RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

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 and Parties

Court File No.: FC-24-722 Date: 2025-10-02 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Children's Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Applicant And: L.A., Respondent

Before: Honourable Justice R. Misheal

Counsel: M. Talbot, for the Applicant L.A., Self-Represented

Heard: In Chambers

Endorsement

Background and Motion

[1] This is the Court's decision with respect to the request of the Society, made in writing by way of a 14B motion form, for an order dispensing with service on the Respondent mother, L.A. (hereinafter "the mother") of the following documents:

a. Affidavit of A. Cutting, sworn October 28, 2024, and Notice of Motion dated October 28, 2024, and

b. All further pleadings and orders flowing from these proceedings.

[2] The subject child in this proceeding is A.A. born […], 2024. (hereinafter "the child")

[3] At this time, the Society is ascertaining whether J.V. is the biological father of the child.

[4] The child was removed from L.A's care and custody, with warrant, on October 25, 2024.

[5] On October 30, 2024, a temporary without prejudice order was made placing the child in the Society's care and custody, with access to L.A. as arranged by the Society and supervised in its discretion.

[6] The Order of October 30, 2024, remains the status quo.

Court Appearances

[7] The mother did not attend court on the first appearance of the protection Application, but Justice Bingham endorsed that the court had technical difficulties with virtual court and the mother may have attempted to attend.

[8] On December 3, 2024, the mother did not attend court as she was not served at that time.

[9] On January 14, 2025, the mother was not before the court, and the endorsement by Justice Gregson reflects difficulties with service issues and that the mother was not exercising access or engaged with the Society.

[10] On March 4, 2025, the mother was not present, and the endorsement reflects that the Society is considering amending its protection application, and the service issue needs to be dealt with.

[11] On April 29, 2025, the mother was not present, and the endorsement reflects that a kin assessment was underway, and a motion was to be brought regarding the service on the mother.

[12] On June 17, 2025, the mother was not before the court, and at that time, a 14B motion remained outstanding.

[13] On July 23, 2025, the mother was not before the court.

[14] On September 2, 2025, the mother was not before the court, and the Society requested an adjournment to deal with a "number of procedural and assessment issues".

Position of the Society

[15] It is the Society's position that numerous attempts were made to serve the Respondent mother with the pleadings; the Society summarized those attempts as follows:

a. The Society made multiple phone calls to the Respondent Mother and left several voicemail messages.

b. The Society contacted the Maternal Grandmother (the Respondent Mother's mother), who indicated she would encourage the Respondent Mother to contact the Society.

c. The Society asked the Maternal Grandmother whether a sealed envelope containing the pleadings could be left with her for the Respondent Mother.

d. The Society contacted the Respondent Mother's Probation and Parole Officer, who advised that the Respondent Mother had failed to report as required.

e. The Society contacted J.V., who was incarcerated at the time. J.V. indicated that he would encourage the Respondent Mother to contact the Society.

f. The Society placed a two-day advertisement in the Niagara Dailies requesting that the Respondent Mother contact the Society.

[16] It is the Society's position that all these efforts were futile, and the mother has failed to contact the Society and or seek access with the child.

[17] Now the Society is seeking to dispense with service on the mother.

The Law and Analysis

[18] The starting point in considering when the Court may dispense with service is the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the "Rules"). Rule 1(2) confirms the scope of application of the Rules. It provides that the Rules govern all family law proceedings.

[19] Turning to the substance, Rule 6(16) prescribes the circumstances in which a court may order that service is not required. It provides:

The court may, on motion without notice, order that service is not required if,

(a) reasonable efforts to locate the person to be served have not been or would not be successful; and

(b) There is no method of substituted service that could reasonably be expected to bring the document to the person's attention.

[20] The plain wording of this provision identifies two, and only two, situations in which service can be dispensed with: first, where a party simply cannot be found despite reasonable efforts; and second, where no method of substituted service could reasonably bring the documents to that party's attention. On the record before me, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the mother cannot be located, or that substituted service would be futile.

[21] Although the Society did not raise Rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules, I have considered whether that Rule independently provides a basis to dispense with service in these circumstances. This precise issue was addressed in Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. L.O. and M.O. and in Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society v. R.L. and L., 2012 ONCJ 325. In both decisions, Spence J. and Bondy J. respectively concluded that Rule 2(2) does not constitute an independent source of jurisdiction to dispense with service. At paragraph 19 of his reasons in L.O. and M.O., Spence J. explained:

"It is clear, that the purpose underlying the sub rule that allows a Court to dispense with service is to permit a case to move forward when a party cannot be located and no form of substituted service would bring the documents to that party's attention. The Court's jurisdiction to dispense with service is limited in scope by the wording of the sub rule. Although sub rule 2(2) states that the 'primary objective' of the rules 'is to enable the Court to deal with cases justly' it is difficult to conceive how sub rule 2(2) can be interpreted so broadly as to permit a Court to change the substantive meaning of sub rule 6(16) by expanding the circumstances in which a Court may dispense with service on a party. To interpret the sub rule in such a manner would effectively add an entirely new meaning to sub rule 6(16), a meaning that the sub rule did not intend."

[22] I adopt this reasoning. The Court's authority to dispense with service is confined to the narrow circumstances described in Rule 6(16). The dispensing of service remains "an exceptional remedy" and must not be expanded beyond the limits the Rules expressly contemplate.

[23] The dispensing with service relief must be justified by evidence that all other reasonable avenues of service or substituted service have been exhausted.

[24] Accordingly, the question before me is whether the Society has demonstrated both requirements of Rule 6(16): that the mother cannot be located despite reasonable efforts, and that no method of substituted service could reasonably bring these proceedings to her attention.

[25] This Court acknowledges the considerable efforts the Society has undertaken in attempting to locate and engage the mother. These steps, including contacting family members, reaching out to probation services, making inquiries of J.V., placing notices in the local paper, and repeated calls, demonstrate diligence on the part of the Society. However, the analysis cannot end there. The next question is whether the extraordinary relief of dispensing with service, as requested, is justified in the circumstances.

[26] Dispensing with service is a remedy of last resort. It carries profound consequences. In this case, the child has already been placed in the Society's care, and an order dispensing with service would mean that the mother's right to notice and participation in these proceedings is terminated. This could have the effect of permanently disrupting, or even severing, the relationship between the mother and the child. While it is true that the mother has not exercised access for some time, this Court must nonetheless be vigilant. The best interests of the child remain the guiding principle, and those interests include the preservation, where possible, of a meaningful relationship with the mother.

Modern Methods of Locating Parties

[27] As indicated previously, the threshold to dispense with service requires more than merely making attempts to contact the mother and bring this matter to her attention. Justice Starr sets out the following searches that can be made in K.C.F. v. M.W., 2016 ONCJ 689:

a. E-mail, text, telephone or message (i.e. text or i-message or other messaging via social media), where the party asks for an address for service or gives effective notice by uploading and attaching a copy of the documents to the message, or, sets out details of the application within the body of the message;

b. Conduct a reverse cell and telephone number look-up. This method may provide an address for the owner of the account associated with the telephone or cell number and thus, the name and address of the person to be located or, a person who may have information about the whereabouts of a party or on whom subservice can be carried out;

c. Search for the party on social media sites, including:

• i. Facebook
• ii. Twitter (Now X)
• iii. LinkedIn
• iv. WhatsApp

d. Conduct general internet searches using various search engines. Search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo! provide some of the largest conglomerations of websites and information. One may be able to locate a person through the posts that person has made in discussion groups; reviews they have provided online; resumes posted to job or career sites; ads on Craig's List; newspaper articles; etc.

e. Directory searches including:

• i. Online telephone directories (such as 411.ca and whitepages.ca; which are important online directories but just two of many). It is important to search in multiple locations if the party has a connection to, or has lived in, or worked in other cities or provinces, as he or she may now be living there;
• ii. Professional associations or organizations to which the party or a friend or relative of the party may belong (i.e. engineers, accountants, lawyers). Government employee directories also exist as may union membership lists;
• iii. High school and post-secondary institution Alumni membership database directories;

f. Find and make inquiries of relatives and friends. The whereabouts of such persons may also be found using the same techniques just cited;

g. Obtain a credit report from a credit reporting service such as Equifax;

h. Search public records. Such records include: birth, death, marriage and divorce certificates; deeds, mortgages, and other related property records; various licenses, including professional and business licenses; driving records and; court records. These records are kept by government agencies. The release of these records is often subject to certain restrictions or fees. Not all contain contact information but some do and some can serve as a lead to other records or sources that may assist in finding someone. Most importantly, many of these records are available online. For example, many court decisions in civil, criminal, family separation and divorce cases are published online and are available on a national scale (such as on: http://www.canlii.org/en/);

i. Hire a "Skip Tracer". A 'skip trace' is the language used to describe the process of tracing a person's past to locate their current whereabouts. A "skip tracer" is the professional who does this type of work. These professionals are adept at conducting the various types of searches referred to above and more for a fee. They are frequently used by law firms and other businesses particularly when trying to locate a judgment debtor;

j. Although not available in this case, where the case involves a child support claim pursuant to section 33 or 37 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, and the claimant needs to learn or confirm the proposed respondent's whereabouts, the claimant may bring a motion pursuant to subsection 42(4) of the Act for an order requiring a person or public body to provide the court or the moving party with any information that is shown on a record in the person's or public body's possession or control and that indicates the proposed respondent's place of employment, address or location. The scope of those from whom such information may be obtained is broad. It includes: friends or relatives, employers, union or other organisation the person may belong to. It also includes public authorities such as the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Health Insurance Plan, the Crown, Family Responsibility Office, Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Insurance Plan, Corrections Canada, Ministry of Community and Correctional Services, and so on;

k. Obtain an order for subservice by advertisement, on a friend, relative, employer, the Family Responsibility Office, or other person or public body such as those described above and then carry out the approved method of service; and

l. Retain a private investigator.

[28] In today's digital landscape, there are additional platforms and tools that are frequently used by individuals, including those who may not have stable housing. Courts have accepted that bringing child protection proceedings to someone's attention on social media accounts or messaging applications can, in appropriate cases, be reasonably calculated to bring court documents to a party's attention.

[29] Accordingly, in addition to the platforms identified by Justice Starr (Facebook, Twitter/X, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp), this Court notes the following may also be attempted through:

a. Instagram, where many individuals, including transient persons, maintain active accounts and communicate regularly through direct messaging;

b. TikTok, which has increasingly become a primary platform for communication and networking;

c. Snapchat, which, although its messages are temporary, can nonetheless provide proof of contact and is often used by younger adults;

d. Signal and Telegram, which are widely used encrypted messaging services and may be more accessible to those distrustful of institutions;

e. Community-based pages or groups (such as local Facebook community groups or shelter group pages), which may be monitored by the person or their close contacts.

Substituted Service on Relatives

[30] Additionally, the Society may contemplate substituted service on the maternal grandmother. Although she has expressed reluctance to voluntarily accept documents on behalf of the mother, that reluctance does not foreclose the Society from seeking a court order authorizing substituted service in this manner. The Rules permit the Court to order service on a relative or other person reasonably likely to bring the documents to the Respondent mother's attention. Given the grandmother's acknowledged contact with the mother, and the fact that she has already been approached by the Society, substituted service upon her may constitute a realistic and effective option.

Decision

[31] For the above reasons, the motion is dismissed.

R. Misheal, J.

Released: October 2, 2025