of his friend’s home, looping back and forth, in or around the area where T.W. was exercising access with VP. I find this type of conduct to be entirely inappropriate. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I remain concerned about J.M.’s behaviour, putting into question the appropriateness of having him being part of G.C.’s plan.

[73] Third, I do not accept G.C.’s explanation regarding the transparency issues that arose during the out of care assessment:

i. G.C. says that she was transparent with the Society. However, on three occasions, she provided references that involved extended family members, despite this clearly being indicated that this was unacceptable. The Society was looking for an objective view of G.C.’s plan and that was not provided by G.C. or J.M.
ii. There was some discrepancy vis-à-vis the vulnerable sector check for J.M. (i.e. two names for J.M.). G.C. attempted to explain this discrepancy at trial, but it was not for her to clarify. J.M. should have provided an explanation at trial.
iii. G.C. reported to the Society that she did not have any mental health issues. However, the evidence reveals that in a civil lawsuit, G.C. is alleging being a victim of sexual harassment that has caused significant damages, including PTSD, diminished self-worth, anxiety, difficulty in coping with emotional stress and mental anguish, feelings of guilt and self-blame, as well as insomnia. None of this was disclosed to the Society. When cross-examined on this issue, G.C. denied suffering from most of these issues. G.C. was untruthful to the Society in her failure to disclose those issues that she is experiencing, as described in the civil pleading. I did not find her evidence to be credible on this point.

[74] Fourth, I have the following concerns in the way that G.C. conducted herself when VP was residing in the foster home:

i. G.C. allowed—and more likely than not, encouraged—VP to refer to her as “mummy” or “mummy Gigi” and to call J.M. “dad”. VP should have been redirected. It was inappropriate and would have caused confusion for the child.
ii. J.M. was involved in VP’s daily routine when G.C. knew that J.M. had not been assessed or approved by the Society. She failed to advise the Society of J.M.’s active participation (3-4 times per week).
iii. I am not satisfied that G.C. was unaware of the domestic conflict between M.H. and W.H., as well as W.H.’s behavioral issues. G.C. failed to protect VP from adult conflict. Further, during cross-examination, G.C. was challenged on whether she was aware of the investigation into M.H. and W.H.’s foster home. G.C. answered that she did not, but the Society logs tell a different story. I did not find G.C.’s responses to be credible.
iv. I am not satisfied that G.C. encouraged the relationship between VP and her father. When VP was in foster care, she was resistant in having a relationship with her father. T.W.’s evidence is that when VP was being driven to their visits by G.C., VP started to become reluctant to see him, which had not occurred in the past. After VP was removed from foster care and placed with S.V. and J.V., VP was much happier in seeing T.W. and she was more at ease. The evidence establishes that there was a drastic change in VP’s behaviour towards T.W. after she was placed with S.V. and J.V. I do not find this to be a coincidence.
v. When M.H. and W.H. decided to move into their own home, VP remained with G.C. for approximately one week, without G.C. advising the Society of this development.

[75] Fifth, the evidence reveals that G.C. has been supporting S.P. for some time. G.C. was well aware of S.P.’s struggles, especially in 2023 and 2024. While G.C. may have attempted to assist S.P. with her challenges (which I find commendable), G.C. remained silent and did not report anything to the Society regarding S.P.’s issues, a stance I would qualify as being contrary to VP’s best interests. G.C. should have been protecting VP, which, in the circumstance, meant being transparent with the Society.

[76] Sixth, I find that G.C. failed to follow clear directions from the Society after VP was removed from her sister’s care. G.C. was told to avoid contact with VP but chose to ignore that instruction when she engaged with VP in December 2023. I do not accept G.C.’s explanation that she was unaware of the restrictions vis-à-vis contacting VP.

[77] Seventh, G.C. has not had a relationship with VP since June 2023, save for the brief encounter described above. I accept S.V.’s evidence that VP does not, and has not, spontaneously asked for G.C. The bond that previously existed is no longer present. There is no evidence before me to conclude that VP views her relationship with G.C. as meaningful. Placing VP with G.C. at this juncture would be extremely destabilizing for VP and contrary to her best interests.

[78] Eighth, I conclude that G.C.’s motivation in this trial was more about redeeming her reputation as opposed to truly seeking permanent custody of VP. Again, I reiterate that I have no doubt that G.C. built a bond with VP during her time in foster care, but G.C.’s conduct during trial did not reflect a focus on VP’s best interests. Instead, it centered on G.C. herself. During the proceedings, a portrait emerged of someone who has been scarred by this child protection process, who is angry about the manner in which she has been treated by the Society, and who is seeking to convince the court that she has been wronged.

[79] G.C.’s self-represented status was not an issue during the trial. I found her to be skilled and organized but again her primary focus was on the events that led to VP’s removal from foster care and the Society’s refusal to accept G.C.’s plan, as opposed to questions that would assist me in determining if such a plan was in VP’s best interests. G.C.’s closing submissions were telling. She did not talk about her plan. Rather, she complained about how the Society distorted facts, how they had a pattern of omitting facts and how they refused to take accountability for their mistakes.

[80] I do not find G.C.’s plan to be in VP’s best interests.

S.V. and J.V.’s Plan (Assessment)

[81] When VP first arrived in their care, she was experiencing night terrors. She would cry and shake. VP also had some behavioural challenges. S.V. immediately sought out support for VP. She was surprised to learn that VP had not had the benefit of therapy. VP was brought to play therapy (10 sessions), focusing on building family relationships and emotional regulation. S.V. also brought VP to a pediatrician to assist her with her ADHD.

[82] S.V. and J.V. have been together since May 2019. They have a stable and loving relationship. They live in Ottawa South, in a four-bedroom home. VP and E.V. have their separate bedrooms. VP and E.V. have developed a strong sibling-type bond. VP has been enrolled in activities (swimming, gymnastics, and camps during the summer).

[83] S.V. and J.V. have ensured that VP maintains a relationship with both her parents. S.V. described T.W. as someone who is free spirited and who has a big personality. S.V. testified that shortly after VP arrived at their home, she was reticent about seeing her father. Over time, and with encouragement, VP’s views of her father have changed. She is now excited to see him, and they have fun together. S.V. and J.V. ensure that VP sees her father regularly, and they have invited T.W. to their home for celebrations, including Christmas. S.V. and J.V. have nourished and encouraged the relationship between VP and T.W.

[84] The relationship between S.V. and S.P. has been more difficult, entirely because of S.P.’s behaviour. Over the years, S.V. has provided support and advice to S.P. However, once VP was placed into S.V. and J.V.’s care, S.P.’s attitude towards her niece changed. S.P. wanted VP to be placed with G.C. and she was not supportive of the placement with S.V. There is evidence that S.P. has been deceptive and dishonest with S.V. Despite S.P.’s negative sentiment towards S.V. and J.V., they have continued to support VP’s relationship with her mother.

[85] I find that it is in VP’s best interests to be placed with S.V. and J.V. for the following reasons:

i. S.V. and J.V. are part of VP’s extended family.
ii. VP has been doing well in their care since June 2023. They have provided her with a stable, committed, safe, and secure home. Being removed from this home would not only be traumatic for VP, but it would be disruptive and harmful, considering VP’s age and history of care. VP requires continuity of care as well as stability, and not continuous disruption.
iii. There are no concerns about the care being provided by S.V. and J.V. There has never been any protection concerns regarding S.V. and J.V. They have always cooperated with the Society.
iv. VP has developed a strong bond with their family, and she is considered a member of their family. VP is clearly loved by S.V., J.V. and E.V. From all accounts, VP is happy and thriving in this environment.
v. S.V. and J.V. are doing a remarkable job in raising VP. They are engaged and committed to VP’s well-being. They have prioritized her needs. S.V. has been working closely with her school and medical professionals to ensure that VP gets all the assistance that she requires for her development.
vi. The evidence provided by S.V. and J.V. into VP’s daily life convinces me that they have created a much-needed, child-focused routine and structure that supports VP’s well-being.
vii. S.V. and J.V. have always encouraged and maintained VP’s relationships with T.W. and S.P., as well as the extended family, and there is no indication that this will not continue in the future. The relationship between T.W. and VP is thriving, and the way that S.V. and J.V. have nourished it, is demonstrable evidence that they are committed to supporting the biological parents’ relationships with VP. S.V. and J.V. are equally committed to supporting S.P.’s relationship with her daughter, but it has been more difficult because of S.P.’s struggles and her lack of cooperation vis-à-vis S.V. and J.V.
viii. S.V. and J.V. have been providing consistent and continuous care to VP for almost two years. They have demonstrated their ability to meet all of VP’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. They have done a phenomenal job in protecting VP from harm and have not exposed her to conflict. S.V. and J.V. have provided a calm, secure, and safe environment for VP. It is unsurprising that VP has been thriving since being placed in their care.
ix. Since June 2023, I find that S.V. and J.V. have always conducted themselves in a manner that promotes VP’s best interests. I reject all criticisms raised by either S.P. or G.C. regarding S.V. and J.V.’s conduct. S.V. and J.V. are kind, loving and selfless people that have opened their home to VP, offering her something that could not be provided elsewhere. Nothing that has been presented in the evidence before me raises concerns about S.V. and J.V.’s conduct and/or parenting abilities.

[86] S.V. and J.V. have presented the most concrete and realistic plan. Prior to their involvement, VP had been subjected to chaos and instability. That is no longer the case. VP has benefitted from the love and support of S.V., J.V. and E.V. I find that granting a custody order to S.V. and J.V. is the least disruptive order that is consistent with VP’s best interests.

Issue #3 – What access orders are in VP’s best interests?

[87] It is undisputed that it is in VP’s best interests to continue to have access with both her parents.

[88] Regarding G.C., I do not believe that an access order is in VP’s best interests.

T.W.’s Access

[89] As noted earlier, the Society, S.V., J.V. & T.W. have agreed to access terms for T.W., which I find to be reasonable, appropriate, and in VP’s best interests. They are set out below:

i. T.W. shall have access with VP every other Saturday, from 10:30am to 6:30pm. This shall be a minimum and the parties shall be free to arrange additional visits upon mutual agreement.
ii. T.W. shall make reasonable efforts to inform S.V. and J.V. of his plan for the visit by no later than 12:00pm on the Thursday before the visit. Any changes to the plan shall be communicated to S.V. and J.V. so they have general awareness of VP’s whereabouts during her time with T.W.
iii. In the event T.W. misses or cancels three consecutive visits, without reasonable justification, T.W.’s visits shall be suspended. When and how T.W.’s visits may resume shall be at the discretion of S.V. and J.V.
iv. The parties shall at all times maintain a flexible position that prioritizes VP’s best interests, such that if an opportunity arises for VP, such as a vacation, or if VP is unwell, T.W.’s visit may be rescheduled to a more suitable day. S.V. and J.V. shall provide T.W. with advance notice of this, along with a proposal for a make-up visit.
v. In the event of a disagreement with respect to T.W.’s access, the parties shall make reasonable efforts to attempt mediation, if it is practical to do so, before returning this matter to court.

S.P.’s Access

[90] I believe that, in accordance with VP’s best interests, S.P.’s access should continue to be supervised. This should occur, every other Sunday (same weekend as T.W.’s access), for up to four hours, at a place and time to be determined by S.V. and J.V. I find that VP’s current schedule is much too full for a child of her age. VP is busy at school, and she deserves some time to unwind and enjoy child-focused activities after school, without being rushed to attend several access visits during the week. The alternative weekend access visits will ensure continuity of the relationship between VP and S.P. and offers a healthier and stable routine for VP.

[91] As stated earlier, even if S.P. is making progress, I nonetheless believe that protection concerns remain. Given S.P.’s unresolved mental health and substance issues, I am of the view that it would be too risky for VP to have access visits alone with her mother. S.P. must continue to work on her issues before access visits can take place in an unsupervised environment. Based on the evidence that I have heard, a structured environment works well for S.P., and must be maintained at present.

[92] I find that supervised access will protect VP from conflict, family violence, insecurity, and instability. It will provide a clear and stress-free structure that supports positive visits, all while preserving the beneficial aspects of the relationship between S.P. and VP.

[93] In time, if S.P. continues to make progress and successfully addresses her mental health and substance abuse issues, then, at the sole discretion of S.V. and J.V., the access terms may be changed. This discretion is essential, as history has demonstrated that S.P.’s mental health and substance use can fluctuate. Therefore, S.V. and J.V. must retain the authority to adjust access arrangements if doing so is in VP’s best interests. I have full confidence that S.V. and J.V. will always exercise their discretion in such a manner.

[94] For the sake of clarity, S.P.’s access terms are as follows:

i. S.P. shall have supervised access with VP every other Sunday (same weekend as T.W.’s access), for four hours, at a place and time and in the manner to be determined by S.V. and J.V. This shall be a minimum and at S.V. and J.V.’s sole discretion, additional visits may be scheduled, including video access.
ii. If S.P. misses or cancels three consecutive visits, without reasonable justification, S.P.’s visits shall be suspended. When and how S.P.’s visits may resume shall be at the sole discretion of S.V. and J.V.
iii. Notwithstanding the above, if S.P.’s behaviour may be harmful and pose a risk to VP, then S.V. and J.V. have the authority, in their sole discretion, to change the access terms. This includes, without limitation, the authority to modify times, dates, frequency, requirements for supervision, and who may supervise.

[95] I encourage S.P. to continue working on her issues and remain on the path that she has been on for the last few months. In doing so, S.P. will be able to contribute positively towards VP’s development and well-being.

G.C.’s Access

[96] I am not satisfied that it would be in VP’s best interests to have access with G.C.

[97] For the same reasons that G.C.’s plan is not accepted, contact between G.C. and VP is refused.

[98] This trial has convinced me that, because G.C.’s current focus is one of vindication and restoring her perceived tarnished reputation, she would be unable to put VP’s best interests at the forefront.

[99] Also, to reiterate, there is no evidence before me that VP has an attachment to G.C. or that the relationship would be beneficial or meaningful to VP. Because of the manner that G.C. conducted herself in the past with VP, I am concerned that it would only cause confusion for VP as to G.C.’s role in her life, and it would risk disrupting VP’s stable and healthy environment.

Disposition

[100] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

i. VP shall be placed in the care and custody of S.V. and J.V. pursuant to s. 102(1) of the CYFSA.
ii. S.V. and J.V. shall be responsible for making all major decisions for VP. Prior to making a major decision with respect to education, non-emergency health care, or religion, S.V. and J.V. shall inform T.W. and S.P. of the decision to be made in advance and shall seek their input on that decision.
iii. S.V. and J.V. may apply for or renew all government documentation for VP—including her passport, health card, social insurance number—without T.W. or S.P.’s consent.
iv. S.V. and J.V. shall be entitled to travel with VP, inside or outside of Canada, without the need or requirement to receive consent from T.W. or S.P.
v. T.W.’s access terms are as follows:
a. T.W. shall have access with VP every other Saturday, from 10:30am to 6:30pm. This shall be a minimum and the parties shall be free to arrange additional visits upon mutual agreement.
b. T.W. shall make reasonable efforts to inform S.V. and J.V. of his plan for the visit by no later than 12:00pm on the Thursday before the visit. Any changes to the plan shall be communicated to S.V. and J.V. so they have a general awareness of VP’s whereabouts during her time with T.W.
c. In the event T.W. misses or cancels three consecutive visits, without reasonable justification, T.W.’s visits shall be suspended. When and how T.W.’s visits may resume shall be at the discretion of S.V. and J.V.
d. The parties shall at all times maintain a flexible position that prioritizes VP’s best interests, such that if an opportunity arises for VP, such as a vacation, or if VP is unwell, T.W.’s visit may be rescheduled to a more suitable day. S.V. and J.V. shall provide T.W. with advance notice of this, along with a proposal for a make-up visit.
e. In the event of a disagreement with respect to T.W.’s access, the parties shall make reasonable efforts to attempt mediation, if it is practical to do so, before returning this matter to court.
vi. S.P.’s access terms are as follows:
a. S.P. shall have supervised access with VP every other Sunday (the same weekend as T.W.’s access), for four hours, at a place and time and in the manner to be determined by S.V. and J.V. This shall be a minimum and at S.V. and J.V.’s sole discretion, additional visits may be scheduled, including video access.
b. In the event S.P. misses or cancels three consecutive visits, without reasonable justification, her visits shall be suspended. When and how S.P.’s visits may resume shall be at the discretion of S.V. and J.V.
c. Notwithstanding the above, if S.P.’s behaviour may be harmful and risky to VP, then S.V. and J.V. have the authority, in their sole discretion, to change the access terms. This includes, without limitation, the authority to modify times, dates, frequency, requirements for supervision, and who may supervise.
vii. There shall be no access for G.C.

[101] I would like to thank all parties and counsel for their courteous and professional presentation of this difficult case.

M. Smith
Released: May 12, 2025