Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.W. et al., 2026 ONSC 1827

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.W. et al., 2026 ONSC 1827

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-CP71

DATE: 2026/03/27

WARNING

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.W. et al., 2026 ONSC 1827

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-CP71

DATE: 2026/03/27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF L.S, L.S. and R. S.

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

P.W.

Respondent Mother

– and –

P.S.

Respondent Father

-and-

Saulteau First Nation

Respondent

Tara MacDougall, for the Applicant

Cedric Nahum, for the Respondent P.W.

Kristen Robin, for the Respondent P.S.

Acting in person

HEARD: December 1, 2025

Justice Maria N. SiriVAR

1A temporary care and custody hearing was held on December 1, 2025. I denied the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa’s (the “Society”) request for an order placing the three before the Court, L.S., L.S. and R.S. (aged ten, seven and four) in the Society's temporary care and custody. I granted the parents’ request for an order returning the children to their care, subject to the Society's supervision, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.

Undisputed Facts

2The children are of First Nations heritage through their mother, who is a member of the Saulteau First Nation. The mother was in the Society's care as a child. She has no family in Ontario, and her brother, with whom she was close, passed away in December 2023.

3The Society became involved with the family in August 2024 due to concerns about the home environment, conflicts between the parents, the mother’s mental health and the children's developmental needs being met. The children have difficulty communicating with non-family members, such as Society workers and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”). The cause of their delays is unknown, although autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) is suspected.

4A Circle of Care was held in early November 2024, and a Voluntary Service Agreement (“VSA”) was signed. Minwaashin Lodge and Wabano Aboriginal Health Centre also provided support to the family. In March 2025, the family’s apartment was targeted in a shooting due to mistaken identity. Although the family had no connection to the intended target, they relocated. There was a significant delay in registering the children for school in the new catchment area.

5The children were removed from their parents' care on September 17, 2025, after the Society obtained a warrant the previous day. The children were placed in three separate homes. A temporary without prejudice order placing the children in the Society’s care, with rights of access for the parents and siblings, was made on September 22, 2025. On September 29, 2025, R.S. was moved to the same foster home as her sister. On November 13, 2025, L.S. was moved to a different group home.

6In the three (3) months since the children were placed in care, the parents have consistently exercised access and met with Society workers. The family is strongly bonded. The children do well during visits and can communicate with each other and their parents. The visits were increased from twice to three times a week, and the level of supervision was decreased.

Positions of the Parties

The Society

7The Society takes the position that, although it is the most intrusive option, placing the children in care best meets their educational, medical, and emotional needs. It provides the appropriate balance between maintaining connections to family and culture and ensuring that the children are no longer exposed to unacceptable levels of neglect. The Society submits that the children’s needs had not been met for up to ten years, examples of which include:

a. The children’s immunizations were not up to date, and they had not seen a doctor regularly.

b. Two children experienced severe dental decay requiring the extraction of teeth.

c. The older children missed a significant amount of school.

d. The children appeared to have developmental delays for which speech and language support, occupational therapy, and psycho-educational assessments are necessary.

8The Society argues that the parents' extreme inability to meet the children’s needs has impacted their development. Despite working with the Society pursuant to the VSA for a year, the parents have failed to follow through on recommendations and offers of assistance for the children and themselves. Specifically, they have not consistently followed through on attending medical and dental appointments for the children, registering and taking the children to school, attending to the mother’s mental health, seeking support for the father’s video game addiction and addressing the parental conflict. The catalyst for the removal of the children was that, despite the parents having had the preceding months to plan, the children did not attend school on the first day. The parents cited a lack of food and school clothing as the reason.

9The parents’ plan, according to the Society, is no different from their status quo. It speaks to their wishes rather than a concrete demonstration of how they will meet the children’s needs. There are no letters from family members or service providers explaining how they will help the parents remain engaged. They are effectively looking for a second chance to do better. The Society concludes that a supervision order is inadequate to address the concerns because the real issue is parents’ inability or unwillingness to consistently meet the children’s needs.

10The children have just started receiving treatment and attending school. They face delays in development and academic performance and will need highly skilled and dedicated caregivers. If they are returned to the parents’ care, they will lose the momentum that has been created.

The Parents

11The parents take the position that it is in the children's best interests to be returned to their joint care. They would be primarily in the mother's care, with the father providing support. The parents submit that the evidence does not support the most intrusive measure, as foster care is an absolute last resort. The conditions of a supervision order they propose will mitigate the risks identified by the Society.

12The father argues that the majority of the concerns identified by the Society had been addressed, and the family was moving forward when the children were removed. For instance:

a. At the time of the Society’s initial intervention, the mother had been struggling with the loss of her brother. She has since been working with a mental health worker, and her mental health has improved.

b. The state of home was addressed.

c. The children received medical and dental care.

d. The children were registered with the First Nation, and the parents completed the necessary forms for a successful Jordan’s Principal application.

e. The mother changed her employment to be able to take the children to appointments.

f. The children were registered in and attended school.

g. Once the children were attending school, there were no further reported concerns.

13The parents submit that the remaining allegations are not supported by credible and trustworthy evidence. They deny the allegation of conflict between them that constitutes a child protection concern. The workers make broad statements without specific evidence, such as a police report, to support the allegation. The parents submit that they work together and maintain a positive relationship to ensure that the children’s needs are met. If there is tension, the father returns to his home. The father’s presence is positive for the children, and they have a very good relationship with him.

14The mother argues that the Society affidavits contain opinion evidence that the workers are not qualified to provide. The Society relies on these opinions to conclude that the parents cannot meet the children’s needs. For instance, one worker has diagnosed the father with a video game addiction merely based on the mother having complained to her about the father’s video game use. She then deposes that the father has failed to follow through on treatment. Similarly, the worker opines that the mother has childhood trauma and significant challenges that impact her parenting. She further deposes, based on her observations of the children’s speech delays, that the speech challenges are the result of developmental delays and parental neglect.

15The mother contends that the Society has failed to meet its obligation to work with and assist the family in accordance with the applicable provincial and federal legislation. The mother argues that for the past year, the Society has provided minimal support, such as transportation and organizing a Circle of Care. When the father could not attend a school meeting due to financial constraints, for instance, the parents were told to apply for funding through Jordan's Principal.

16The mother argues that if she and the mother were not following the Society’s directions, the Society ought to have brought an Application for a supervision order at that time. Doing so would have drawn the parents' attention to the concerns, enabled the parents to retain counsel, and provided court oversight. Instead, according to the mother, the Society stood back and watched, then brought the matter to court seeking the most intrusive order.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”)

17The OCL, who represents the two older children, explains that they face significant communication challenges. Although he met with them in person, they were unable to clearly express their views and preferences regarding their placement. The OCL argues that, using the augmented best interests test, placement with family should be given priority. The Society does not have a plan for the children to be together. Additionally, the children are in non-indigenous placements that do not specialize in meeting their unique needs.

18The OCL submits that the level of risk, which is low, can be managed with a supervision order. The allegation of conflict between the parents is not supported by evidence. The parents have developed their own way of limiting the risk of conflict, which involves the father leaving and returning to his own home. Moreover, once the children’s needs are assessed, a plan can be developed to ensure they are met.

Law and Legal Principles

19The applicable legal test on temporary care and custody motion is set out in subsections 94 (2), (4) and (5) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act (the “Provincial Act”). The relevant sections read, in part, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria

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

20The onus is on the Society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the children are returned to the parents, it is more probable than not that they will suffer harm; and the children cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.¹

21A court must choose the least intrusive placement, consistent with adequate protection of the children.² The degree of intrusiveness of the intervention sought should be proportional to the degree of risk to which the children are exposed.³ Section 94 of the Provincial Act must be read in conjunction with its Preamble and Purpose.

22In making its assessment, a court should also consider the emotional risks to the children from being removed from the significant caregivers in their lives.⁴ Children should not be removed from their parents’ care because of poverty, where the parents are otherwise willing and able to care for them.⁵

Duties of the Society

23Pursuant to section 35 of the Provincial Act, children’s aid societies are tasked with several responsibilities, including the investigation of allegations that children may need protection and the protection of children. Part of their mandate is to provide guidance, counselling, and other services to families to protect children or prevent circumstances that require their protection.⁶

24A parent may not, however, frustrate the Society’s efforts to assist and then claim that the agency did not fulfill its statutory duty to provide guidance, counselling, or other services. The parent is expected to take advantage of opportunities for services and to make independent efforts to obtain services.⁷

First Nations and Indigenous Children

25Subsection 37(4) of the Provincial Act requires the court to "take into consideration the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of Indian and native culture, heritage and traditions, of preserving the child's cultural identity" when determining the best interests of an "Indian or native" child. Subsection 57(5) provides that, "unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere", Indigenous children shall be placed with a member of the child's extended family, a member of the child's "band or native community", or "another Indian or native family."

26Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families (the “Federal Act”), supplements the Provincial Act and establishes minimum standards to be observed by child protection agencies providing services to Indigenous children and to courts making decisions about Indigenous children. Specifically, s. 9(2) addresses the issue of cultural continuity, s. 10 describes the best interest test for Indigenous children, and s. 16 speaks to priority placement. Both Acts, however, make it clear that the paramount consideration is what is in the best interests of the children.⁸

Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Foster Care

27As I explained in Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.B.,

82. A consideration of the over representation of Indigenous children in foster care is vital to a proper assessment of the best interests of Indigenous children. Failure to acknowledge this reality and the underlying dynamic risks exacerbating pre-existing inequities and their consequences.

83. The history of oppression and the continued discrimination that Indigenous peoples face has led to social and economic disadvantages, including poverty, poor and unsafe housing, substance use and mental health challenges.

84. The impact of these inequities is clear in this case. The challenge is delineating which aspects of the protection concerns identified are attributable to the cumulative impact of factors outside the mother's sphere of control and those that she ought to be able to manage, with support if necessary.⁹ [Emphasis Added]

Analysis and Conclusion

28I find that the Society has not established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer harm and cannot be protected adequately by the terms and conditions of an interim supervision order. I am satisfied that the parents have made meaningful progress, with support, in addressing the aspects of the identified protection concerns within their sphere of control. I accept the parents' evidence regarding their progress in addressing the state of the home, the mother’s mental health following the loss of her brother, the children’s school registration and attendance and ensuring the that children receive medical and dental care.

29I agree with the parents that the Society has not established that the father has an unaddressed video game addiction, that the parents have conflict that rises to the level of child protection concern or that the children’s developmental delays are caused by parental neglect. I agree with the mother’s submission that the workers are not qualified to diagnose the parents or the children. The cause(s) of the children’s delays are not known. As such, the parents cannot be blamed.

30Significant aspects of the protection concerns, however, stem from the cumulative impact of factors outside the parents' sphere of control, such as poverty, poor and unsafe housing and the impact of the children’s undiagnosed developmental challenges.

31There was a significant delay in registering the children in school following the shooting at the family home. It is undisputed that being the victims of a shooting resulting, from mistaken identity, would be destabilizing, particularly for a family that was already struggling. Additionally, the children did not attend school on the first day because they lacked school shoes and food. I do not accept the Society’s submission that it was inexcusable, given that the parents had months to plan. This submission reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact of poverty. Having months to plan and applying for funding does not address immediate basic needs when financial resources are limited.

32The best interests of the children before the Court, as required by the Federal Act, are met by returning them to the care of the parents, subject to the supervision of the Society. In so concluding, I rely on the following:

a. It provides continuity of care.

b. The children are in two separate homes that are not Indigenous and do not provide specialized services. Two of the three children have already been moved twice.

c. While in care, the children have had a very difficult time communicating with others, and they are not doing well.

d. Society care does not meet the children’s cultural needs.

e. The children are attending school and will be visible in the community.

f. They have a strong bond with their parents and each other.

g. They are better able to communicate with their parents and each other.

h. In these circumstances, there is a risk of harm to the children if they remain in care in homes that do not meet their cultural needs and are separated from their parents and siblings.

i. The conditions of the supervision order and court oversight will held ensure that the children will receive the assessments and services they require, and the parents will be supported.

j. The autonomy and integrity of the family unit will be supported.

Justice Maria N. Sirivar

Released: March 27, 2026

CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. P.W. et al., 2026 ONSC 1827

Footnotes

1. 1The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.G., 2021 ONSC 2260.
2. 2Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
3. 3CCAS of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269.
4. 4Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.I., 2022 ONCJ 612.
5. 5Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.T., 2019 ONCJ 76.
6. 6Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.B., 2022 ONCJ 75, 2022 CarswellOnt 2675.
7. 7Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. L.G., 2015 ONSC 3706, [2015] O.J. No. 3034.
8. 8Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society v. A.C., 2020 ONCJ 251.
9. 92022 ONCJ 75, 2022 CarswellOnt 2675