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-16-FO000468-0004
DATE: 2025-07-04
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Applicant
AND:
A.R., Respondent Mother
A.T., Respondent Father
D.D. and J.D., Respondents

BEFORE: Justice M. Fraser

COUNSEL:
A. Lussier-Labelle for Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County
Cedric Nahum for A.R. and A.T.
D.D. and J.D., Self-represented
Lorelei Gutoskie for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: 2025-05-21

Endorsement

Background Facts

[1] Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (the “Society”) has brought a motion seeking an order that B.T., born […], 2018, be placed in the temporary care and custody of his paternal aunt and uncle, D.D. and J.D. (collectively referred to as the “D.s”), subject to supervision of the Society, with access to the Respondent parents, A.R. and A.T., being in the discretion of the Society.

[2] The parents oppose the Society’s motion and seek an order returning B.T. to their care pursuant to the supervision of the Society.

[3] A.R. and A.T. are B.T.’s parents. B.T. has just turned 7 years old. A.R. and A.T. have been together for about 19 years. They also have a daughter, A., who is presently 15 years old.

[4] B.T. has Metis heritage through his father but there is no identified community.

[5] B.T. has had certain special learning needs identified. B.T. has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) with predominantly inattentive presentation. He has an individualized program at school and he receives speech therapy due to a speech delay. B.T. recently had a psychological assessment conducted which has identified several areas where he needs supports for learning.

[6] A.R. and A.T. were involved in proceedings with the Society concerning A. arising due to their apparent failure to treat her tooth decay. Additionally, shortly following the commencement of that application, an investigation verified new concerns of significant drug use by A.R. when charges were laid against her for forging prescriptions for fentanyl. As a result of the investigation conducted at that time, it was also determined that A.R. and A.T.’s home was in disarray, there was no hydro/water, and the family was using buckets to go to the washroom. There was rotten food in the fridge, the roof was leaking and there was mold and water throughout the home. There were fentanyl patches found in the home.

[7] A. was eventually placed in the care of her maternal aunt pursuant to a section 102 custody order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 Sched.1 (at the time, it was pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C.11). This occurred on November 27, 2017 at which time A. was found to be a child in need of protection.

[8] The Society has been involved with B.T. for most of his life. Services were initially provided on a voluntary basis from August 2018 until October 2019 for concerns related to drug use for both A.R. and A.T.

[9] A Child Protection Application was then commenced by the Society in March 2022 after B.T. was removed from the care of his parents and brought to a place of safety. At that time both parties had been hospitalized, A.T. as a result of injuries sustained when he was struck by a vehicle, and A.R. for mental health issues. At that time, B.T. was placed in the care of family members on a temporary without prejudice basis from March 25, 2022 until October 12, 2022 at which time he was returned to his parents’ care on a temporary basis. An order was made terminating that proceeding on January 10, 2023.

[10] The Society continued to work with A.R. and A.T. on a voluntary basis at that time and its involvement with A.R. and A.T. has continued to date.

[11] In February 2024, the Society entered into a formal Voluntary Service Agreement (“VSA”) with A.R. and A.T. At that time, according to the affidavit of Lela Barras sworn November 20, 2024, the Society had concerns regarding A.R. and A.T. respecting substance misuse and their ability to safely parent B.T. Initially the VSA placed B.T. with the D.s for a period of three months. That VSA continued to be extended until this Application was commenced in November 2024.

[12] On April 22, 2024 a child protection worker with the Society met with A.T. and A.R. At that time, they presented as distressed, they spoke over top of one another, slurred their words and were nodding off during the meeting. The Society advised that it wished to extend the VSA as it believed that a further time was needed to address the addiction issues. It was communicated that the Society expected the parties to be engaged, awake and sober, and to attend addictions counselling. While the parties denied any addiction issues, they signed the VSA. A.R. also then confirmed that she and A.T. had connected to addictions counsellors.

[13] During a permitted visit between A.R. and A.T. and B.T. on June 20, 2024, A.T. and A.R. were reported to have attended a graduation event involving B.T. and appeared to be “severely intoxicated”. They were stumbling and observed to be nodding off, and their heads were bobbing during the graduation ceremony. The child protection worker encountered difficulty getting cooperation from A.T. and A.R. to discuss this incident.

[14] During an eventual family meeting / home visit arranged with A.T. and A.R. on July 11, 2024 it was reported to the child protection worker by family members that while A.T. and A.R. were at times able to effectively parent B.T., they also struggled at times and the family members believed it seemed clear that A.T. and A.R. were using drugs.

[15] In particular, D.D. advised that they were nodding off during visits, and that at times they were incoherent and looked physically unwell. D.D. also reported that another family member had advised that A.T. had admitted to him that he was using drugs. Also, B.T. has reported to the worker that his parents fall asleep when he is in their care and that he screams at them to wake them up.

[16] For that July 11, 2024 meeting, it is noted that the worker was unable to get A.T. and A.R. to answer the door for approximately 45 minutes when she arrived. The worker met with other family members instead who were staying in a different part of the home where A.T. and A.R. live (i.e. where the maternal grandmother resides). When A.R. and A.T. opened the door 45 minutes later they explained they were apparently cleaning their home to prepare for the visit.

[17] During the meeting the worker observed scabs and sores on A.T.’s hands, arms and face (the sores on the face were initially hidden because he was wearing a face mask). A.T. attributed the sores as sustained doing construction work. When questioned about the concerns of drug use and that their family was worried about them, A.T. and A.R. changed the subject. The worker then viewed their living arrangements. The room which was intended to be B.T.’s room was locked and empty. The remainder of the home was observed to be full of belongings and described by the worker as having a “dangerous” amount of belongings in the living space and nowhere for B.T. to sit, play, or sleep.

[18] Both A.T. and A.R. denied that they have drug addiction issues. They maintained the reason they frequently nod off is due to their respective medical issues. The worker discussed with them that the safety concern for B.T. is less about the reason for their nodding off but more about the fact that this is happening as it impacts their ability to safely parent B.T.

[19] On August 16, 2024, A.T. and A.R. arrived at the Society’s offices and, according to a worker, they appeared extremely intoxicated.

[20] Between August 16, 2024 and the date the present Application was commenced, the child protection worker reports that she has attempted to engage A.R. and A.T. on a significant number of occasions to reiterate the Society’s concerns and bottom lines and that she has had difficulty doing so. She reports that A.R. and A.T. simply were not responding to efforts by the Society tocommunicate and engage with them.

[21] The Society commenced this Application on November 25, 2024 and the present motion was made for a temporary care and custody order placing B.T. with the D.s with supervised access to A.T. and A.R. The motion was first returnable on December 2, 2024.

[22] A without prejudice temporary care and custody order was made on December 2, 2024 and pursuant to those terms B.T. continues to reside with the D.s in Sudbury, Ontario.

[23] B.T. is represented by Ms. Gutoskie on behalf of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Ms. Gutoskie provided B.T.’s views and preferences at the hearing. B.T. reports that he is content with his present living arrangement and that while he hopes to return to reside with A.R. and A.T., he is not wishing to return to reside with them at this immediate point in time.

[24] A.R. has filed an affidavit to respond to this temporary care and custody motion. Her affidavit, for the most part, focuses upon her desire and plan to oversee the care of B.T.

[25] She explains that her failure to engage with the Society is due to her phone being a “pay-as-you-go” and so there are times when there are no minutes on the phone. For this reason she maintains that she and A.T. are not always able to regularly engage with the workers.

[26] A.R. denies that she or A.T. “nod off” as suggested and asserts that occasionally, after a long bus journey or the like, they will need to take a nap or will be “somewhat tired”.

[27] She disputes the allegations of substance abuse and denies there is a basis for concern. She does not provide any further particulars which would otherwise provide an explanation for the various observations made by others of the behaviours which form the basis for the concerns raised by the Society.

[28] Given her denials with respect to the concerns which have been raised, A.R.’s affidavit does not attempt to propose a plan of care which would address how B.T. would be kept safe if one concludes that the Society’s concerns respecting drug addiction issues are in fact the reality.

[29] A.T. has also provided an affidavit in response to this motion. It is short, comprising of 6 paragraphs. He does not make any express denial of the concerns raised by the Society. He does not address them at all in his affidavit and he provides no explanation for the concerns raised in the Society’s materials whatsoever.

Issues

[30] The issues I am to decide are as follows:

1. Has the Society established, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that it is more probable than not that B.T. will suffer harm if he is placed in the care of his parents?
2. If so, has the Society established, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that B.T. cannot be adequately protected in the care of his parents with terms of supervision?
3. What Order for access between B.T. and his parents would be in his best interests?

Legal Considerations on Temporary Care and Custody Motion

[31] The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 Sched.1 ("CYFSA") outlines the factors to consider in order to determine what relief is in the best interests of a child at section 74(3):

(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 […]:

(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.

[32] The legal test for me to apply on this motion is set out in section 94 of the CYFSA. The relevant subsections are as follows:

94 (2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,

(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;

(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;

(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or

(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody. […]

Criteria

(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2)(a) or (b).

Placement with relative, etc.

(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2)(d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to make an order under clause (2)(c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community.

Terms and conditions in order

(6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2)(b) or (c) may impose,

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

(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child’s parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for 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 to purchase any goods or services. […]

Access

(8) An order made under clause (2)(c) or (d) may contain provisions regarding any person’s right of access to the child on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate. […]

Evidence on Adjournments

(10) For the purpose of this section, the court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

Child’s views and wishes

(11) Before making an order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.

[33] Section 104 of the CYFSA identifies that an Order for access may be made if it is in the child's best interests, and that terms and conditions can be imposed as deemed appropriate by the Court:

(1) The court may, in the child’s best interests:

(a) when making an order under this Part; or

(b) upon an application under subsection (2),

make, vary or terminate an order respecting a person’s access to the child or the child’s access to a person, and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate.

[34] As per section 94(4) of the CYFSA, 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. Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the Society has to meet: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T..

[35] A Society seeking an order for temporary Society care at this early stage of a case has only to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention: L.D. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society and R.L. and M.L.. The burden on the society at this stage does not go as high as showing that on the balance of probabilities there is an actual risk to the child in the parent’s care: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.L.R., 2011 ONCJ 652; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.G., 2021 ONSC 3177.

[36] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child. The degree of intrusiveness of the society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269.

[37] Subsection 94(10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence: Jewish Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227 at paragraph 18; C.A.S. v. S.S.H. and S.T.E., 2019 ONSC 5365.

[38] The principles outlined in An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24, section 10 (the “Federal Act”) must also be given due consideration in this instance given B.T. is identified as Metis. Section 10 specifically speaks to the best interests of an Indigenous child, and section 10(2) indicates that primary consideration must be given to the importance for that child to have 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. Section 10(3) delineates the specific factors to be considered in order to determine the best interests of an Indigenous child. Section 10’s definition of the best interests test is similar to the definition set out in the CYFSA, but not identical. The interplay between the Federal Act and the CYFSA creates an augmented best interests test for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children.

[39] Additionally, section 16 of the Federal Act identifies which placement options are to be prioritized for an Indigenous child. To the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, placement with one of the child’s parents (whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous) should be prioritized, followed by a placement with another adult member of the child’s family.

[40] Finally, where an order is made under clause (c) or (d) of subsection 94(2), the court may order access on any terms that it considers appropriate. In determining what order is appropriate, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the CYFSA, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1(1) and (2) of the CYFSA).

Analysis

[41] The focus in this case must, as always, be on the needs and interests of B.T.

[42] I am satisfied that the Society has met the test under subsection 94(4) and that it has established, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that it is more probable than not that B.T. will suffer harm if he is placed in the care of his parents.

[43] The evidence which the Society has led to support the basis for this risk appear to be ongoing. There has been no credible evidence provided that would support a conclusion that the concerns can be explained as isolated or already adequately addressed by A.T. and A.R. at this point.

[44] In my view, the evidence adduced by the Society would support the conclusion that there have been behaviours which suggest that A.T. and A.R. have substance abuse issues which impact their ability to safely parent B.T. Neither A.T. nor A.R. have provided another viable explanation for the behaviours.

[45] Regardless of whether the behaviours are caused as a result of an addiction issue, or whether there are medical issues at play as reported by A.R., it is the behaviours and not the cause that creates the risk of harm.

[46] In my view, A.T. and A.R. have not appropriately acknowledged the concerning behaviours or the risk caused by these behaviours. This effectively brings into question whether they could adequately address those risks if B.T. were to be returned to their care. In this respect I conclude that the Society has established, on credible evidence, that B.T. cannot be adequately protected in the care of his parents with terms of supervision.

[47] I conclude that, pursuant to section 94(2)(c) of the CYFSA, B.T. should be placed in the temporary care and custody of the D.s subject to supervision of the Society, with ongoing access to A.T. and A.R.

[48] A temporary order shall therefore issue as follows:

1. Pursuant to Section 94(2)(c) of the CYFSA, B.T. shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the D.s, subject to supervision of the Society.
2. A.R. and A.T. shall have supervised access with B.T. at a minimum once per month for a minimum of two (2) hours each day that they are in Sudbury.
3. Additional visits can occur as arranged between A.R., A.T., and the D.s.
4. Access supervisors are to be approved by the Society.
5. This matter shall therefore be adjourned to July 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. for this matter to be spoken to.

M. Fraser
Date: July 4, 2025