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 subsections 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.
CITATION: CAS SDG v. R.R., 2026 ONSC 1765
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(8) and 87(9) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH and FAMILY SERVICES ACT, S.O. 2017
and in the matter of
RE: Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Applicant
AND:
R.R.
BEFORE: Madam Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
COUNSEL: Emily Gallagher, Counsel for the Applicant
Cedric Nahum, Counsel for the Defendant mother R.R.
HEARD: February 2, 3,4,5,6, 24,25, 2026
reasons for judgment
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Background
1Does the mother’s suicidal ideation put her infant child at risk of physical or emotional harm? This two-year-old child has been in care for 595 days as of February 25, 2026.
2For reasons that follow, I am of the view that a finding can be made that the child was and is in need of protection pursuant to s.74(2)(h) CYFSA and an order is granted placing C in the extended care of the society, with access to the mother of a minimum of once week if the child resides in the jurisdiction of SD&G; or once per month if the child resides outside this jurisdiction.
Procedural background
3On December 23, 2024, Justice Bergeron granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the child, “C,” born in April 2023, in the care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (hereinafter “the Society”) pursuant to s.94(d) of the CYFSA. The mother was granted access to C, at minimum three times per week for two hours. The location and level of supervision was left at the discretion of the Society.
4The Society’s Application and Plan of Care at that time was for an Interim Society Care order for six months to permit the mother to address her mental health, specifically due to what they identified as chronic depression and suicidal ideations, and to permit the mother to build a support network to assist her and mitigate the Society’s concerns. They sought a finding based on s.74(2)(b)(ii) and s.74(2)(h) CYFSA.
5The Society’s Application identified the following court orders pre-dating the Application dated December 23, 2024. Those orders were the following:
a. April 28, 2023, made by Justice Bergeron, on a temporary without prejudice basis placing C with her mother, subject to the Society’s supervision with conditions.
b. May 2, 2023, signed by Justice Desormeau, terminating the order dated April 28, 2023. A new temporary without prejudice order was made placing the child in the interim care and custody of the Society.
c. October 4, 2023, signed by Justice Champagne, terminating the order dated May 2, 2023. The child was placed in the temporary care of the mother subject to the Society’s supervision.
d. On January 3, 2024, on consent, Justice Bramwell signed an order, whereby based on a Statement of Agreed facts and submissions made by Society’s counsel, the Society’s Protection Application was withdrawn. The outstanding temporary order was terminated.
6The Society’s Amended Application, amended May 27, 2025, sought an order for Extended Society Care, with access to the mother at minimum once per week provided the child remains in this jurisdiction, or once per month if C is placed outside of the jurisdiction, with the location, duration and level of supervision at the discretion of the Society.
7The mother’s Answer and Plan of Care (APOC) dated February 11, 2025, sought the placement of the child in her care pursuant to s. 102 CYFSA, or alternatively, subject to a supervision order. In her Amended Answer and Plan of Care dated January 16, 20251, the mother reiterates the same relief sought.
Issues
8The court has been asked to determine the following issues:
a. The child’s statutory findings;
b. A finding regarding whether or not the child is in need of protection; and
c. The applicable disposition.
Credibility
9As in all cases, the credibility and reliability of witnesses are important considerations, particularly where there are different versions of events advanced by the parties.
10In assessing credibility, the court is concerned with the witnesses’ truthfulness.2 Reliability involves consideration of the accuracy of the witnesses’ testimony, considering their ability to accurately observe, recall and recount events in issue.3 A credible witness may provide unreliable evidence, as it is possible that the witness has misperceived events, has a poor memory or could simply be wrong. Ultimately, the court must assess not merely the witnesses’ truthfulness, but also the accuracy of their evidence.
11As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. R.E.M.4: “assessing credibility is a difficult and delicate matter that does not always lend itself to precise and complete verbalization.”
12There is no principle of law that requires a trier of fact to believe or disbelieve a witness’s testimony in its entirety. On the contrary, a trier may believe none, part, or all a witness’s evidence, and may attach different weight to different parts of a witness’s evidence.5
13The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Williams6 stated the following about inconsistencies:
… [O]ne of the most valuable means of assessing witness credibility is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what she has said on other occasions, whether or not under oath: R. v. G. (M.)(1994), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 354, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, (1995), [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 390 (S.C.C.). Inconsistencies may emerge in a witness’ testimony at trial, or between their trial testimony and statements previously given. Inconsistencies may also emerge from things said differently at different times, or from omitting to refer to certain events at one time while referring to them on other occasions.
Inconsistencies vary in their nature and importance. Some are minor, others are not. Some concern material issues, others peripheral subjects. Where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the trier of fact should be concerned: G. (M.), at p. 354.
… A trial judge giving reasons for judgment is neither under the obligation to review and resolve every inconsistency in a witness' evidence, nor respond to every argument advanced by counsel: R. v. M. (R.E.), 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at para. 64. That said, a trial judge should address and explain how she or he has resolved major inconsistencies in the evidence of material witnesses: G. (M.), at p. 356; R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, at para. 31.
The Society’s witnesses
14The Society called 6 witnesses at trial, including two workers, two police officers, one doctor, the child’s foster mother and the child’s purported father J.L. The Society also produced a report from Dr. Rahmani, who was originally scheduled to testify. That report went in on consent.
15The primary worker from the Society was Andrea Gariepy. She has worked at the Society since 2011. She has the requisite training and a Bachelor of Social Work. She is the ongoing child protection worker, whose role is to assess and mitigate risks and keep families safe. Her evidence was extremely balanced, fair, consistent both internally and externally. She testified as to honouring the mother complying with the Safety Plan in continuing unsupervised visits. When asked questions in cross-examination, she conceded reasonable possibilities put to her. I found Ms. Gariepy to be credible and her evidence to be fair, forthright, and reliable.
16Ms. Tracy Laundrie, the Child and Youth Family worker’s evidence was balanced, consistent, fair, and I found her to be a credible witness and her evidence reliable.
17Cst. Matt Brush’s evidence was balanced, clear, and measured. As a member of the Vulnerable Sector Office, known as the V Smart team, he provided his testimony in a straightforward manner. He was responsive during cross‑examination and, in my view, answered questions fairly, readily indicating when a matter sounded familiar to him and equally acknowledging when it did not. I found Cst. Brush to be a credible witness, and I accept his evidence as reliable.
18Cst. Riley Lecompte testified as to his limited involvement with the mother. He was credible and I found his evidence reliable and consistent.
19B.B., the child’s foster mother testified in a very straightforward and sincere manner. I found her evidence reliable and for the most part unchallenged.
20J.L.’s evidence went in completely uncontested. I found him to be credible and his evidence reliable.
The mother’s witnesses
21The mother, her friend Eric7 and Serge Perreault, her counsellor, testified in support of the mother’s plan.
22The mother presented as well-intentioned and hopeful. She struggles with mental health issues and clearly her path has not been an easy one to walk. She maintained her composure throughout her testimony and though she cried frequently throughout the evidence, she remained committed to this trial. The court is sensitive to the trauma the mother has suffered. I recognize that when J.L. was identified and called as a witness she chose to instruct her counsel and save herself additional emotional trauma from hearing his evidence, which I found to be completely fair.
23The mother’s testimony was clear and coherent, and she provided rational and internally consistent explanations for her perception of some of the events. Regarding her mental health, she candidly acknowledged her struggles with suicidal ideation as well as her online postings. She approached the questions put to her with care, offering considered and responsive answers.
24Some inconsistencies arose when her evidence was compared with statements she had previously provided to medical practitioners, most notably with respect to the paternity of C. These discrepancies have bearing on the weight and overall reliability of her testimony.
25Eric’s evidence was without embellishment, straightforward and candid. I found him to be direct and credible. I found his evidence to be reliable.
26Serge Perreault’s evidence was clear, coherent, balanced and measured. He presented in a thoughtful manner. I found him to be credible and his evidence reliable.
Chronology of events
27The following is a chronology of relevant events that I accept as facts, which are salient and relevant to these proceedings.
28While the evidence is set out in its entirety at the first part of this decision, that was simply for ease of reference and to avoid duplication. In accordance with s. 93(2) CYFSA, evidence relating only to disposition was not considered by this court in determining if the child is in need of protection. As required, in the analysis section of this decision, I first turned my mind to the finding, without consideration of any evidence relating to disposition, recognizing these are two very separate and independent determinations.
29The mother reached out to the Society in about January 2023 as she was laid off at the time and financially stressed. This had been recommended to her by the Eastern Ontario Health Unit (“EOHU”). She was feeling pressured to reach out for help by the EOHU as she understood they were going to call the Society if she did not. At the time, the mother was completing her Bachelor of Human Resources and Business Administration from Carleton University, and by April 2023 she had graduated. Following Covid, some schooling was online, so she moved to Cornwall from Ottawa due to a job, family and cheaper housing.
30Initially, the Society’s assistance was positive as they helped her obtain supplies, she needed for C. As far as the mother knew, and the evidence showed this to be true, there were no concerns about her parenting abilities. The mother felt completely blindsided by the Society’s intrusive measures. She recalled a worker attending her home expressing concerns that she was going to starve C because of her personal history of having an eating disorder. She was scared when they threatened to get a court order – they kept showing up at her home, pounding on the door and window, making a scene and scaring the baby. The mother was only one-week post-partum. She was overwhelmed and scared and called a worker to tell them to come over and “get her already” so she could “end” herself. The worker attended and apprehended C. The mother could not recall all the details, but she remembered buying a helium tank which she intended to use to harm herself. The mother believed her suicide attempt to be due to being post-partum and having “baby blues.” Her mood had been all over the place and was suffering from sleep deprivation.
31The child was taken to a place of safety on April 28, 2023, but placed with the mother under terms of supervision. On May 2, 2023, the child was placed on a temporary without prejudice basis in the care of the Society and placed with B.B. B.B had 25 years of experience as a foster mother.
32During this time, the mother was confused and angry about the situation. Her evidence was that she still has no clear answers as to why the Society kept the file open prior to her suicide attempt. She articulated that along the way, she felt the Society kept changing their goal posts for her. This made it difficult for her and her network because the expectations kept changing, at least until Ms. Gariepy and Laundrie were the assigned workers.
33Ms. Gariepy took over the file on September 1, 2023, as the child protection worker. At the time of Ms. Gariepy’s involvement, the child, C, was still in foster care with B.B.
34The mother has had various support people in her life, including B.B. She owns her home and generally has been employed full time. At the time of trial, the mother was laid off but expected to return to work shortly.
35During the Society’s involvement, the mother identified a potential father to C, being T.R. and was adamant that she did not want the Society to have any involvement with him as she reported that C’s conception was as a result of a sexual assault. However, Ms. Gariepy’s evidence was that the mother has provided a variety of different information to a variety of different family members and community members as to the identity of the biological father. Ultimately, the mother identified the biological father as “unknown” in her Answer and Plan of Care and at court. Notably, during trial, through her lawyer, the mother identified J.L. as the child’s biological father. As discussed below, J.L.’s unchallenged evidence was that he was not C’s father.
36Ms. Gariepy attempted to assist the mother in mitigating risk, helped her access resources, and develop a safety plan with her. She testified that if the mother’s contradictory reports were not related to C’s safety, she prioritized maintaining a positive relationship with the mother rather than confront her on the contradictions.
37Due to the concerns regarding the mother’s mental health, the Society helped her develope a safety plan which included a support network. The support network helped mitigate risk, with their role to provide support to the mother when she was struggling. In September 2023, that support network included B.B., Ms. Debbie Boulerice and Ms. Levasseur. Together a safety plan was developed, though the mother did not agree that one was necessary.
38Ms. Laundrie was reassigned to the file on June 26, 2023, to assist the mother with the trajectory to have C returned to her care. The mother had many services in place including Laurie Cromwell from Child Mental Health who was working with her on parenting and child attachments. She conducted check-ins on average once to twice per week. Ms. Laundrie articulated that the visits were very positive with the mother being engaged and both mother and child happy. Things were positive from Ms. Laundrie’s perspective during her involvement at this time, which ended in January 2024. She described that the mother was reaching out to her supports, both professional and personal.
39The mother spoke of being engaged with the cocoon program, obtaining counselling through the Community Addictions and Mental Health Services, and having Dr. Cookson’s support, who used to be C’s pediatrician. She had been attending group counselling sessions once per week and private sessions once per week.
40On or about September 12, 2023, C was returned to her mother’s care on extended access. On October 4, 2023, a temporary supervision order was granted placing C in the mother’s care. Ms. Gariepy continued to work with the mother and her supports. The safety plan was reduced to writing, finalized on December 11, 2023 and emailed to all the parties January 10, 2024. (Exhibit 3)
41The Society withdrew its Protection Application on January 3, 2024, and pursuant to a Statement of Agreed Facts, and the Society’s file was closed. The rationale for closing the file was that the mother had a strong safety network, from community professionals who were providing her support, and the mother followed the safety plan by reaching out to B.B. or Ms. Boulerice when she needed support.
42The mother described that the reintegration process went very well, that C loved the cats at her home, was always a very active child who loved to play. The mother was always planning and researching to assist C to grow and meet her milestones. She had also organized daycare for C for when she needed to be at work, with a backup babysitter for any shortages of hours between work hours and daycare hours. The Society confirmed they had no issues with the mother’s babysitter or daycare choices.
43In April 2024 the Society received a referral which Ms. Gariepy did not verify as the mother was following her safety plan.
44On July 26, 2024, the CAS received a call from Cst. Brush of the Cornwall Police Service (“CPS”) who apprehended the mother under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) due to concerns for her safety. This was following the mother reporting her ex-partner stalking her and Cst. Brush advising her that they could not charge him. The mother was crying uncontrollably, was pregnant at the time and said she was going to kill herself. The mother was not formed, as she was not at risk to herself or others. The mother had reached out to her mother, H.R., to care for C. The mother was also involved with Victims Services which she found helpful to her.
45Cst. Brush provided evidence as to the process for a s.17 apprehension under the MHA. He stated that first the police need to have grounds that someone is unable to care for herself or is a danger to others. Then they need to bring that person to the hospital where to be assessed properly by a doctor. In Cornwall it starts at the emergency room to be triaged then seen by either a psychiatrist or the emergency room doctor.
46In August 2024, the Society received a phone call that the mother has ben apprehended under s. 17 MHA due to reported concerns of attempts to end her life. At that time, the mother indicated that her ex was still harassing her and she felt things were never going to get better. H.R. contacted police and came to Cornwall to care for C. The mother was voluntarily hospitalized from August 18, 2024, to August 26, 2024. The mother was still involved with Victims Services. She was encouraged to reach out to her therapist Ms. Wells. They discussed that the mother would continue to use her safety network should this occur again. Despite the mother struggling with long-standing mental health issues, there was no information at that time that her mental health challenges were interfering with her ability to care for C. Further, given that she had strong supports of B.B. and occasional support of her parents, and she followed the safety plan when needing support, the file was closed on September 18, 2024. Prior to the file closure, the mother had another child which she had placed for adoption through a private adoption agency due to concerns regarding that child’s father, who was her ex-partner.
47On September 26, 2024, the Society received a call from one of the mother’s supports, Ms. Boulerice, who reported that she received a note from the mother of her plan to end her life. Police were contacted. Cst. Brush attended. It was reported that the mother was going to commit suicide by way of a helium tank and plastic bag. Cst. Brush and his partner Cst. Lafontaine observed the mother sitting on the couch staring forward. When they entered, they found her to be sitting directly in front of a helium tank on the floor, and a plastic bag wrapped around the helium tank. She was apprehended pursuant to s.17 MHA. C was at daycare. When brought to the hospital, the police were unable to search her as they were both male. While awaiting a female officer to search her, she was observed by Cst. Brush to be emotional, at one point sobbing very loudly and choking. She had ingested some form of medication which she was choking on, which she eventually spit out. When asked by Cst. Brush about her plans for C, she had no plans for her and wished to die. Cst. Brush elaborated that helium can be used for asphyxiation and could be purchased throughout the city including at Home Depot. The mother was equally unwilling to plan with the intake worker. The file was moved to ongoing services on November 8, 2024. This is the same file that continues to be open to date.
48While in hospital, Ms. Gariepy spoke with the mother who wished C to be picked up from daycare by B.B. and to be cared for by her until her discharge. The mother asked the worker to call B.B. while she called the daycare. The mother was in the hospital from September 26, 2024, until October 11, 2024. She was discharged from the hospital with a detailed plan for services in the Cornwall area. Then due to medical issues she was admitted again to the hospital and released October 19, 2024. While C was initially in the maternal grandparent’s care, she was returned to B.B. care because the grandparents were no longer able to care for C.
49The mother testified that in September 2024, she gave birth to another child. She had been in a very abusive relationship. Her evidence was that she felt coerced by her abuser to give up her child. She did not feel that she or that baby were safe and felt she had to place the child. This caused her to become depressed, despondent, and suicidal. She believed she was post-partum. She tried to reach out for various services at the time including the cocoon program and her counsellor, but they told her she was not eligible as she did not have her child with her.
50Following this, after discharge, Ms. Gariepy and the mother met to address the issues. The mother admitted that sometimes she is sad and crying and tries not to expose C to this. There were however reported concerns of the child being exposed to her mother crying inconsolably. However, the mother had been reaching out to her supports and receiving counselling. The mother frequently recached out to B.B. The Society verified that there were concerns that the mother had problems, and they felt there was a risk that the child is likely to be harmed. This was based on the mother having been hospitalized on two occasions in less than two months, from 4 days to two weeks with concerns of suicidal ideation and attempts, which resulted in erratic childcare for C who had to be cared for by supports. This included statements by the mother as to reports of sometimes sobbing in front of C, having a flat affect toward C and inability to regulate her emotions. The Society wanted to see if she would engage with services to support her mental health, which through no fault of her own were very limited at the time. Again, given that the safety plan was being followed, Society had no concerns about C remaining in her mother’s care.
51The file was transferred to ongoing services on November 8, 2024. Following this, on November 13, 2024, Ms. Gariepy received a call from B.B. who reported that the mother had been sending messages with plans to end her life. The messages were online Reddit posts. The mother admitted to making these online posts. Ms. Gariepy asked what she wanted her to do about C, who was at daycare. The mother asked B.B. attend to pick up C. Ms. Gariepy contacted police for a welfare check on the mother and spoke with Cst. Brush. He and a social worker Shannon Greise spoke to the mother about the incident. After a second post was found, the police determined it was appropriate to apprehend the mother pursuant to s.17 MHA. The mother was discharged on November 14, 2024. Again, the mother indicated she would continue to follow her safety plan and did not want C around her when she was in a dark place. The mother was scheduled for a screening appointment with CMHA on November 21, 2024. She was also given the number for telephone counselling by Ms. Gariepy. Ms. Gariepy honoured the mother for following her safety plan and felt the child was not impacted by the mother’s mental health challenges and had the support of B.B.
52Ms. Gariepy met the mother again on November 27, 2024, who was having a hard time but was again honoured for using her safety plan.
53On December 13, 2024, the Society received a phone call as the mother had posted online on the Cornwall Community Facebook page, speaking of a plan to end her life. The mother later posted a picture of herself with a plastic bag over her head, which was removed by Facebook. At that time, the child was not with the mother. The mother was apprehended under the MHA and released December 18, 2024. While at the hospital, on December 17, 2024, the mother forwarded Ms. Gariepy an email she had sent to B.B., which including “I can’t be there for [C] like I used to be, so she’s better off with me gone.” On the same day, B.B. called Ms. Gariepy to advise that she and Ms. Boulerice were no longer willing to be part of the mother’s safety plan, they felt the situation with the mother was dangerous and hopeless, they were no longer prepared to be supports should C remain in the mother’s care. Ms. Gariepy explored other ways they could remain involved such as a voluntary kinship placement, but B.B. was not agreeable.
54Given the number of suicide attempts and hospitalizations, as well as the support the mother had required when C was in her care during times she was struggling with her mental health, feeling sad, unable to keep from crying around C, it was determined that unless she was able to identify new supports who could provide the same level of support as B.B. had been providing, that it would no longer be safe for C to remain in her care.
55This was discussed with the mother upon her discharge on December 18, 2024. The mother disagreed with the Society’s worries and felt she could care for C without any other supports aside from daycare. She was unable to identify any supports. She agreed to reach out to Ms. Levasseur for emotional support, who attended for that purpose. However, Ms. Levasseur confirmed she was not able to provide the level of care that B.B. had been providing but could provide some respite, though that would need to be planned in advance. The mother was not in a good place with her parents at that time and was adamant she did not want C placed in their care. While she was not in agreement with C being removed from her care, should that be the case, she wished C to be placed with B.B., recognizing that would be familiar for C. C was brought to a place of safety, and a Protection Application was brought forward given the mother’s disagreement with the plan.
56The mother at that time was advised that she needed to follow through with mental health services, and they would work together to help expand her support network. Ms. Gariepy followed up with the post the mother made on the Cornwall Facebook page, as there appeared to be a way to build her network due to articulated supports.
57A temporary without prejudice order as made on December 23, 2024, placing C in the temporary care of the Society, with access to the mother three times per week for two hours per visit.
58Following this, with the mother’s consent, Ms. Gariepy made a referral to the “Situation Table” for services. This is a local committee comprised of almost all community agencies who come together to provide intensive and immediate support to people who are at imminent risk. This includes Sexual Assault Services (SASS); CMHA; the hospital; police; and Eastern Ontario Health Unit. On December 20, 2024, Ms. Gariepy attended the mother’s home with Christianne Brunet and Sandra Butler from Adult Mental Health through the Cornwall hospital, Brook from the MH Crisis Team; and Hillary Brownlee from SASS. The mother was connected with individual counselling with SASS, transitional day program through Cornwall hospital, and psychiatrist Dr. Amani from the hospital, with the mental health crisis team for support over the holidays.
59In efforts to build up her network Ms. Gariepy attended the mother’s home with Child and Youth Family Worker Ms. Tracy Laundrie on January 7, 2025. The mother was offered suggestions of possible support people including a friend she spoke to from work, a neighbour who dropped off a Christmas gift; people from the Cornwall Facebook page who expressed wanting to support her. The mother was not receptive to any of these suggestions. The Society wrote out and provided their bottom lines in “What we need to see for [C] to return home.” (Exhibit 5) This included the mother engaging with services to address her mental health and suicidal ideation and build her support network. Ultimately, the Society explained to the mother that for visits to remain unsupervised, she needed to use her safety plan, and the goal was that as she accessed mental health services the need for support would lessen while her network grew. Once the support required was equal to the support needed, C would be able to return to her care.
60On January 10, 2025, Ms. Gariepy received a phone call from Cornwall Police Services that the mother had been apprehended under the MHA and brought to the hospital due to an attempt to end her life by overdosing on pills. The mother was in hospital from January 10, 2025, to January 14, 2025.
61On January 26, 2025, Ms. Laundrie was officially reassigned to assist the mother to do network support finding and assist Ms. Gariepy with the check in visits. Laurie Cromwell was still involved until about April or May 2025, but B.B. was no longer a support, therefore the mother had nobody to reach out to. Ms. Laundrie made suggestions of where the mother could look for supports, such as the Early-On centre and friends from work or neighbours. The only person she was receptive about was Eric.
62On January 29, 2025, while in a virtual meeting between Ms. Gariepy and the mother, there was a knock on the mother’s door. The police had attended and asked if she had tried to hang herself the night before and if she had sent a picture. She admitted she had tried it but it had not worked. She admitted to constantly wanting to die. She was apprehended under the MHA and brought to the hospital that day. Her visit that day was cancelled. She was released that same day from the hospital.
63In February 2025, the mother identified Eric as a support for her. A network meeting was held on February 24, 2025. The paternal grandfather attended virtually and expressed that he and the maternal grandmother could not provide the support the mother required.
64On March 10, 2025, Ms. Gariepy met with Eric. Despite some concerns expressed by the Society, it was agreed that they would test the plan. Eric and his children would attend the mother’s home to care for C if that was necessary.
65At that time the mother’s visits were unsupervised and had increased from two evenings per week and a full daytime visit on the weekends, to two overnight visits and one daytime visit on the weekend. This was because the mother continued to follow the safety plan, there were regular check-ins with the worker and the mother never acted on the intention to harm herself while C was in her care.
66On March 25, 2025, the Society developed a reintegration plan for a gradual return of C to her mother’s care over the next month, with a full time return to occur May 1, 2025. This was due to the decrease in hospitalizations and suicide attempts by the mother, with none occurring in February and March 2025. Prior to then, the mother had been hospitalized monthly from July 2024, including 2 suicide attempts and hospitalizations in January 2025. The plan was discussed with the mother, and the timeline was sent to the mother by email. The visits increased.
67Reintegration did not occur as on April 24, 2025, after-hours received a phone call at about 2:00 a.m. indicating that the mother had been apprehended under the MHA following a suicide attempt. According to the mother, the plan for Eric to step in was engaged. However, Eric had no idea that the mother was in the hospital when Ms. Gariepy reached out to him. He was prepared to care for C, which he did. The following day Eric advised Ms. Gariepy that it was a rough night and would take a sick day as C was up a lot in the night. He was overwhelmed and frustrated. He articulated that it was okay for him to care for C now and then for a day, but overnights were too much. He stated that the mother’s actions were not an emergency, that an emergency was something that was not planned, and not something that the mother tried to do “that was stupid in a moment of weakness.” In cross examination, Eric did not recall making this statement. Due to Eric’s work schedule and the lack of a clear plan, C was returned to the foster home. Eric made a similar statement to Ms. Laundrie when she checked in on him. He also articulated that he did not want to get involved with the mother wanting to end her life and said she should get over the trauma of her past boyfriend. The mother was transferred to the Brockville general hospital. She was in the hospital from April 23, 2025, just before midnight until her discharge May 1, 2025.
68By that time, mother had been brought to the hospital under the Mental Health Act and/or hospitalized for her mental health eight times in under ten months, and C had experienced breaks in caregiving during that period as a result. The Society’s focus since C had been brought into care in December 2024 had been building the mother’s support networks which she had, but the only plan developed was with Eric which had not been successful during the most recent hospital stay. In light of this, and with the matter scheduled for trial to be heard in June 2025, the Society determined they would amend their application to seek Extended Society Care. The mother was advised of this with the support of the mental health workers at the hospital discharge meeting, as suggested by her social worker at the hospital.
69The following day, on or about May 2, 2025, the mother provided a list of additional supports such as her cousin, her parents, Ms. Levasseur, and B.B. Upon further exploration at a meeting, Ms. Levasseur said she could support in the short term for emergencies but there was no guarantee without notice being provided. Eric was still supportive of the mother. The maternal grandfather indicated he could assist on weekends. However, due to conflict with the maternal grandmother, they decided they would present a united front such that if the grandmother could not see C, the grandfather would not either. After the meeting, the mother was encouraged to develop a plan for the Society to see. Such plan was never provided by the mother.
70As the trial was thereafter adjourned to the October Blitz, on June 3, 2025, the Society decided it would attempt another reintegration timeline to test the mother’s plan prior to trial. This new plan would see C returned to her mother’s care on August 1, 2025. A written copy of the plan had been provided to the mother on June 5, 2025 (Exhibit 6). The expectations were the same in January 2025, except that it was now on the mother and not the Society to work out the plan and to reach out to her supports when required. This plan was also reviewed with Eric, on June 5, 2025.
71On June 30, 2025, Cst. Lecompte received a call from the maternal grandmother, H.R. regarding the mother making a threat of suicide. He attended the residence and knocked on the door several times and tried to call her without any success. The front door was unsecured, and because of the exigent circumstances, he entered to search the residence. He called her name several times. He located her in the upstairs bedroom closet on the floor. She was struggling with her mental health and crying as a result of things going on in her life, being let go from work and because of relationship issues. She advised him she was not planning on ending her life. Nevertheless, Cst. Lecompte formed grounds to apprehend her under s.17 MHA. When he inquired as to the plan for C, the mother advised she was at daycare, and she planned to go get her herself at 3pm. He reached out to H.R. who said she was unable to get C. Then Cst. Lecompte contacted B.B. to attend to pick up C.
72The Society received a call from the Cornwall Police indicating that the mother had been apprehended under the MHA but released the same day. There was some confusion as to who was supposed to pick up C. Ms. Laundrie was told it would be Eric, which was unknown to police who had inquired if B.B. was going to pick up the child.
73When Ms. Gariepy spoke to her about the June 30 incident, the mother had not recalled she had a visit with C the day she was apprehended. The mother appeared to be struggling. The reintegration plan continued nevertheless.
74On July 15, 2025, during a follow up session with Ms. Gariepy and Ms. Laundrie, the mother spoke of triggers about the private adoption of her two other children. In managing her triggers, the mother expressed she had been shutting down. She tried to ensure C was not present when this was happening. The mother did not find counselling helpful, despite this being recommended by Ms. Gariepy.
75On July 22, 2025, the mother reached out to B.B. as she was physically ill. B.B. was not prepared to be a support should C return to the mother’s full-time care.
76On July 26, 2025, C was in the care of respite foster parents who attended the mother’s home for a full weekend visit with the mother. The mother did not answer the door. When they called B.B., she encouraged a wellness check through the police as the mother had never failed to answered the door. When the police advised the mother had been apprehended under the MHA following a suicide attempt. The mother was admitted July 26, 2025, and discharged August 1, 2025.
77To Ms. Gariepy’s knowledge, this was the first time the mother did not reach out to anyone to let them know of her plans to harm herself or reach out for support to send help. Also, this was the only time when the mother had made no arrangements for C, and C had been brought to the home despite attempting to take her life the night prior. On July 29, 2025, Ms. Gariepy spoke to the mother about her plan for C. At that time the mother was still at the hospital. She was on a Form 30, which meant she could be at the hospital for as long as two weeks. When Ms. Gariepy asked the mother about her plan for the visit with C that afternoon, she had been talking to Eric but there was no confirmed plan despite the visit starting in three hours. When Ms. Gariepy discussed with the mother what her plan had been on July 26, knowing that she had attempted to take her life the night before C had been brought to her home for a full weekend visit, the mother indicated that she was “planning on being dead.”
78Ms. Gariepy spoke to the mother about the suicide attempt and the impact it would have had on C had she succeeded just before a visit. The mother still wanted C returned to her care that week. She articulated that had she died, she wanted C to go live with the adoptive parents of her other child.
79By that time, the mother had been apprehended under the MHA and/or brought to the hospital for her mental health ten separate times in the past year, C continued to experience breaks in caregiving and though Ms. Gariepy tried to work with the mother to identify supports, C continued to return to foster care each time the mother was unable to care for her. Further, on both occasions when the reintegration plan had been implemented, in April and July 2025, just one week prior to returning C to the mother’s full-time care, the mother had serious suicide attempts and was hospitalized for an extended period and C had to be cared for by foster parents as there was no other plan in place for C. At that time, C had exceeded her time in care, and the matter was already slated for trial in October 2025. The Society would continue with their request for extended society care. Given they were no longer working toward reintegration, they stopped the overnight visits. The visits were thereafter two evenings per week and one day on the weekend for four hours, unsupervised with check-ins. The visits were unsupervised because until this date the mother never tried to harm herself while C was in her care.
80The matter did not proceed to trial in October and was adjourned to December 2025 due to counsel not being available.
81On September 29, 2025, Ms. Gariepy received a call from B.B. who had become aware of a post on Reddit where the mother said she would livestream her suicide on September 29, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. That date and time were important as C was scheduled to be with her mother at that time. Ms. Gariepy called the CPS, and Cst. Brush attended the home to do a wellness check on the mother. While attempting to locate the mother, Cst. Brush advised that he found a video on Facebook under a different username of the mother, posted about 13 hours prior. Cst. Brush testified that in the video he observed the mother consuming thirteen 15 mg Benadryl tablets and swallowed them with alcohol. She was intoxicated, drinking vodka. She expressed wishing to die. When Cst. Brush and his partner attended the mother’s home, the door was ajar, but the mother was not present. They “pinged” her cell phone and she was near Food Basics. By the time they had another officer come to assist she was walking up her street toward them. The mother was apprehended under the MHA. Upon further review of the video, Cst. Brush believed the mother spit out the pills, which the mother admitted to doing. Ms. Griese put the mother in touch with multiple different programs through the hospital and made a specific introduction of Serge Perreault on October 6, 2025 at the mother’s home.
82Ms. Gariepy spoke to the mother at the hospital on September 29, 2025. The mother planned to have her friend L.C. care for C until her discharge. The Society had not been told of L.C. in the past and had not been proposed as a support in the past.
83After this, the visits changed to fully supervised, due to Ms. Gariepy’s concerns that the mother’s mental health was declining, and her actions were escalating based on the repeated posts online, the plan to livestream the suicide and ,at the time, the belief that C was supposed to be in the mother’s care during the livestream. However, the mother insisted that the plan had been to do this at 7pm, with C’s visit with her ending at 6:30pm. While Ms. Gariepy still felt the mother would not harm herself while C was in her care, the risk to C was significant and the harm this could cause was simply too high. They could no longer support unsupervised visits.
84Ms. Laundrie described that from January until April/ May 2025, the mother was nicely groomed, chatty and positive with her. She and C were integrating well. This changed in May / June, as the mother was not putting on makeup, she appeared sadder, her eyes were heavy and she was more withdrawn. Then in October 2025, the mother was sad all the time.
85Thereafter, visits became three times per week, two hours per visit. Ms. Laundrie supervised some of the visits. She observed the mother to be happy when C arrived, and C happy to see her. There was play throughout the visits. C adapted well to any transitions.
86On October 20, 2025, during one of the visits Ms. Laundrie noticed the mother being sad. Nevertheless, the mother was appropriate at the visit and engaged in age-appropriate play. At one point, C went upstairs, and the mother followed. Exceptionally, Ms. Laundrie also followed and found two helium tanks on the floor in the mother’s bedroom with a collection of tubing. While the mother indicated they were empty, given the past history of the file with a prior involvement of helium tanks linked with suicidal ideation, Ms. Laundrie called the police to conduct a wellness check. The tanks were confirmed to be empty. The mother denied feeling suicidal.
87Ms. Laundrie noticed in November 2025 that the mother being tearful but shielded C from this. The mother indicated that she felt numb all the time. During this time the mother’s home was not as organized as it had been in the past. Ms. Laundrie noted that if C sees her mother sad, she wants time out on her rocking horse. Ms. Laundrie recognized however that C is only two.
88The mother was encouraged to reach out to her supports for more time with C, but except for Halloween and December 23, 2025, which were supervised by Eric, there were no other supports proffered or requests made. The mother also withdrew her consent for the worker to access her hospital records.
89On October 14, 2025, B.B. was made aware that the mother had been hospitalized over the course of the weekend and forwarded Ms. Gariepy an email that had been sent from the mother to her grandmother S.R., with a picture of herself with a noose around her neck, entitled “Goodbye.”
90On November 3, 2025, Ms. Gariepy received an email from B.B., sent by the mother to her grandmother, her father and B.B. on November 1, 2025. That email spoke of how suicide is not selfish. That same day, Ms. Gariepy was advised by the CPW Ms. Turcotte that the mother canceled her visit of Monday because she “won’t be there.” Ms. Gariepy was concerned that the mother had a plan to end her life and contacted CPS for a wellness check. B.B. further forwarded her an email from the grandmother S.R. regarding a goodbye message. Ms. Gariepy updated police again. They confirmed later that they had located her and apprehended her under the MHA.
91The trial did not occur in December and was traversed to February 2026 due to counsel availability. The Society’s view that during just prior to December, there had been a significant deterioration of the mother’s mental health and escalation of suicide attempts. It was decided that the onus would be on the mother to come up with a support plan that needed to be tested without C in her mother’s care to determine if it was viable. The Society provided the mother “What we see to move forward” (Exhibit 8) to explain the Society’s position as of November 25, 2025. This included the Society needed to see the mother engage with service providers, no longer posting of threats of suicide and decreasing the suicidal ideation and based on the mother’s articulated views in April 2025 of needing more supports, that too was part of the plan. Once that was presented by the mother, they would try a “fire drill” of the plan to ensure success. Further, the mother needed to engage the plan rather than rely on the Society to activate the plan. No such plan however had been presented.
92The mother was also uncomfortable with providing consents regarding service providers, so Ms. Gariepy told her to have them reach out to her with updates. Serge Perrault reached out to Ms. Gariepy and confirmed that she was engaged with him for counselling.
93The Society amended their Plan of Care and reviewed it with the mother on January 12, 2026. There were still concerns regarding the mother accessing services. There needed to be not only engagement but also a demonstrated positive impact in her mental health which was increasing her stability and decreasing her suicidal ideation. Ms. Gariepy noted a decline in the mother’s mental health since May 2025 which presented itself in her manner of presentation. For instance, she had in the past always made up and well dressed, whereafter she was, withdrawn, and her physical appearance deteriorated. She continued to have the support of Eric but the Society was concerned about the impact on him and his own children having to relocate to the mother’s home.
94The mother’s relationship with her parents continued to vacillate from supportive to conflictual. An example provided was in mid-November, the mother said she was on speaking terms with her parents but on November 26, 2025, she told Ms. Gariepy that if she had C returned to her, she would never allow her parents to see C. The maternal grandparents however have continued to see C. S.R., the mother’s grandmother has not had much interaction in the recent past. She has only ever been presented as emotional support, not as a person who could care for C. The mother’s brother resides in the U.K. and was not presented as someone who could help care for C.
95The evidence showed that on or about February 5, 2026, one evening during trial, the police attended at the mother’s home believing that she made online posts about suicide. She was brought to the hospital. She was kept overnight but explained she was not currently suicidal to the psychiatrist, so she was permitted to leave the hospital. She denied making any online posts.
96B.B. has been consistent and clear that she is no longer prepared to be a support to the mother should C return to her care.
97Ms. Levasseur attended support network meetings in the past but the last interaction with her was in July 2025. Despite this, she is listed as a close friend in the mother’s APOC.
98The mother’s APOC identified Laurie Cromwell as a support person. She assisted the mother until May 2025, and the file was closed.
99The mother’s friend L.C. also has mental health concerns including suicidal ideation and borderline personality disorder. She is not approved by the Society to care for C.
100Ms. Gariepy notes that the mother’s APOC also indicates strong support in the Cornwall area to help with childcare, but this has not been established.
101With regard to any kin care, Ms. Gariepy’s evidence was that the mother is adamant C is not to be placed with the maternal grandparents. They were inconsistent in the support they could provide, and the mother alleged that they were emotionally abusive toward her as a child.
102Ms. Gariepy and Ms. Laundrie speak positively of the mother’s relationship with C. They have consistently positive interactions together, they are happy to see each other, the mother is very loving, attentive and nurturing toward C.
103Cst. Brush testified that he had observed the mother in the community and was generally a calm person. He had seen her with C in the park, and has only seen positive interactions with C. He also testified that most of his interactions with the mother involved her being calm, able to control her emotions, not crying, not directly expressing suicidal thoughts and not wishing to go to the hospital. He brought her to the hospital despite this as it is a joint decision with his partner, who is a better expert in determining someone’s mental health than him, or he felt that she was a danger to herself.
104Ms. Gariepy confirmed that there were no significant issues regarding the state of the mother’s home.
105B.B. evidence established that C was in her care from late April 2023 to late November 2023, then again since December 2024. She maintained contact with the mother and was there for them to care for C whenever the mother needed a break. She has remained in C’s life since that time, either as a support to the mother when C was returned to her care and an alternate and consistent caregiver for C during that time, and eventually having C placed back in her care.
106She testified that the mother would usually reach out by email asking for help, sometimes due to feeling overwhelmed, rarely mentioning a time frame. B.B. usually reached out to the mother to return C to the mother’s care. She reported any concerns she had to the Society, the primary one being C’s manner of dress which was incongruous with the weather.
107B.B. described C as a very engaging little girl who is adored. She goes to bed regularly without complaints. She is resilient. She has friends in daycare.
108B.B. felt that the mother needed looking after as much as C. She explained trying to help the mother whenever she could, such as emotional support or transportation or giving her tips or tricks. She assisted the mother in planning for C’s baptism at the United Church and taking her to doctors’ appointments. She participated in network meetings and safety planning and supported the mother by caring for C. B.B. felt that the best thing for C was to be at home with her mother, however, the mother had problems coping. Eventually, B.B. felt the situation was not improving, the mother continued to struggle with her mental health, which led her to withdraw her support. She was no longer comfortable being a part of the mother’s safety network.
109The mother told B.B. that C’s biological father was dead, and then said it was someone that she did not want to associate with C.
110B.B. spoke of a time when she saw C at the top of the stairs in the mother’s home, and there was no gate to prevent her from falling. This was vehemently denied by the mother, who indicated that she would never leave C upstairs unattended unless she was in her crib. She also had a baby gate in place.
111The evidence shows that C was meeting all her milestones, that there were no concerns regarding C’s health, and C has no special needs.
112The Society was concerned about the impact on C as she continues to get older. She had a greater awareness of about her mother as time progressed. Given C has spent over half her life in care, the Society articulated that she deserves permanency.
113As noted above, the mother identified C’s biological father on day 4 of trial as J.L. He was produced by the Society as a witness on February 6, 2026. J.L. testified that he met the mother when C was six months old through a dating app, never having spoken to her prior. There was therefore absolutely no possibility that he was C’s father. She spoke to him about a “Z” being C’s father. As a result of their three-month relationship, J.L. and the mother had a child together that was placed for private adoption. The night prior to giving his evidence, he received several private number phone calls. At about 3am he saw a message from the mother that she was going to overdose on fentanyl, that she did not want to face him and begged him not to testify. He contacted police and given them pictures of the message. He understood she had been apprehended under the MHA and was in hospital. This evidence went unchallenged by the mother.
The mother’s parenting plan / plan of care
114The Mother’s Plan of Care sets out that she wishes C to be returned to her care. She maintained that throughout her involvement with the Society, and despite her mental health struggles, she had always had positive and appropriate interactions with C. She has demonstrated an ability to compartmentalize her problems and keep them to herself. She testified that she has maintained steady employment for over two years, where she has flexible hours to ensure she can care for C. She has demonstrated being able to attend work despite her struggles, even when it is awful. She said she used to “feel awful” every day, but this has diminished in frequency. Her job is to take care of C, and she has been able to “keep it together” to prioritize her care of her baby.
115Currently, the mother is laid off from her position as a Human Resources Assistant. She expects to return to work in April 2026. She has some flexibility in her employment which has permitted her to accommodate a visitation schedule during the trial. The mother however is seeking employment elsewhere to avoid regular layoffs due to work shortages.
116C has a room in the mother’s home, and all she would need would be to de-clutter C’s old toys and secure a toddler bed for her return. The home itself is in a good state of repair. She has all the furniture and appliances to care for C.
117The mother continues to have access to regular daycare for C, and in the past had been able to hire babysitters if her work hours did not directly fit inside the daycare hours. There were no concerns noted with these babysitters and Ms. Gariepy confirmed that she trusted the mother to choose appropriate people to watch C. She has never needed to find a sitter for C while at the hospital.
118The mother would continue to use the same daycare as C currently attends and continue to have C’s same routine as in the foster home. She was able to describe C’s routine.
119She described being able to advocate for C, and this court has no doubt the mother can communicate effectively with teachers and professionals on C’s behalf, including regarding any difficult conversations.
120The mother’s evidence was that there was only one instance of her attending the hospital in recent months. This was not disputed. Further, there was no evidence of recent reports of online posts or concerns from family members or the community regarding the mother apart from the February 5, 2026, incident.
121Ms. Gariepy acknowledged that there could have been a link to the time when the mother was having mental health issues and her being postpartum.
122It was undisputed that C was never hurt while in the mother’s care, or that she had appropriate caregiving skills.
123The mother has attended the “TDP” or transitional day program. This was an outpatient service to support those with mental health issues. She said it was targeted to help people with depression and anxiety, like a more intensive group session. The program runs twice per week. Initially, she was unable to attend more than once per week due to her work schedule but committed to attending once per week. She started it up again in November 2025 and completed the program, which was about twelve weeks long. There, she learned about coping skills which she tries to implement in her life. She spoke of “opposition action,” which is doing the opposite of what you feel like doing. For instance, she said if you feel like staying in bed all day, it is better to get up.
124The mother discussed that she first met Dr. Rahmani in the emergency room in July 2024. At the time he was assessing her, but she was discharged. He eventually took her on as an outpatient, but she did not feel they had a good rapport in that she found him to be unprofessional and did not support her as she needed. She articulated she felt she needed more counselling, but he gave her medication and sent her on her way. She tried to discuss side effects, and he dismissed her, saying she was not compliant with the medication.
125When Dr. Rahmani left, she was unable to get her medication prescribed. However, with the help of her counsellors, this was rectified. The mother is currently taking medication for mood stabilization and depression. She is currently seeing a psychiatrist through outpatient mental health to get medication re-prescribed in the meantime. She feels the medication is helping her.
126The mother spoke of her support through Serge Perreault, whom she met through V Smart. She usually saw him every second week, but it was difficult to accommodate during the trial. His role is both counselling and helping the mother access services and medication. In cross-examination she believed that Mr. Perreault was doing cognitive behavioural therapy with her.
127The mother’s evidence was that if C were in her care and she had to go to the hospital because of what someone else said about her or being suicidal, she would call her father or Eric to care for C. If neither of them was available, she would call one of her babysitters. She has funds saved for emergencies.
128Eric was described as a friend from Cornwall who works at the same place as the mother. He has two children with some special needs. The mother was concerned about C being cared for at his place due to “clutter” issues. Further, all of C’s belongings are available at her home. She felt he was an appropriate caregiver for C, and for a short-term solution she felt there was sufficient space in her home for him and his children should he be required to care for C.
129The mother’s evidence was that Eric has a key to her house, and she would be okay to give him the Wi-Fi password and a written copy of C’s routine.
130Eric is aware of the mother’s mental health issues and confirmed he was prepared to care for C if ever she was hospitalized. He has no concerns about caring for C. He has been to their home and is able to stay there to care for her. He has been employed at the same place as the mother for twelve years. He typically works Sunday to Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 3pm. While he can take time off from work for emergency purposes, the company prefers that he give more notice, failing which the company takes disciplinary actions against him.
131Eric did not recall a time when the mother would have messaged him that she was going to kill herself. He believed she had only told him about it after the fact.
132He testified that when he had cared for C overnight due to the mother being hospitalized, C had not wanted to go to bed. It had been challenging as she would only go down for a few hours, then up again, and then he tired her out and put her back to bed. His own children, who have special needs, prefer to be in their home environment.
133Contrary to the mother’s evidence, and to that of the Society, Eric felt his home was safe for C. Further, Eric said he did not have a key to the mother’s home. He believed a copy of C’s routine would be on the fridge. He had no knowledge of the mother having Wi-Fi.
134The mother also indicated that her father was a support person. Their relationship is generally very positive but there have been some challenges with her mother which can get in the way. He is usually able to be responsive to requests from her.
135It was put to her that in the past, she had to rely on B.B. to care for C for several days at a time. The mother denied requiring that level of support anymore. She would rely on her father to come down every second weekend to provide some respite, but in her home, for the day. She acknowledged that he was not yet sure how he felt about not bringing her mother, C’s grandmother. She would, however, also use Eric as a support.
136The mother confirmed in cross-examination that her visits since October 2025 were fully supervised. She acknowledged that Ms. Gariepy told her that if she brought her support people forward, they could supervise her visits with C, thus augmenting the currently scheduled visits. She confirmed doing this twice with Eric. She suggested she offered her father as a support person in December but stated that Ms. Gariepy did not think that would help the situation. Her father did not end up supervising a visit. When asked why she did not propose Eric supervise more visits, her evidence was that she did not want to put that pressure on other people to “satisfy your guys’ concerns” because she did not feel she needed supervision. When it was suggested that she could have had more visits if she had brought people forward to supervise the visits, she indicated that her supports are frustrated by the Society’s position regarding supervision. She too is frustrated. It would be different if she was in the hospital, as it would be a personal thing, not to “satisfy you guys.”
137When asked what the Society’s concerns were, she indicated that supervision was not required, and her mental health was in a better place thus not requiring the amount of support she required in the past.
138When asked about prior attempts to harm herself, she testified that her family has called the police due to concerns about her. She confirmed that she shares with the people around her when she is struggling with her desire to end her life. Her evidence was that she has proven that she has always made conscious effort to ensure C was never in her care when she attempted to kill herself. She does not want to harm herself in her presence or leave C in a situation where she does not have anyone to care for her.
139The mother testified that she last saw her father two weeks prior and had been seeing him without her mother. She articulated it was also without C, because the Society does not work weekends and it makes it difficult to plan anything. When asked if her father had been approved to supervise visits between the mother and C, the mother stated she never got a clear answer on that topic.
140The mother has a positive relationship with her brother, but he resides very far away so they usually communicate by telephone.
141The mother also has friends and family in Cornwall but did not specify what, if any, roles they would play in supporting her or C.
142She described having a close relationship with her son’s adoptive parents who reside outside the jurisdiction. They had brought him down, and she has gone to see him. C has met and played with her brother, and this is a relationship the mother hopes to continue.
143C was described as enjoying imaginary play. They have tea parties together, they play with stuffed animals, they draw together or go to the park and play places. They spend time outdoors. The visits are always positive, which was confirmed by Ms. Gariepy.
144There was contradictory evidence as to whether the mother was adopted. The mother said she did not tell Mr. Perreault, her counsellor, she was adopted, but as noted below, he recalled her telling him she was. Regardless, it was clear is she has a conflictual relationship with her mother. She has a good relationship with her father whom she relies upon as part of her safety network and a support person for C. Her father did not testify, but there is no evidence that he is not a support for her.
145In response to the concerns about her killing herself, the mother articulated that there was a time when that was a difficult situation for her, but her mental health is improving, she has a lot more people in her corner than in the past, and she has gotten some closure about her son that was adopted. She is in a better place now and that is a lot less likely to happen.
146The mother acknowledged being brought to the hospital on July 26, 2024, but not admitted. Again, she was brought to the hospital August 18, 2024, Formed and admitted. She was not postpartum but very upset and did not want to harm herself as she was heavily pregnant.
147She was hospitalized for mental health issues from September 26, 2024, to October 11, 2024, when C had been in her care.
148The mother confirmed in her evidence that she posted online on Reddit. One post, marked as Exhibit 11, from on or about November 14, 2024, was entitled “Dear C ‘my little owl’ was a goodbye letter that spoke of the mother’s suffering “in ways that couldn’t be fixed,” that her “suffering became too much so I felt it was best for both of us that I said goodbye.” Exhibit 12, another Reddit post from the same time period was entitled “Hoping for closure. It spoke of her grief over placing her child for adoption and losing her baby. She was hoping for closure before she “leaves this world forever.” During this time C was in her care but the mother articulated it was a “venting post” and she had no active plan to kill herself. She had been Formed, but not admitted on November 13 to 14, 2024.
149In April 2025, one week prior to C returning to her care, the mother “hung” and “unhung” herself. She expressed she was devastated about seeing her son.
150In July 2025, one week prior to C returning to her care, she overdosed on pills. The mother explained she was being harassed by her ex again, with him and his mother encouraging her to commit suicide. She could not handle it anymore.
151The last time she was in the emergency room was February 5, 2026. At that time, she was not planning on harming herself. The one prior to that was in October or November 2025.
152When discussing the stressors that led to her mental health issues or hospitalizations, the mother acknowledged this included conflict with her mother, the stressors over what happened with her ex, giving up her child and partly because of the CAS involvement and the situation she was in. However, when it was put to her that things were going to be fine and her ex would stop harassing her, she was unable to speak to that as she does not have control over that. She had put safeguards in place to make it more difficult for him and his mother to cause problems. She has cut contact with her mother, which has brought relief for her. She continues to use Reddit but has not posted in a long time. She is going to live with the grief of placing her son for adoption but has a bit of closure now that she has a relationship with his adoptive parents.
153The mother also recognizes that C is getting to an age that she understands more. The mother used to tell herself when she was suicidal that C was too young to really remember her should something happen. C is now at the age where she will remember her mother and that loss would affect her. This is not something the mother can deal with, she does not want any possible suicide to affect C.
154Ultimately, the mother wishes C returned to her care. She believes it is in C’s best interest, and she loves her very much.
Mental Health evidence
155There was a plethora of medical evidence upon which the Society wished to rely and for which they provided Notice pursuant to the Ontario Evidence Act. The question which required a mid-trial ruling was whether the mother’s medical records, either obtained with the mother’s consent or through a records application, ought to be admissible and considered by this court. The parties argued whether the hospital records were medical reports pursuant to s.52 OEA and/or business records pursuant to s.35 OEA, and what reliance the court can place on same. Authenticity was not contested, but admissibility was. Both parties agreed that there was no definition of “report” under the OEA. While the mother argued they may possibly be “records,” the Society argued that the discharge summaries and consultation notes were signed and dated, thus reports. The mother argued that at best, the medical records could be used to confirm dates and times of admission, who she would have seen while present and personal observations.
156With the onus being on the Society, I found that the records were relevant, necessary and that threshold reliability had been met based on the indicia of reliability in this case. The records in question were made in the ordinary course of business. Many were signed. There was significant reliability in these records such that I was of the view that the necessity requirement could be relaxed. I found that substantive reliability and procedural reliability would need to be assessed after hearing all the evidence.
157I also found that the records which were submitted which contained a doctor’s signature constituted reports and therefore were admissible under s.52 OEA. If wrong, I was of the view that those reports, and the balance of the hospital records, were admissible under s.35 OEA. If wrong, then I found that all the records and reports met the requirements to fall within the common-law exception to hearsay.
158In sum, the reports and records were admitted into evidence, subject to what weight, if any, I would ultimately place on said reports and/or records after considering the evidence as a whole.
159Having carefully reviewed the records filed, I conclude that only limited probative weight can be afforded to parts of Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. In particular, the absence of signatures and dates on some of these materials undermines their authenticity, reliability, and consequently their evidentiary value. However, other parts of the same exhibits which are specifically addressed below I find appropriate to attach some weight, namely those reports that are properly signed and dated and therefore satisfy the threshold for consideration as reliable evidence.
160I am of the view that the dates and length of admission are particularly salient, which are also corroborated by Ms. Gariepy’s evidence and the mother’s evidence.
161The evidence establishes that the mother was formed pursuant to s. 17 MHA on 13 occasions and admitted on seven occasions from January 25, 2023, to November 2025.
162There were four extended admissions, including:
the Montfort hospital from September 26, 2024, to October 11, 2024;
the Cornwall Community Hospital from January 10, 2025, to January 14, 2025;
the Brockville hospital from April 23, 2025, to May 1, 2025;
the Cornwall Community Hospital from July 26, 2025, to August 1, 2025;
163During the Montfort admission, Dr. Beaudry signed the October 17, 2024, psychiatric discharge summary. In that report, Dr. Beaudry noted that the mother reported a side effect of drowsiness regarding her medication; and other side effects of other medication previously used. The mother had attempted to kill herself by overdosing on Vyvanse “in the context of postpartum depressive symptoms, recent relationship breakup, and harassment from her ex-partner.” There were additional stressors mentioned. She expressed feelings of hopelessness. Eventually her suicidality went back to baseline and she was discharged with a plan including an appointment with outpatient psychiatry the following day.
164The progress note signed by Dr. Rahmani, dated April 25, 2024, spoke of conflict between the mother and C’s maternal grandmother and the effect of the mother seeing her adopted son and C together. She stopped seeing her counsellor a few weeks prior as she was told that they could not help her. She struggled with suicidal thoughts and tried to hang herself. There was a noted lack of supports and she was not committed to safety. This resulted in an extended admission in the Brockville Hospital. Dr. Eid’s discharge report signed on May 2, 2025, spoke of the mother trying to suffocate herself using a bed sheet while in the hospital but it “was not serious.” She disagreed with taking mood stabilizers for fear of weight gain.
165The discharge summary report signed by Dr. Abdullayeva on August 1, 2025 addressed the mother’s overdosing suicide attempt of July 26, 2025. The mother spoke of upcoming court, chronic suicidal thoughts and not being able to use coping skills in stressful moments. During her admission she continued to voice not wanting to be alive, complaining of the unsuccessful suicide attempt. When she was discharged, she denied any intent or plan on hurting herself and acknowledged that these overt plans usually come on impulsively when she is struggling emotionally, generally she wants to feel better and be there for C. For the same hospital stay Dr. Rahmani in his consultation notes signed on July 26, 2025, the mother spoke of C not being with her when she attempted to kill herself by overdosing. She wrote a suicide note and was expecting to die in the night.
166In Dr. Abdullayeva’s consultation note signed September 27, 2025, the mother acknowledged not following up with Dr. Rahmani as she was uncomfortable due to the fact that he was going to testify at the CAS trial.
167In the progress note dated September 30, 2025, signed by Dr. Abdullayeva, the mother agreed to try to go to CAMH to look into wait times for Adult Mental Health Services, was going to have her medication refilled and had attended TDP that same day.
Dr. Rahmani report
168The Society filed as an exhibit the medical report of Dr. Mohammad Rahmani. In my view, that report clearly falls under s.52 OEA as he was a treating practitioner involved with the mother. That report was filed with the consent of both parties.
169I find that greater weight can be attributed to Dr. Rahmani’s report as he was at one point a regularly treating psychiatrist assisting the mother. The court is of course mindful of the mother’s view of Dr. Rahmani.
170Dr. Rahmani’s report is dated February 11, 2026. He is a psychiatrist. He had met the mother in the emergency department on four occasions, with the first contact occurring in July 2024. On the first occasion there were concerns about possible psychotic symptoms. The following three contacts were related to suicidal attempts, which resulted in two admissions in the psychiatry department and on one occasion a transfer to the Brockville hospital due to a lack of beds in their department. Dr. Rahmani described the mother on all three of these occasions as being very suicidal and was not committing to safety. She attempted suicide on multiple occasions by hanging, overdosing and inhaling helium.
171Dr. Rahmani noted in his report that “it was a consensus opinion” by the psychiatrists which had treated her that “she was suffering from borderline personality disorder because of her extreme emotional reactivity and instability, impulsivity, suicidal behavior, self-image problems, binge eating, interpersonal relationship problems and transient psychotic episodes.” Her attendance was not regular due to working and because she was not finding the medications and psychotherapy effective. As contact with her increased she became firmer in not using medications or attending psychotherapy. “She was convinced that both medicines and psychotherapy were not working for her.”
172Dr. Rahmani did not receive any reports that the mother was not providing proper care to C. She consistently stated that she never attempted suicide in C’s presence and made sure C was in a safe place before attempting anything. She never expressed any thoughts of harm towards C. “She was unable to understand that her behaviour was raising concerns for the safety of [C] and herself.”
173During his treatment of her, the mother’s symptoms were severe in intensity, and due to her frequently threatening suicide there were multiple psychiatric admissions.
174During his involvement the mother never got any break from the stressors which included alleged threats from her ex-partner and his mother; allegedly being forced to give up her son for adoption; and fear of losing custody of C through CAS and “still could not prevent herself from attempting suicide when she knew the outcome of these attempts.”
175Dr. Rahmani specifies that her principal diagnosis is borderline personality disorder which is characterized by mood dysregulation, anger episodes, high anxiety and panic attacks, feelings of emptiness and boredom, impulsivity, suicidal behaviour and attempts and transient psychotic symptoms. He indicated that patients with this diagnosis have the most severe symptoms during their early adult years, and they start to get milder with aging. There can be a period of remission for what can be for years, and that 8 to 10 percent of patients commit suicide.
176Treatment for borderline personality disorder is primarily by psychotherapy and specifically by dialectical behavioural therapy. Cognitive behavioural therapy is also helpful. Medicine is prescribed to control the prominent symptoms such as depression, mood fluctuations, anxiety, panic attacks and impulsivity.
Serge Perreault
177Serge Perreault, the mother’s counsellor through the Concurrent Disorder Program, testified on her behalf. He started working with her in October 2025 as a result of the V Smart team asking him to attend while the mother was in crisis. At the time, there had been a lot of activations for the emergency department with a high use of different types of crisis services. His role is to assist the mother to try to stabilize her lifestyle.
178When Mr. Perreault first met the mother, she was interested in services and wanted support. She was initially scared, but after a few weeks he was able to reassure her. The mother attended diligently unless sick, despite the weather conditions she walked to his appointments. Their appointments vary between telephone or face to face, at least once a week, up to sometimes twice per week.
179The goal is to stabilize the mother’s situation, understand what is going on, decrease the use of services and manage her thinking differently. They try to create stability and move forward with goals, one of which is having C returned to her care.
180For now, they mainly focus on one-on-one counselling and support her with psychiatrist appointments.
181Mr. Perreault felt there had been a decrease in admissions and activations or use of services. The mother has told him she felt she needed someone on her side. He has been supporting her with her thinking and helping her through the crisis. They have worked on her challenging her thinking and he has seen some positive accomplishments. There has been progress with stress management, which he felt was demonstrated by the decrease in admissions and activations or even attempts, or talking of, suicide.
182He plans to continue to support the mother, and once stability is established, the next step would be participating in groups or looking further into therapy. The marker to determine that sufficient stability has been established to progress to the next step would be the mother becoming a little more resilient dealing with difficult issues, continuing with the plan about appropriate activation of services and use of crisis services, and that she keeps showing up. He can support the mother for up to two years in this program. Currently there is no plan to stop the services or support. He would even be able to support the mother with CAS interactions and meetings.
183Mr. Perreault did not recall speaking to Ms. Gariepy in January 2026.
184Contrary to the mother’s evidence, Mr. Perreault recalled her telling her something along the lines that she had been adopted.
185To his knowledge, the last time the mother used emergency services for a suicide attempt was in September. However, to his credit, he indicated that it did not mean there had not been any other calls for services.
186Mr. Perreault also clarified that he has not engaged in cognitive or dialectical behavioural therapy with the mother as his role is to first stabilize her, challenge her to do forward thinking and increase the hope, and decrease the crisis. Once that has been established, and she has stabilized, then they can move on to therapy.
187She has made comments of not having hope or difficulty in her thinking, but this, to his knowledge, has not led to activation. The virtual concurrent disorder program is available once the mother has stabilized.
Findings
(i) Statutory Findings
188Pursuant to section 90 (2) of the CYFSA, the court must make several statutory findings prior to determining whether the child is in need of protection. The court must make findings regarding:
a. The child's name and age;
b. Whether the child is First Nations, Inuit, or Métis child, and if so, what is the child's bands and/or First Nations, Inuit, or Métis communities, if any.
c. Where the child was brought to a place of safety before the hearing, a finding regarding the location of the place from which the child was removed.
189The child was brought to a place of safety from the mother’s care on December 18, 2024. This removal was based on the Society’s concerns regarding the mother’s mental health.
190The child's particulars were confirmed by the mother on several occasions, including in her Answer and Plan of Care dated February 11, 2025; her Amended Answer and Plan of Care, which was purportedly dated January 16, 2025 but signed by “Leanna Lilley for Cedric Nahum” who has been the mother’s counsel since October 2025. The mother confirmed the child’s particulars on record before Justice Bergeron on August 27, 2025. There was a Statement of Agreed Facts which was filed in January 2024 which also confirmed the child’s particulars.
191In both her Answer and Amended APOC, the mother lists the father as “unknown.” On day four of trial, the mother’s counsel advised the court that the father has now been identified as J.L. The mother’s counsel confirmed that she would attest to that fact on the record once called.
192Despite the late revelation of the child’s purported father, the Society was able to produce J.L. at the trial. Having heard his evidence, I find that he is not the child’s biological father. J.L.’s evidence was that he only met the mother for the first time when C was six months old, in 2023. Their relationship lasted three months. There was no evidence of settled intention or acknowledgement of parentage. His evidence went unchallenged by the mother. I do not find that J.L. falls within the definition of a “parent” under s.74(1) CYFSA or s.7 CLRA.
193The mother provided no further evidence regarding the identity of the father. This court is satisfied that C’s biological father is “unknown.”
194This court finds that the child’s particulars are the following: C.L.R. was born [omitted] 2023. She is now 2 years old. R.R. is the child’s biological mother. The biological father is unknown. The child is not First Nations, Inuit or Metis. The child was removed from the mother’s care, from the SD&G jurisdiction.
(ii) Finding in Need of Protection
195The paramount purpose of the CYFSA as set out in s. 1 is to "promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children." The CYFSA is remedial legislation and should be interpreted broadly with a view to achieving this purpose.8
196The structure of a child protection application under the CYFSA is a two-step process. Prior to turning to disposition, the court must first determine if the child is in need of protection under s. 74(2) of the CYFSA. In accordance with s. 93(2) CYFSA, evidence relating only to disposition shall not be considered in determining if the child is in need of protection.
197The Society advances that the child is in need of protection pursuant to section 74(2) (b)(ii); 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1:
74(2) A child is in need of protection where:
(b) 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 (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;
(h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm, demonstrated by serious: anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development; resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
198The Society’s evidence centers around their concerns regarding the mother’s mental health and suicide attempts, thereby putting the child at risk of physical and/or emotional harm.
199The onus rests on the Society to demonstrate the grounds for the findings that the child is in need of protection, such onus must be proven on a balance of probabilities.
200For reasons set out below, I am of the view that findings can be made that the child was and is in need of protection pursuant to s.74(2)(h) CYFSA. I decline to make a finding on the other ground raised by the Society as I am of the view that the Society has not met its onus on the other ground.
s.74(b)(ii) Allegations that the child is at risk to suffer physical harm inflicted by the mother or caused by her patterns of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child
201Clause 74 (2) (b) involves a risk of physical harm to the child. The risk is that the child is likely to suffer physical harm. “Likely” to suffer has the implied connotation of “more probable than not.”
202The Society must prove causation by act, omission, or pattern. It is not necessary to prove intention.9
203Physical harm caused by neglect or error in judgment is still physical harm. But it must be more than trifling physical harm.10
204The risk of harm must be real and likely, not speculative.11
205A child may be at risk even if the conduct is not directed specifically towards that child. 12
206Physical abuse, inappropriate discipline, inadequate supervision, domestic violence, untreated mental illness, untreated addictions, inadequate shelter/food are common circumstances leading to findings of physical harm/risk of physical harm. 13
s.74(h) CYFSA: risk of emotional harm
207For a finding under clause 74(2)(h) CYFSA, risk of emotional harm, the Society must establish prescribed symptoms of emotional harm and must show a real likelihood of harm on a balance of probabilities. The degree of harm must be serious and must be connected to the parenting.14
208Section 74 (2) (h) is a ground that involves risk of emotional harm to the child. Therefore, it looks to the future. The type(s) of harm, the degree of the harm, and the causal connection of the harm to the mother’s or father’s conduct, prerequisites for a finding under (h) grounds, are all necessary for the Society to prove to the court that it has met the test with respect to this ground. Although no actual emotional harm symptoms are needed to be shown, the Society cannot rely only on the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that a risk exists. This ground requires the society to show that the risk does exist, and to do it on the balance of probabilities. “Risk” has been said to mean “more likely than not”.15
209In its evidence, the Society must first establish that there is a risk that the child will suffer at least one of the emotional harms found in 74(2)(f), being anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development. Second, that the degree of the harm is one that is serious, as opposed to minimal, mild, or moderate. Third, it has to establish that the risk of whatever emotional harm it is alleging, is causally connected to, or “resulting from”, the parents, and specifically by the actions, failure to act, or pattern of neglect of these parents.16
210The Court of Appeal has held that the risk of removal from a long-term caregiver may ground such a finding.17
211Numerous other cases establish that expert evidence of emotional harm or risk of emotional harm is not a prerequisite.18
212The onus is on the Society to show that the risk exists, on a balance of probabilities.
Mother’s mental health
213C was brought to a place of safety from her mother’s care on December 18, 2024. She is now two years old. C does not have any special needs. Initially, the Society sought an order for interim Society Care. However, on May 27, 2025, the Society amended their application seeking extended society care. The grounds for this request as articulated by the Society are based on the pattern and chronicity of the mother’s mental health struggles. Her ongoing suicidal ideation and suicide attempts put C at risk of emotional and possibly physical harm, and the mother does not have an adequate plan to mitigate these concerns.
214The mother argues that the Society has not met its burden, and C should be returned to her care. She points to the circumstances beyond her mental health, which includes functioning in the community, maintaining housing and employment, despite her mental health struggles. She articulated that C has not been impacted by her struggles as C continues to thrive. She has been able to separate her difficulties from her ability to care for C and places her child’s needs first. The mother argued that when she has tried to end her life, she ensured C was in a safe place and not at immediate risk.
215The evidence shows that but for the mother’s mental health struggles, the Society would not be involved with C. They have found that she has good parenting skills; there are no issues regarding addictions; housing; making appropriate decisions including caregivers; seeking medical attention; etc. The evidence also shows that C and her mother are bonded and love one another.
Analysis
216The fact that the mother suffers from mental health disorders does not automatically lead to a finding. People with mental illness are entitled to become irritated, upset, impatient and angry without their conduct being pathologized as symptomatic.19 Many parents with mental health issues parent their children well — others can't. There is a wide range of mental illnesses that affect parents differently and, by extension, affect their children differently.20
217As stated in R.S., supra,21 the court needs to assess several factors to determine if a parent's mental illness places a child at risk of harm and if so, whether a child can still be placed in the parent's care. These factors include:
a) The type of mental illness the parent has.
b) The severity of the mental illness.
c) The frequency of the parent's mental illness symptoms - whether they are situational or chronic.
d) The impact of the mental illness on the parent's functioning.
e) The impact of the mental illness on the parent's parenting.
f) Other risk factors impacting on the mental illness, including substance abuse, difficulties with interpersonal relationships, domestic violence and other stressors such as unstable housing and financial problems.
g) The impact of the mental illness on the children.
h) The insight of the parent into their mental illness.
i) The ability of the parent to meaningfully engage with supports to address the mental health issues.
j) Whether the parent is compliant with treatment recommendations.
k) The strength of the parent's support system, the insight of those support persons into the parent's mental health issues and the ability of those persons to prioritize a child's needs to those of the parent's and to protect the child.
l) Whether the children have any needs that make them more vulnerable to compromised parenting.
218Here, the mother has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, which as noted by Dr. Rahmani, is characterized by mood dysregulation, anger episodes, high anxiety and panic attacks, feelings of emptiness and boredom, impulsivity, suicidal behaviour and attempts and transient psychotic symptoms.
219I find that the Society has demonstrated that there have been repeated attempts by the mother to take her own life. The evidence establishes that she has been Formed on 13 occasions and admitted on 7 occasions since January 2023. Three of the admissions were extended stays and occurred in 2025. Two of the admissions were on the eve of C being returned to her care. There is only evidence of one recent medical intervention where the police took her to the hospital on February 5, 2026. She was not admitted.
220The mother articulated that the stressors included the Society’s involvement, conflict with her mother, being harassed by her ex-boyfriend and his mother, the effect of her son being adopted coupled with seeing him, and on some occasions being postpartum. The mother’s evidence was that she is now in a better place. While she has indicated she has put in some safeguards, the reality is that the mother cannot control these outside stressors. In April 2025 a visit with her son caused her to be admitted to the hospital for a prolonged period of time.
221Mr. Perreault agrees with the mother in that there have been less activations and she is making progress. She is engaged in services. However, he is not of the view that she has yet achieved stability, and they have not yet progressed to dialectical behaviour therapy or cognitive behaviour therapy which are recommended treatments.
222There has been no noted impact on the mother’s parenting functioning. She has maintained employment, housing, and has been engaged in services.
223The mother’s mental health issues have had an impact on her parenting, specifically that she has been unable to parent when she was admitted for three prolonged periods in 2025 as well as at irregular intervals since 2023. This has created breakdowns in caregiving, thus, in my view, not prioritizing the child’s needs. The mother’s evidence was that now that C was getting older, the child understands more and therefor she will stop attempting to harm herself. This has not yet proven to be true as in two prior attempts to return C to the mother’s care, the mother’s stressors led to her admissions to the hospital due to mental health concerns.
224However, notably, she has never harmed the child and has on many occasions made appropriate arrangements for the child’s care. This is not true, in my view, regarding the July 26, 2025, admission, where she was “planning to be dead.” The evidence suggests that the risk the mother poses includes an impacted ability to be fully attuned to C's emotional needs.
225The mother articulated struggles with finances in the past due to being laid off and conflict with her ex-boyfriend and her mother. These are, in my view, other risk factors impacting on her mental health.
226The impact of the mental illness on the child is mainly the mother’s absence and unavailability. There was evidence that the child may have been exposed to the mother’s sadness and depressed mood. The mother acknowledged that as C is getting older, the impact would increase in significance. The mother has, but for one occasion, and sometimes with the assistance of CAS, always made reasonable provisions for C’s care.
227I found the mother lacked insight into how her mental illness affects C. She was unable to understand why the Society wanted her visits to be supervised despite her admission that she was occasionally unable to shield C from emotional collapse. She has however more recently made stronger commitments to addressing her mental health, with Mr. Perreault, as well as reconnecting with psychiatry and attending the transitional day program.
228She has demonstrated an ability to engage with Mr. Perreault since the fall of 2025 and her current service providers. The mother’s commitment to addressing her mental health prior to fall 2025 was less consistent. Mr. Perreault’s evidence was that he was helping the mother manage from one day to another, reducing admissions and using crisis services. I find that she has improved in her ability to manage stress, including for most of the trial. However, she has, in my view and that of Mr. Perreault’s, not yet achieved sufficient stability to proceed to the next steps to address her issues.
229The mother has in the past not been compliant with her medication and went for a while without any medication. Thus far she has not commenced DBT or CBT. However, her evidence is that she is now compliant with treatment recommendations.
230The mother has the support of both Eric and her father. In my view, these supports are limited in what they can offer. Eric has two children with special needs who prefer to be in their own environment. Based on the evidence at trial, I am not of the view that Eric’s home is safe for C. Though he confirmed he can assist the mother to care for C, ideally, he would want advanced notice. The mother’s mental health issues do not permit such notice. Further, Eric’s own evidence was that caring for C for one overnight was challenging. The evidence shows that the mother has been admitted in 2025 for 3 days, 4 days and once for 8 days. I am concerned that any prolonged admissions by the mother would not be well managed by Eric given his other responsibilities to his other children and C’s needs.
231The mother’s evidence was that her father can come down every second weekend to provide some daytime respite in her home. Since visits have been fully supervised, he has not supervised a single visit. It was unclear whether this would come to fruition given the conflict with her mother, but on its face, I accept that this is viable. I also accept that the mother has access to babysitters and/or daycare as additional support.
232While the mother denied requiring the level of support she needed in 2024 when C was in her care, history has shown that B.B. provided regular and significant support to the mother in caring for C, sometimes several days at a time. The level of support currently proffered is significantly less than what was required by the mother in the past, which is concerning.
233The evidence supports a finding that C does not have any special needs that makes her more vulnerable, apart from her young age. She is not yet three years of age, and thus unable to fend for her herself, or pick up a phone to call for help if so required.
234The mother has only started to show insight as to her mental health struggles. The evidence shows a recent decline in her attempts to take her own life. However, a good indicator of future behaviour is past history. In March 2025, she had been without activation for a couple of months, and when reintegration was attempted, there was a significant mental health event.
235History however is not determinative. As per Dr. Rahmani’s report, there is a chance given the mother’s current age that her symptoms become milder with aging. Further, there are people with symptoms like the mother’s who can have periods of remission which can last for variable intervals, up to years. I also acknowledge Dr. Rahmani’s evidence that only 8 to 10 percent of patients complete suicide.
236The mother argued that even at its greatest, that speculative risk of suicide does not raise the risk to a level beyond a reasonable doubt. To separate C from her mother permanently when there is less than a 1 in 10 chance that she may kill herself and not provide a safe place for C is not a significant enough risk.
237The court accepts that the mother’s suicide attempts have decreased since October 2025. She was however brought to the hospital on February 5, 2026. J.L. provided evidence, which was unchallenged, about the mother threatening to kill herself if he testified. Such communications or threats of self-harm were denied by the mother in her evidence.
238There was evidence that the mother’s mental health issues have been significant and only recently have they been addressed to permit some measure of stability. However, Mr. Perreault’s evidence was that stability has not yet been fully achieved, and he continues to assist her in managing her daily struggles. There is insufficient evidence to establish meaningful change in the mother’s mental health.
239The mother was unable to identify the Society’s safety concerns and lacked insight as to why supervision was necessary. She criticized the Society for imposing conditions on her visits, and but for two occasions did not ask her support network to supervise visits which would have increased her time with C. She articulated that she did not want to put that pressure on other people to “satisfy your guys’ concerns” because she did not feel she needed supervision.
240While there could be an argument that the stressors which led to mother wishing to commit suicide were situational and not chronic as the Society advances, I am unable to find that, apart from postpartum, the stressors have vanished from the mother’s life. One way or another the Society will continue to be involved with the mother. The mother cannot control her ex-boyfriends’ actions or those of his mother or her own mother.
241The mother articulated that she has always ensured that C was in a safe place when she attempted to end her life. However, the evidence which I accept includes that the mother’s attempt to end her life in July 2025, and she did not safety plan for C. The mother’s plan had been “to be dead”, regardless of the fact that C was scheduled to see her the following day. In that instance, she did not reach out to any of her supports to ensure C was protected from what the mother thought was her final ending.
242C needs her mother to be consistent and reliable in her life. I am of the view that this unfortunately has not been the case.
243With the onus on the Society, on a balance of probabilities, based on all the evidence, I find that C is at risk of serious emotional harm pursuant to s.74(2)(h) and thus in need of protection. This finding is based on the mother’s mental health struggles which lead to unpredictable interruptions in care and extended periods of unavailability. This results in caregiving breakdowns and marked instability for C.
244I am not persuaded that the child is at risk of physical harm pursuant to s. 74(b)(ii).
Disposition
245Having made findings that the child is in need of protection, the court must determine the appropriate disposition which will protect C from the risk of harm and that is in her best interests.
246The Society asks for an order for extended society care, with access to the mother.
247The mother seeks C returned to her care, with or without a supervision order.
Orders available
248If the court finds that the child is in need of protection, then the second step of the process is engaged under s. 101 of the CYFSA, which states in part:
101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child's best interests.
249Section 101 (8) of the Act provides that where a court order is not necessary to protect a child in the future, the child shall remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under the Act.
250In determining if a protection order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the importance of emotional ties between a child and the child's caregiver are an important consideration. In Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165 (S.C.C.), at para. 37, the Supreme court expressed, that the Child and Family Services Act "seeks to balance the best interests of children with the need to prevent indeterminate state intervention, while at the same time recognizing that the best interests of the child must always prevail". Because of this goal, the best interest of the child is "an important and, in the final analysis, a determining element of the decision as to the need of protection. The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order for protection or from circumstances which have arisen since that time.23
251An order under sections 101 or 102 is only made if the court is "satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future". Such orders are made "in the child's best interests" as set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA.24
252Section 74(3) CYFSA states:
74 (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,
(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;
(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and
(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.
253The court is mindful that pursuant to s.8(2) CYFSA, the child’s views are to be given due weight, in accordance with the child’s age and maturity. In this case, such evidence is not available.
254As emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada in T. (B.J.) v. D.(J.) 2022 SCC 24, such a multi-factorial legal standard, applied to determine what is in the "best interests" of a child, is necessarily a highly contextual and fact-driven exercise. No priority generally is given to one statutory factor over another, and the question of which factors are relevant is a matter of judicial discretion, having regard to the evidence before the court.25
255Before making an order under s. 101 or 102, the court is required to (1) inquire into the Society’s efforts to assist the child before intervening; (2) be satisfied that less restrictive alternatives have either failed, been refused or would not adequately protect the child and (3) consider placement with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s extended family or community.
256In order to determine the proper disposition, the court must determine what is in the children’s best interest, having regard to the paramount purpose of the Act as found in s.1(1) CYFSA.
Types of dispositions available
257The evidence shows that C has been in care for over 595 days. She is two years old.
258The length of time a child is in care is always a relevant consideration in determining placement when a child is found to be in need of protection. Time is considered from a child's needs and perspective. The time consideration, like all considerations in child protection matters, should be child focused.26
259An extended society care order may be justified where a parent lacks insight into issues, including physical and emotional harm, even where there may be other positive aspects of a parenting plan.27
260The available dispositions are extended society care, or placing the child in her mother’s care, unless I am satisfied that pursuant to s.122(5) CYFSA that a further extension is in the child’s best interest.
261On this issue, I agree with Murray J. in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.B.28, that a more liberal interpretation of the statute permits multiple extensions of time, for no more than six months at a time, in the appropriate case. The court cited with approval the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.(S.), 2011 ONCJ 803, which held that while the importance of permanency planning must be kept in mind, an inflexible approach to the extension of time limits should not be permitted to block a resolution that is in a child's best interests. This interpretation lines up with the paramount purpose of the Act.
262As stated by Sherr J in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., supra, at paras. 225 to 227:
An order placing a child in the extended society care of the society is the most profound order that a court can make. To take someone's children from them is a power that a judge must exercise only with the highest degree of caution, and only on the basis of compelling evidence, and only after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. G. (J.) (1996), 23 R.F.L. (4th) 79 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
The length of time a child is in care is at all times a relevant consideration in determining placement when a child is found to be in need of protection. Time is considered from a child's needs and perspective. The time consideration, like all considerations in child protection matters, should be child focused. See: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S. (D.) [2009 CarswellOnt 6725 (Ont. S.C.J.)], 2009 60090. also see Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., supra, at para. 225.
A child's need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child's needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to "buy" a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent's desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernible from a parent's evidence that they face some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society's removal of the child from their care and has developed some new ability as a parent.29
Is intervention through a protection order required to protect the children in the future
263As set out above, the court must determine if intervention through a protection order is required to protect the child in the future. Based on the totality of the evidence, for reasons set out in the analysis above and reasons found below, I find that court intervention is required to protect C in the future.
Efforts by the Society
264The Society's duty to provide services to a family is a fundamental issue in determining whether or not the risk to a child of being returned to a parent can be addressed. If every available service is not provided or not provided in a timely manner, then a parent is not given a reasonable opportunity to engage in those services and the ability of the parent to benefit from those services cannot be assessed by the court.30
265The Society’s primary concern throughout the file was the mother’s mental health, specifically her suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
266Despite there being several apprehensions under the MHA and/or admissions to the hospital, the Society continued to support the mother and plan for reintegration until the last time when the mother failed to plan for when C would be in her care. This was despite the mother’s mental health struggles but her honouring the safety plan. This included two reunification attempts that were ultimately not reached as the week prior to the return date the mother made extreme suicide attempts resulting in admissions to the hospital.
267I am of the view that the Society made concerted and consistent efforts to support the mother and help her address her mental health. They tried to work with her to build her support network, both personally and professionally. There were efforts to connect her with service providers. The Society advocated to have the mother reconnected with Laurie Cromwell. They made a referral to the Situation Table to obtain immediate services for the mother. Theu added Ms. Laundrie as a support to help build her supports. They ensured that their expectations were clearly articulated, in writing, and provided same to the mother.
268Since visits became fully supervised in October 2025, the Society offered a plan for increased visits supervised by the mother’s support system. Only two such visits occurred.
269I am of the view that the Society has met its obligations in this regard.
The Society’s plan of care
270The Society’s position was that there was no viable plan for the child to be placed with family or with kin. The Society is seeking extended society care of the child, with continued access to the mother with the location, duration and level of supervision at their discretion.
271There is no evidence that the current foster home is presenting a permanent plan for the child.
The mother’s plan of care
272The mother’s plan of care entails the child being returned to her care. She has the support of both Eric and her father; both of whom will provide care for C should the mother need respite or be admitted to the hospital. She also has access to babysitters and daycare should this occur. Eric has cared for C in the past and the Society did not articulate any concerns about his ability to do so in the mother’s home.
273The mother owns her home, a plenty of space for C. There were no concerns about safety or appropriateness of her home. While in the past she has struggled financially, she is doing well at this time despite being laid off. She has savings to be able to pay for babysitting or daycare if required.
274There is no doubt that the mother cares very deeply for her child, that they have a bond.
Community or family plans
275Pursuant to s. 101(4) CYFSA, the court must consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family with the consent of the relative or other person.
276There are no plans presented at this time.
Positive features of the mother’s plan
277The evidence shows that the mother is a loving, nurturing and caring mother for C. They clearly have an attachment, and the mother loves C very much.
a. The mother has strong parenting skills.
b. She displayed love and affection during visits, which are very positive.
c. While there have been periods of being laid off, the mother has demonstrated an ability to maintain full time employment and care for C at the same time, thus providing her financial stability.
d. She has been able to arrange for alternative caregivers, including daycare and babysitters without issue.
e. She has the support of her friend Eric and her father.
f. She has not missed any visits.
g. She has committed to working with Mr. Perreault to address her mental health.
h. She has completed the Transitional Day Program.
Reasons why the child cannot be returned or placed in the care of the mother
278Section 74(3)(c)(x) of the CYFSA directs the court to consider similar principles of the degree of risk of harm of returning the children to their parents, and measures that are relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the children.31
279A child's need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child's needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to "buy" a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent's desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernible from a parent's evidence that they face some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society's removal of the child from their care and had developed some new ability as a parent.32
280The evidence shows that the mother has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, which as noted by Dr. Rahmani, is characterized by mood dysregulation, anger episodes, high anxiety and panic attacks, feelings of emptiness and boredom, impulsivity, suicidal behaviour and attempts and transient psychotic symptoms. His report, which was admitted on consent, indicated that treatment of BPD is primarily by psychotherapy and specifically by dialectical behavioural therapy. Cognitive behavioural therapy is also helpful. Medicines are prescribed to control the prominent symptoms in a patient.
281The evidence shows that the mother is currently taking medication for mood stabilization and for depression. She is currently seeing a psychiatrist through outpatient mental health to get medication re-prescribed.
282Mr. Perreault felt there had been a decrease in admissions and activations or use of services as well as progress being made by the mother. His evidence was that he planned to continue to support the mother and once stability was established, the next step would be participating in groups or looking further into therapy. He confirmed that there has not yet been any cognitive or dialectical behavioural therapy offered as stability has not yet been achieved.
283On a balance of probabilities, considering the evidence as a whole, I find it is more probably than not that the mother will continue to struggle with her mental health, in particular her suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. This has been the primary contentious issue since the child was brought to a place of safety in December 2024. Since that time, the mother has been apprehended under seven times under s.17 MHA and admitted three times. Of those admissions two were just before C was returned to her care. She continues to demonstrate behaviours that indicate that her mental health issues are not under control.
284While it is true that the mother has never tried to take her own life while C was in her care, I am of the view that C has observed her mother to be struggling with her mental health. Further, and more importantly, the evidence in my view establishes that there was a marked change in July 2025. While in prior attempts to take her life the mother has made plans for C’s care, in this attempt, the mother was “planning to be dead.” She did not consider that C was showing up on her doorstep the following day for a weekend visit and the impact of same.
285The following attempt to kill herself, on September 29, 2025, the mother planned to livestream her suicide the same day C was to be in her care. The night prior, the mother has posted a video where she was intoxicated on alcohol and purportedly consumed 13 15mg tablets of Benadryl. In my view, this was an escalation of the mother’s behaviours.
286The court is concerned if C were placed with the mother, her mental health struggles would without doubt have a significant impact on her.
287The mother has shown very little insight as to the protection concerns, including the impact regarding the breakdown in caregiving, and has not demonstrated a prolonged period of mental health stability.
288Aside from the plan advanced by the mother, there was no other potential placement options identified through the evidence that were otherwise consistent with the primary placement mandates prescribed by section 101(4) or (5) of the Act.
Least Intrusive Option
289The least intrusive option in this case would be a supervision order.
290There is no doubt that the mother loves C, and vice versa.
291I have no difficulty in accepting the mother’s evidence that she is committed to working with Mr. Perreault and bettering her mental health.
292I also accept that the mother has the support of her father and Eric. However, I am not satisfied that this plan sufficiently decreases the risk to permit C to be placed in the mother’s care pursuant to a supervision order. Her plan is similar to that which was in place for most of 2025, including in March 2025. The evidence shows that when C was with her mother full time, she required strong and frequent supports from her network, which was significantly more fulsome, including B.B. While the mother argues that her mental health is better, it is clear that she has not reached sufficient stability to be able to move to DBT or CBT, which are the suggested treatments for her underlying issues.
293When considering the mother’s evidence, the lack of insight as to how her attempts to take her life led to continued instability to C and the lack of evidence of sustained stability in her mental health, I find her actions elevate that risk. The mother’s mental health instability prevents her from being a consistent and reliable parent to this vulnerable child.
294Based on the evidence, I do not find that a supervision order in favour of the mother would mitigate any risk of harm to the child.
295Having considered the provincial legislation, I do not find it would be in the child’s best interest to make an extension order pursuant to s. 122(5) of the CYFSA, enabling the court to place C in interim society care beyond the time limit set out in s. 122(1) CYFSA. The evidence does not show how more time would remedy the issues outlined above.
296C has a right to move forward with her life, and she cannot continue to wait on a proverbial shelf for her mother to see the light and make her the priority.
297Having considered all the factors outlined in the CYFSA as well as the evidence presented at trial, it is with a heavy heart that I find the least intrusive option is an order for extended society care regarding C.
Access
298Section 104 of the CYFSA sets out the court’s powers in relation to access. Section 105(4) states that where the court makes an order that a child be placed in extended society care, any order for access is terminated. Section 105(5) sets out that in considering the issue of access to a child in extended society care, the best interest of the child is the test. The court may not order access to such a child unless it is satisfied that the order would be in the child's best interests.
299Section 105(6) of the CYFSA sets out additional factors to be considered in determining whether an access order would be in the best interests of a child in extended society care. These are: (a) Whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and (b) If the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.
300Pursuant to the CYFSA, the future needs of the child are a relevant consideration. The CYFSA in and of itself must be interpreted in a liberal and expansive fashion.
301Access can come in many forms that depart from in-person visits. The exchange of gifts, emails, video chats or phone calls are all forms of access. The form and frequency of access should be tailored to the child’s specific needs and age-appropriate wishes.33
302Pursuant to subsection 105 (7) of the CYFSA, the court must specify who is an access holder and who is an access recipient in its decisions.
303In Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M.34Sherr J. discussed factors to be considered in determining whether a parent should be an access holder: “[t]he court's preference is always, where it is in the child's best interests, to make the parents access holders. This gives them a say in the contact they will have with the child post-adoption, and they don't have to rely on the society or the Office of the Children's Lawyer (if the child is made the access holder) to determine the contact.”35
Position of the parties
304As noted above, the Society is asking that the mother have regular access to C, the frequency dependent on where C resides. The mother and child should both be access holders.
305The mother sought the return of the child, failing which she wants continued access to C.
Analysis
306In determining what is in the children’s best interest, I have considered ss. 74(3) of the CYFSA and its paramount purpose found in s.1(1) CYFSA, as well as the additional purposes found in s. 1(2), and s. 8(2) CYFSA.
307I am unable to ascertain C’s views and preferences due to her age. However, there is no doubt that she and her mother share a bond and love each other.
308Both the Society and the mother agree that access is meaningful and beneficial to C. I agree.
309I find it is appropriate to grant the mother specified access to C, which shall occur as detailed in the Final Order, below. I am also of the view that pursuant to s. 105(5) and (6) CYFSA both the mother and child should be access holders and access recipients.
Final Order
310Final order to go as follows:
The child, C, is found to be in need of protection under s. 74(2)(h) CYFSA and is placed in the extended care of the society.
The mother shall have access to the child as follows:
a. So long as C is residing in the jurisdiction of SD&G, access shall be at minimum of once per week and any other times as agreed upon by the parties, taking into consideration the child’s best interest. The location, duration and level of supervision shall be at the Society’s discretion.
b. Should C move outside the jurisdiction of SD&G, access shall be at minimum of once per month and any other times as agreed upon by the parties, taking into consideration the child’s best interest. The location, duration and level of supervision shall be at the Society’s discretion.
c. The date and duration of each visit shall be arranged directly between the mother and the Society.
d. The child and the mother shall be the access holders and recipients. The above access terms shall be incorporated into the Society’s openness application, should the child be placed for adoption. All references above to the Society will be changed to reflect the adoptive parents.
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Date: March 31, 2026
CITATION: CAS SDG v. R.R., 2026 ONSC 1765
COURT FILE NO.:
DATE: 20260331
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of
Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Applicant
AND:
R.R., Respondent
Reasons for JUDGMENT
Justice Hélène C. Desormeau
Released: March 31, 2026
Footnotes
- The document was verified and for some reason the amendment has a different and sooner date than the original APOC.
- R. v. C. (H.), 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 41.
- Ibid.
- R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 at para. 49.
- R. v. R. (D.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291 (S.C.C.) at [para.] 93 and R. v. Howe, supra; Christakos v. De Caires, 2016 ONSC 702 at para. 10.
- R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 138, at para. 33, citing with approval R. v. M. (A.), 2014 ONCA 769, at paras. 12 to 14.
- To maintain a modicum of anonymity given this small community, the mother’s friend and support “Eric” will be named by first name only. This is not meant to be disrespectful.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251, at para 17.
- Jewish Family and Child Service v. K.(R.), 2008 ONCJ 774, affirmed at Jewish Family and Child Service v. R.K., 2009 ONCA 903, 2009 ONCA 903 (Ont. C.A.).
- CAS Niagara v. P.T. (2003), 35 RFL 290; Children's Aid Society of Rainy River v. B.(C.), 2006 ONCJ 458.
- Children's Aid Society of Rainy River v. B.(C.), 2006 ONCJ 458; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carlton v. T. and T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273, (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
- Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. O. (L.M.) (ONCJ); Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251.
- Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. E.M.T., 2019 ONCJ 767.
- Children's Aid Society of Rainy River v. B.(C.), 2006 ONCJ 458 and Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. A.B.,2018 ONCJ 831: Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 369 at para. 208.
- Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.B., 2019 ONCJ 6, at para. 17.
- Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. A.B., 2018 ONCJ 831, at paras. 13 to 15.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.P., 2020 ONCA 208, at para. 6; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.J., 2022 ONCJ 236.
- Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. E.S.,2016 ONCJ 279, at paragraph 94; Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. RM, 2019 ONSC 2251 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paragraph 59; Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services v. L.V.2016 ONSC 7039, paragraph 18; Chukwunomso v. Ransome2017 ONCJ 121; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y, 2025 ONCJ 638.
- Re: Sim, 2020 ONCA 563: Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. N.D., 2021 ONCJ 369, at para. 210 (affirmed on appeal).
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 at para. 113 (affirmed on appeal)
- Ibid, at para. 114 (affirmed on appeal)
- Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.P. et al, supra; and Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., supra, at para. 215.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., supra, at para. 23.
- Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.A.W., 2026 ONSC 352 at para. 35.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 at para. 155 (affirmed on appeal); Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S. (D.) [2009 CarswellOnt 6725 (Ont. S.C.J.)], 2009 60090.
- Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. S.A.W., 2026 ONSC 352, at para. 38
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.B., 2020 ONCJ 113 at paras. 161 and 162.
- Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (R.), [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.). also see Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., supra, at para. 225.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. (C.)L., 2016 ONCJ 432 at para. 123; cited with approval in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.B., supra, at para. 155.
- Huron-Perth Children's Aid Society v. A.C., 2020 ONCJ 251, at para. 162.
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866 at para. 156 (affirmed on appeal); Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (R.), [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.).
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., supra.
- Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489 (Ont. C.J.)
- Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.B., 2020 ONCJ 113, at para. 182
- Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165 (S.C.C.), at para. 37.