WARNING
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
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.
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 L.L.B.
BETWEEN:
CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
B.L.B.
Respondent
B. Fisher, for the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
J. Allan, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 2, 2026 (At Ottawa)
REASONS FOR DECISION
MacEachern J.
1Today’s appearance was a focused hearing to determine the statutory findings. This hearing was directed by Justice Doyle in her endorsement of November 25, 2025.
2The main issue at today’s hearing was whether An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (“the Federal Act”) applies. The mother seeks a finding that this act applies.
3The Society takes no position on the issue.
4Oral evidence from the mother was heard today, with cross-examination by the Society.
5This issue is time sensitive, given there is a summary judgment motion scheduled for early April 2026. I provided oral reasons at the end of the hearing with my decision that the Federal Act applies.
6I understand that with this decision, the parties will be able to resolve the wording of the statutory findings order. They may provide the approved order regarding statutory findings to my attention.
7My decision that the Federal Act applies is based on my reasons given today, summarized in the following.
8I have applied the test set out in my earlier decision in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K.L.C., 2025 ONSC 6581, at para 33.
9This finding is for the purpose of this Protection Application only, based on the evidence before me today, on a balance of probabilities. This finding may be revised if new evidence emerges.
10The mother’s evidence on the key points in this issue is summarized as follows:
a. She believes her paternal grandmother had status under the Indian Act because she recalls, when a child, her grandmother showing her a status card and being proud of it.
b. Her paternal grandmother told her that her father (her great-grandfather) was First Nation, but her mother (her great-grandmother) was not.
c. Her great-grandmother told her the same.
d. She does not know which band her grandmother or great-grandfather was a member of. She recalls her grandmother saying she was connected to a band with Barefoot in the name, but she does not recall the full name and is not sure of this information.
e. Her father did not have status, but she believes he identified as First Nation.
f. She believes she has First Nation ancestry through her father, paternal grandmother, and great-grandfather.
g. Her father, paternal grandmother and great-grandfather are deceased. Her paternal grandmother died in 2015. Her father died around 2011.
h. Her father’s siblings are alive, but she is estranged from them. She does not believe that either of her father’s siblings has status. Her uncles have refused to assist her because they do not support her in this child protection Application.
i. She is not aware of any other living relative who has status under the Indian Act.
j. As a child, her mother, who was not Indigenous, was not supportive of recognizing her First Nations heritage.
k. She was in Society care from age 11 to 17.
l. She tried to have a DNA test done to confirm her Indigenous heritage but was told this would not be admissible. At one point, she did take a DNA test and was told she had part-Indigenous genetics.
m. She went to Indigenous Services Canada to attempt to get confirmation of her grandmother’s status. They told her there was a person with the same name as her grandmother on their registry, but they could not provide her with more information without the grandmother’s birthdate. She then tried to get her grandmother’s birth certificate, but was not able to.
n. It has been impossible for her to confirm her grandmother’s status, despite the efforts she has made
11No evidence corroborating the mother’s testimony was provided, except for a few letters and a signed hospital release that did not corroborate what she says Indigenous Services told her, that her grandmother’s birthdate was not available to her, or that her grandmother, or other members of her family where First Nations.
12The mother acknowledged signing an agreed statement of facts on October 30, 2024, that states she is not First Nations. She testified that at the time she signed it, she was not aware that her grandmother’s status was relevant.
13No evidence was submitted to support the concept that there is a reliable blood or DNA test to establish Indigeneity for the purposes of the CYFSA or the Federal Act. In my view, efforts to obtain Blood or DNA tests were wrong-headed, unsupported, and based on a flawed concept of Indigenous communities. In any event, no such blood or DNA tests were put in evidence, and the mother’s statements about what results were provided are not admissible, given that they are hearsay and constitute expert opinion evidence presented without qualification or foundation.
14I find that the Federal Act applies on the barest of margins. If the mother’s paternal grandmother had status, then there would be a very strong case that the Federal Act applies. But the evidence supporting the grandmother having status is weak. There are weaknesses in the mother’s credibility – her evidence wavered and evolved when pressed. At the same time, I have considered that the mother is a vulnerable individual who has some significant challenges in pursuing information about her family history, including her own involvement with the child welfare system, disconnection with her family, other trauma, and mental health challenges. Still, if the grandmother had status, as the mother believes, this would be recorded with Indigenous Services and also the band. The list of bands recognized under the Indian Act is publicly available – yet the mother did not provide any corroborated evidence that she had contacted the bands with “Barefoot” in their names to ask if her grandmother was a member. I find it difficult to accept that the mother is not able to confirm her grandmother’s status or, for example, confirm her birthdate. Still, the Society did not challenge this evidence, nor did it provide any evidence of what other reasonable steps the mother could have taken to confirm her grandmother’s status.
15In the end, when balancing the evidence before me, taking into consideration the mother’s vulnerabilities and challenges, and that ultimately, we are dealing with remedial legislation, I find the child is an Indigenous child for the purpose of the Federal Act and that the Federal Act applies.
16I have considered, as one of the factors in this balance, the agreed statement of facts signed October 30, 2024, where the mother did not state she was First Nations. While relevant, I note that the approach to what it means to be a First Nations, Inuit or Métis child under the CYFSA, or an Indigenous child under the Federal Act, has been evolving. In this context, and again because the evidence was not contested, I accept that the mother could have agreed to this statement of agreed facts because she did not believe her grandmother’s status was relevant.
17Again, this finding is solely for the purpose of this Protection Application and is subject to change if new evidence emerges.
18I reiterated my statements to the mother today that I strongly encourage her to take steps to confirm her grandmother’s birthdate and her status under the Indian Act. I believe this information should be available to her, although I recognize that the mother has barriers in attempting to access it – but the mother has supports available to her, including her lawyer, the Society, and other supports which I encourage her to make use of to confirm if her grandmother was First Nations. I also encourage the mother to take steps to build connections, if they exist, with the First Nation and to share this information with the child’s caregivers, because of the benefits to both the mother and the child of rebuilding any such connections.
19The above reasons focus on the grandmother’s status under the Indian Act because that issue is central, given that the mother believes her grandmother was Indigenous and had status. Confirmation of this status would therefore support the mother’s beliefs.
20These reasons should not be interpreted as requiring a relative to have status for the Federal Act to apply. The issue of status under the Indian Act does not apply to Métis and Inuit – they are not registered under the Indian Act. For people with connections to First Nations, the Federal Act may also apply where there are non-status Indigenous connections.
MacEachern J.
Released: March 5, 2026
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. B.L.B., 2026 ONSC 1335
COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-CP71-1
DATE: 2026/03/05
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 L.L.B.
BETWEEN:
CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
B.L.B.
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
MacEachern J.
Released: March 5, 2026