CITATION: CAS v. T.L.D., 2026 ONSC 2032

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-519-0000

DATE: 2026/04/07

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, Applicant

AND:

T.L.D., Respondent

P.F., Respondent

BEFORE: Justice M. Tweedie

COUNSEL: Harjot Jagpal and Jeff Boich, Counsel for the Applicant

Brent Balmer, Counsel for the Respondent Ms. T.L.D.

Anna Towlson, Counsel for the Respondent Mr. P.F.

HEARD: January 20-23, 26-30, February 2, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1This trial was in relation to a protection application originally returnable on May 9, 2025.

2The children are F, [birthdate redacted] 6 years old at the time of trial, and Z, born [birthdate redacted], 4 years old at the time of trial. Neither child has special needs.

3The respondents are F and Z’s parents.

4For the reasons that follow, I find that the children are in need of protection. The disposition that is in their best interests is an order placing them in the care of the father, subject to Society supervision for four months. Given the quality of the mother’s current access, the mother’s recent progress, and the terms of supervision I am ordering regarding relapse prevention and pain management follow up, it is in the children’s best interests that the mother’s access to the children expands quickly over the next three months, culminating in equal parenting time at the end of the school year.

HISTORY

Previous Child Protection Involvement

5The parents separated on or about February 14 or 15, 2024. Child protection became involved with this family on February 20, 2024, when P. F. (“the father”) contacted Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (“Guelph Society”) reporting concerns of T.L.D.’s (“the mother”) opiate use. The father reported that the mother was using opiates prescribed to others as well as misusing those prescribed to her. The father reported it was impacting on her ability to be alert and care for the children.

6During a meeting on February 27, 2024, the mother acknowledged to a Guelph Society worker, Kelly Peters, that she was prescribed hydromorphone for chronic back pain and having used cocaine twice recreationally. She denied misusing her prescription or obtaining opiates from sources other than her physician. She stated that she fell asleep momentarily from time to time due to lupus. It was later confirmed with the mother’s family doctor, Lori Hasulo, that the mother did not have a lupus diagnosis (although the mother believed she had the autoimmune disease), nor did she have any other medical diagnosis that would cause her to dose off.

7Later that day, the parents were negotiating a parenting schedule with the assistance of the maternal grandparents and the paternal aunt. Conflict arose between the father and maternal grandmother, and things escalated. Police were involved. F and Z were present as was the mother’s older daughter from a previous relationship.

8Following this meeting, however, the parents agreed to a week-about parenting schedule for the children.

9On March 4, 2024, Dr. Hasulo advised the mother that she would no longer prescribe her opiates. This decision was based on the report from the father that the mother was using other people’s opiates in addition to her own. Dr. Hasulo opined that, if this were true, there was a high risk of accidental overdose. Dr. Hasulo offered the mother suboxone and other treatment options, none of which were used by the mother. At some point prior to March 1, 2024, Dr. Hasulo had diagnosed the mother with Opioid Use Disorder.

10On or about March 4, 2024, the mother was charged with assaulting the father during the conflict on February 27, 2024. It was alleged she threw a backpack at the father. Much time at trial was spent on this incident, what type of bag was involved, whether it was slid across the floor or thrown. None of this is relevant. The relevant facts of events of February 27, 2024, are that the father and maternal grandmother got into a dispute. Both acknowledged at trial that they used inappropriate language towards the other. The mother became involved in the dispute. The maternal grandfather and paternal aunt tried to diffuse the situation. This conflict occurred in the presence of the children.

11The Guelph Society ultimately verified concerns as follows:

a. the mother’s diagnosed Opioid Use Disorder negatively impacted her ability to care for the children, thus placing them at risk; and

b. the children’s exposure to adult conflict placed the children at risk.

12The file was transferred to Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (“the Society”) on July 9, 2024, as the mother had relocated to Cambridge.

13A safety plan was developed between the Society and the family which included the following commitments:

a. The mother would take her medication as prescribed, look for alternative treatment, and would manage her pain without street drugs.

b. The maternal grandparents would have frequent contact with the mother and children to monitor the mother’s sobriety.

c. Both parents would be sober while in a caregiving role (the father used marijuana), they would not expose the children to conflict and would ensure the children regularly attended school.

14The father moved to Toronto after the parties separated and lived with the maternal aunt. He remains living in Toronto to date, now with his new partner and the paternal aunt. The mother remains in Cambridge. In the summer of 2024, the father registered F in school near his home in Toronto. The mother was not consulted and brought an urgent motion. On September 4, 2024, Smith, J. granted a temporary order that the children would reside primarily with the mother, the father would have alternate weekend parenting time, and that F would be registered at school in the mother’s catchment and adjourned the motion for argument.

15On November 19, 2024, Breithaupt Smith, J. granted a temporary order that the parents share parenting time. The father was to have the children every weekend, with one weekend being from Friday after school to Monday at school, and the other weekend from Thursday after school to Monday at school. The children were in the care of the mother at all other times and F was to continue at school in Cambridge.

16Once the family’s file was transferred to the Society on or around July 4, 2024, child protection worker Laura Hounsell worked with the family. She met with the mother only 4 times during the file opening, due to the mother’s limited availability and frequent rescheduling by the mother.

17On December 18, 2024, Ms. Hounsell attended the mother’s home for a scheduled visit, but the mother was not present. Ms. Hounsell noticed the garage door was open and when she entered, she noted “a concerning table with drug paraphernalia on it” and “white powder and residue visible on the table”. When Ms. Hounsell followed up with the mother about this on January 9, 2025, the mother stated she was away in December, someone had broken into her garage, and the items on this table were not hers. At trial, the mother acknowledged that the items thought by Ms. Hounsell to be drug paraphernalia were, in fact, hers, but that Ms. Hounsell was mistaken: the items were merely an ashtray and a decorative crystal mushroom, not drug paraphernalia. This court is unable to discern from the photos that the items are drug paraphernalia or as the mother describes, and whether the white powder is drugs (which the Society infers) or merely cigarette ash.

18During the January 9, 2024, home visit, Ms. Hounsell also noted concerns about the state of the home, including dog feces of various ages around the home and in the children’s bedroom, dog urine stains, clutter, and 8-10 bags of smelly garbage in the garage and a further 3 bags inside. There is no evidence as to what discussions Ms. Hounsell had with the mother about the state of the home, her concerns regarding substance use, and the Society’s expectations going forward.

19Ms. Hounsell was not successful in meeting with the mother or seeing her home after January 9, 2024. There was no evidence provided in relation to the efforts made to see the mother through scheduled or unannounced visits between January 9 and April 4, 2024. From this, together with the file closure on April 4, 2024, the court infers that the Society did not have significant concerns regarding the mother, otherwise there would have been substantial effort to meet with her and see the home, failing which a protection application would have been commenced.

20The file was ultimately closed on April 4, 2024. Ms. Hounsell testified that the file was closed even though there had been no meaningful contact with the mother since January 9, 2025, and the mother had not seen Dr. Hasulo since October 2024, because:

(a) The children were in the shared care of the mother and father; and

(b) The maternal grandparents were involved, were not reporting concerns, and were committed to continuing to support the mother and children.

Current Child Protection Involvement Leading to Protection Application

21Shortly after the Society closed its file in April 2024, the father reported to Ms. Hounsell that there were other individuals living with the mother and children (“the boarders”). There is no evidence that Ms. Hounsell or other Society workers followed up with either the mother or maternal grandparents about the individuals who were now, allegedly, living with the mother and children.

22The Society received another referral on April 28, 2025, reporting concerns about the mother. Ms. Hounsell was reassigned to the case. After following up with the referent, Ms. Hounsell and her supervisor determined that Ms. Hounsell would attend the mother’s home accompanied by Waterloo Regional Police Service for safety and assistance during the investigation.

23On May 1, 2025, Ms. Hounsell attended the mother’s home accompanied by her colleague, Stephanie Romano, and Waterloo Regional Police Service (“WRPS”) Constables Brohman and Carinci. The mother was present. F was at school and Z was with the maternal grandmother.

24The court finds that the home was in a state of disarray and was clearly unsafe for children. Ms. Hounsell and Constable Brohman testified as to their observations when they entered the home on May 1, 2025. Ms. Hounsell also took photos. The state of the home was as follows:

a. there was clutter, garbage, and food waste throughout the home;

b. there was a considerable amount of dog feces in the children’s bedroom closet, likely from several days of use;

c. there was a tide pod on the floor of the children’s bedroom closet;

d. there were several open garbage bags throughout the home with bloody tissues;

e. there were baggies and bottles (labelled and unlabeled) with unidentified substances and pills found on the floor and in drawers accessible to the children;

f. a crack pipe, straws, and small scale were found;

g. dilaudid (hydromorphone) pills in a prescription bottle with the name of an individual who did not live in the home were found in a drawer in the mother’s bathroom in which the children bathed;

h. razors, two bloody tweezers, and a used menstrual pad were found on the counter in the bathroom in which the children bathed;

i. a salbutamol puffer prescribed to an individual who did not live in the home was found (location unknown);

j. prescriptions in blister packs belonging to one of the boarders were found in the home within reach of the children;

k. white ash or powder was found on several surfaces;

l. lighters were found throughout the home in places within reach of the children;

m. the garage had a table covered in ash and white powder, on top of which was a box for a scale, cleaning supplies, lighters, marijuana packaging, water bottles with white substance on the rim, one with foil on the rim, one with white residue in the bottom;

n. two packages of Narcan were found in the garage, as was a straw and a baggie with an unknown substance; and

o. four substances were found and seized from the home by the WRPS Constables at Ms. Hounsell’s request and sent for analysis which determined them to be methamphetamine (two packages), fentanyl, and dilaudid. The testing results were not contested at trial.

25May 1, 2024, was a Thursday and the father was coming to take the children for his parenting time that weekend. The children went with the father in accordance with the parenting schedule. The Society thereafter commenced this protection application, taking the position that the mother could not safely care for the children and a supervision order would be insufficient to address the concerns.

26On May 9, 2025, Wood, J. granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the children in the care of the father, subject to terms of supervision for both parents, and granting the mother access in the discretion of the Society.

27On June 30, 2025, a temporary care hearing was argued. Valente, J. granted a temporary order that the children remain in the care of the father, subject to terms of supervision for both parents, and granting the mother access in the discretion of the Society, and access at the maternal grandparents’ home at the discretion of the Society.

28The mother’s access remains supervised. At the time of trial, she had one visit each week supervised by workers at Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and every second weekend supervised by the maternal grandparents. The children were to sleep overnight at the maternal grandparents’ home. At the time of trial, the Society had just permitted the mother to stay overnight at the maternal grandparents’ when the children were there.

FINDING IN NEED OF PROTECTION

29I find that the children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”): there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the children.

30The court has discretion to make findings that the children were in need of protection at the time of intervention, at the time of the hearing, or any other time: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K.D. AND D.A., 2021 ONSC 7147, para. 69.

31This court finds that the state of the home on May 1, 2025, gives rise to a finding that the children are in need of protection.

a. The garbage bags, food waste, bloody tissues, full ash trays, and dog feces posed a health risk to the children.

b. The clutter and disarray of the home including accessible lighters, razors, and bloody tweezers, posed a risk of physical injury to the children.

c. The various unidentified substances and pills in baggies and pill bottles, and the blister prescription, in both plain view and in spaces accessible by the children posed a risk of accidental ingestion and possible death.

d. The prescription opiates (not in the name of any resident of the home) within reach of children, in the bathroom where the children bathed, posed a risk of accidental ingestion and possible death.

e. The smoke detector on the main floor had been disabled, posing a risk of harm.

32The parties all agree that the state of the home on May 1, 2025, is grounds for such a finding. The father and Society submit that the evidence also supports a finding that the children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(ii): that there is risk of physical harm resulting from a pattern of neglect in caring for the children.

33There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that there is risk of harm due to a pattern of neglect. The court was not made aware of any child protection involvement prior to February 2024. During the voluntary opening between February 2024 and April 2025, I note the following:

a. There were no reports that the mother appeared under the influence while in a caregiving role.

b. There were no reports that the mother’s home was in a state that was not safe for the children.

c. There were no reports from F’s school identifying concerns with F’s care or attendance.

d. If there were concerns that the mother was misusing her prescription or using street drugs, the Society did not pursue them.

e. There is no evidence about the state of the mother’s home between January 9, 2025, and April 4, 2025. The Society had not entered the home. Although the Society believed the maternal grandparents had been in the home, at trial, both the maternal grandmother and grandfather testified that they had not been in the mother’s home between February and May 2025.

f. Despite any concerns it may have had at the time, the Society closed its file on April 4, 2025.

DISPOSITION

Overview

34Once a court findsthe children are in need of protection and is satisfied an order is necessary to protect them in the future, then the court must make one of four orders, in the children’s best interest:

a. That the children be placed in the care of a parent or other person subject to supervision (“supervision order”);

b. That the children be placed in interim society care;

c. That the children be placed in extended society care; or

d. That the children be placed in interim society care for a specified period and then return to a parent or other person pursuant to a supervision order.

35All parties agree that an order is necessary to protect the children in the future. They disagree as to what order should be made.

36The Society and the father seek an order that the children be placed in the care of the father, subject to terms of supervision for the father and the mother. The mother seeks an order that the children be placed in the care of both the mother and the father, with equal time in the care of each parent, subject to terms of supervision for both the mother and the father.

37For the reasons that follow, this court finds that it is in the children’s best interests to be placed in the care of the father for a period of four months, subject to terms of supervision for both parents. The mother’s access shall be pursuant to a schedule of gradual increase and not pursuant to the Society’s discretion.

38In coming to this decision, I have considered all factors relevant to the children’s best interest set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA.

39The evidence demonstrates that the children are attached to both parents and have relationships with extended family. The children are noted to be doing well in the care of the father and his partner. The children are noted to enjoy their access with their mother who is extremely child focused and appropriate during these visits. Both parents care deeply for and love the children, and the children love their parents.

40I am mindful that CYFSA s. 101(3) states that I am not to make an order removing the children from the mother (who, together with the father, had charge of the children immediately before intervention) unless I am satisfied that less disruptive alternatives are inadequate. I find that the degree of risk that resulted in the removal of the children from the mother’s care was significant, and I am not satisfied that the mother has taken the steps necessary to ensure a safe, and, more importantly, stable return of the children to the mother’s care at this time. To ensure this stability she needs to become more fully engaged in relapse prevention and personal counseling and maintain regular appointments with her family physician to monitor her pain management.

41A return to the mother’s care subject to terms of supervision is inadequate to protect the children based on the following:

a. I find that the mother was misusing opiates prior to the intervention on May 1, 2025, and it affected her ability to be an appropriate caregiver.

b. While there is no evidence of opiate misuse after May 2025, I find that the mother’s diagnoses of Opioid Use Disorder and Narcotic Dependency, together with history of the mother’s past relapses and self-increased dosage, demonstrate a pattern of relapse and a risk of future relapse. The mother must have professional relapse prevention counseling and support to ensure ongoing stability in the future for the children. She has only recently engaged in these services.

c. The mother’s family physician, Dr. Hasulo, has supported the mother’s pain management, alternate pain management, and access to detoxification services. The mother also has access to further social services through Dr. Hasulo’s clinic. However, the mother has not meaningfully engaged with her family doctor for treatment and support since May 2024. She has attended for other medical issues, and to arrange for random urine screens and a referral to the pain clinic, but has not attended for support for pain management, Opioid Use Disorder, or Narcotic Dependency. This has led to self-medication and lack of engagement with treatment alternate to opiates. Engagement with a family doctor for pain management, follow-up with other service providers (such as addictions counselors and pain management clinics), and personal support is another layer of safety for the children, and another support for the mother as she maintains sobriety while also experiencing chronic pain.

d. The maternal grandparents have not yet demonstrated their capacity to be an adequate support system for the mother and children. This is, in part, through no fault of their own. Neither the mother nor the Society provided them with fulsome information about the child protection concerns. However, the evidence also shows a lack of insight regarding the mother’s opiate use and a lack of understanding of what it means to be a part of a child protection safety plan, which they require in order to be attuned to signs they would need to see in order to be an adequate level of protection for the children.

Mother’s Substance use as of May 1, 2025

42The mother agrees that the children are in need of protection due to the state of the home on May 1, 2025. However, she maintains that she was not using substances and has not used any opiates since May 2024. It is important for this court to determine whether the mother was using substances at the time, as this is relevant to the mother’s ability to provide continuity of care to the children, and what risk the children may be exposed to if returned to her care.

43The evidence supports a finding that at the time of intervention on May 1, 2025, the mother had been using substances. The mother’s evidence was often vague and internally inconsistent. It is possible she had difficulty recalling and recanting events due to her substance use. It was either unreliable or lacking credibility. I do not accept the mother’s evidence that the state of the home on May 1, 2025, was solely due to the boarders, nor do I accept the mother’s evidence that she had not used any opiates since May 2024.

44The mother testified that on either the first, second or third of February 2025, a former coworker/friend and his teenaged daughter and her boyfriend moved in with her. She advised that the daughter and her boyfriend smoked marijuana in the garage and did not regularly attend school. She asked her coworker to do something about this, and he did not. In addition, the mother testified the boarders were not cleaning up after themselves. She testified that she had these concerns early in March 2025 but did not ask the boarders to leave until April 27, 2025. She claims she didn’t ask them to leave in March because she did not want to breach landlord tenant laws. I do not accept this explanation for the delay. She testified that she had previously been a landlord and therefore was aware of tenant’s rights. However, there was no tenancy agreement was offered as evidence. Further, they all shared a kitchen and bathroom, which precluded the boarders from being tenants. I find that the mother was aware she could ask the boarders to leave at any time but chose not to.

45I also question whether the mother ever asked her boarders to leave. She testified that she asked them to leave on April 27, 2025, and they left immediately. However, all their belongings, including items of daily use such as prescriptions and phone chargers, remained in the home on May 1, 2025. The home had not been cleaned by the mother following their alleged departure on April 27, 2025, despite the serious hazards that were present. The mother testified that she was beginning to clean the home on the morning of May 1, 2025. However, there was no evidence from Ms. Hounsell or Constable Brohman that they observed any signs of cleaning up when they were in the home that day. The mother also testified that her coworker and daughter arrived at the house on May 1, 2025, to help clean up, but did not come in because they saw the police cars. None of the boarders were witnesses in this trial.

46I do not accept the mother’s explanation that some of the substances found, namely a powder in one of the mother’s hydromorphone prescription bottles, and a substance in a baggie, were medications relating to a cat breeding business. The mother’s evidence in this regard was inconsistent and lacked credibility. First, she told Ms. Hounsell it was related to her own breeding business. At trial she testified she no longer bred cats herself but was a mentor to the individual, who she did not name, who took over her breeding business. She testified that she and her own cat breeding mentor, the surname of whom she could not recall, drove to a veterinarian in the United States and obtained cat antibiotics in bulk. The mother could not recall the location in the United States, the clinic she went to, or the name of the veterinarian. The mother testified that she took the bulk antibiotics and divided them up into smaller amounts and stored them in old prescription bottles, and that explained the powder in the mother’s prescription bottle found in the home. This is not credible. There is no reason why she would have to divide the antibiotics into smaller amounts prior to administering. There were no other bottles, either the bulk bottle or other bottles with smaller amounts found in the home. A breeder would not store medications in old prescription bottles which may contain drug residue. Even if the mother did obtain the medications to provide to her mentee, there was no explanation provided as to why she was storing the medication for her mentee, and why she was dividing the medication into doses instead of her mentee. Neither the breeding mentor nor breeding mentee was called as a witness.

47I cannot accept that the mother was not using substances as claimed, yet allowed the home to get to the state it was in. She testified she did not clean the home because she was angry and wanted her boarders to clean it because it was their mess. She testified she did not know of the various drugs and baggies with unknown substances being in the home even though they were in plain sight in spaces that she used regularly such as her bathroom and bedroom. No unimpaired parent would allow the home to get to the state it was in, nor would they consciously allow pills and unknown substances to be accessible to children.

48The fact that of the mother did not clean or dispose of the boarders’ items by May 1, 2025, four days after they supposedly moved out, leads to the following conclusions: the boarders had not moved out, the mother was a contributor to the state of the home, and at least some of the hazards and substances belonged to the mother.

49My finding that the state of the mother’s home and the substances found within it is evidence that she relapsed is informed by the mother’s history of Opioid Use Disorder and Narcotic Dependency, as diagnosed by her family doctor. The mother has a significant history of misusing her prescriptions, increased dependency, and relapses, during which she had the support of her physician. Following May 2024, when her hydromorphone prescription from Dr. Hasulo ran out and was not renewed, the mother did not seek any assistance for relapse prevention. After one year of allegedly dealing with her diagnosed issues on her own, without utilizing her supports systems, multiple substances were found in the home, which was in a state of complete disarray. This timeline and relapse history, together with the state of the home in May 2024, leads to the finding that the mother had another relapse.

50The mother acknowledged at trial that she had a history of misusing her hydromorphone prescription. The evidence reveals the following:

a. The mother was prescribed hydromorphone for a back injury in or around 2016.

b. In 2018, prior to becoming pregnant with F, she tapered her dose such that it would not pose a risk to the child.

c. The mother had a pattern of unilaterally increasing her dose without physician consultation.

d. Within a year after F’s birth, the mother had returned to her pre-pregnancy dosage

e. The mother had a surgical procedure in 2020 and advised her family doctor that her surgeon doubled her dose.

f. During her pregnancy with Z in 2020, it was determined with specialist consultation that it was not safe to taper her dose, given its high level. Z was born with neonatal abstinence syndrome and was required to stay in hospital for eight days after he was born.

g. The mother struggled to reduce her dose following Z’s birth.

h. In September 2021, the mother underwent a physician supported in-home detox with the help of the father and maternal grandmother. The physician provided medication and telephone support during the mother’s withdrawal and subsequent recovery. The mother was very unwell during this detox and bedridden. The mother claims it was the drugs causing her to be unwell, not the actual process of withdrawing from the drug upon which her body had become physically dependent.

i. In September 2022, the mother underwent a hysterectomy and began using prescription hydromorphone again, at a dose similar to that at the time of her pregnancy with Z.

j. After September 2022, the mother continued to increase her dose without physician consultation. I note that Dr. Hasulo testified that it is not uncommon for individuals to have increased tolerance to hydromorphone over time and require a higher dose for the same pain relief. The concern here was that the mother was increasing her dose without physician consultation.

k. The mother reported withdrawal symptoms when she ran out of her prescription early because she unilaterally increased her dose.

l. Dr. Hasulo diagnosed the mother with Opioid Use Disorder prior to March 1, 2024. She also diagnosed the mother with Narcotic Dependency. Opioid Use Disorder was diagnosed because the mother had a problematic pattern of using opioids, unilaterally increasing her dose, being unable to taper and stop use, and she had signs of withdrawal when she ran out of medication. Narcotic Dependency was diagnosed because the mother had become physically dependent on the drug; her body went into withdrawal when she did not take it. Dr. Hasulo was concerned about the mother’s misuse of her prescription.

m. Dr. Hasulo stopped prescribing hydromorphone for the mother in March 2024 after the father reported his concerns that the mother was obtaining opioids from the street. He also showed Dr. Hasulo a photo of a hydromorphone prescription bottle belonging to an unknown person which he found in his home. The prescription belonged to another of Dr. Hasulo’s patients. Prior to this, Dr. Hasulo did not suspect that the mother was obtaining opioids from the street herself but noted that the mother’s pattern of asking for early refill had stopped approximately one year earlier.

n. Dr. Hasulo offered alternative treatment to the mother when she stopped prescribing hydromorphone. This included suboxone, referral to the methadone clinic, in patient or outpatient treatment, and support from a Community Addiction Services worker connected with her clinic. The mother did not attend the appointments set up with Dr. Hasulo to discuss these alternate treatments. She did not avail herself of any of these options following March 2024.

51I accept the father’s evidence that prior to separation, the mother’s opiate use caused her to doze off, and that she obtained and used prescription opiates other than her own. He testified that the mother would frequently nod off during the day. He testified that he saw text messages in which the mother was arranging to obtain opiates, and that he found bottles in the home of prescriptions for other individuals. He testified he would find the mother asleep with what he thought to be cocaine on the surface in front of her. The mother’s explanations in response are not credible. She suggested that the father obtained the prescription bottles from her ex-partner in a joint effort to set her up. She suggested that she nodded off because of a lupus diagnosis. Dr. Haluso confirmed that the mother was not diagnosed with lupus and that nodding off is not a symptom of lupus. The mother made only a blanket denial regarding cocaine use or opiate misuse.

52The father’s evidence above, together with the prescriptions found in her bathroom with other people’s names on the bottles supports a finding that the mother was using other individuals’ prescription opiates as of May 1, 2025.

53I cannot find that the father has exaggerated his concerns about the mother because of his motivation in the custody dispute between the parents. I find he was genuinely concerned and wanted the mother to stop misusing opiates. Once separated, he could no longer keep the children safe and needed to report to others. His evidence, which is accepted by the court is:

a. He was worried about the mother’s drug use during their relationship.

b. He kept naloxone kits in the home.

c. He and the mother did not disclose the extent of the problem to the maternal grandparents during the marriage, hoping to overcome it in private. This was corroborated by the maternal grandmother’s testimony that she was told that Z remained in hospital following birth because he was jaundiced, not because of being monitored for withdrawal. The grandparents both testified that they were not aware that the mother misused her opiate prescription.

d. He attempted to have a conversation with the maternal grandparents about the seriousness of the mother’s opiate use on February 27, 2024, when he knew he would no longer be living with the children full-time. He attempted to show them the naloxone kits. It is reasonable for him to want other family members to be aware of the mother’s substance use as a layer of safety for the mother and children once he knew he would not be in the home.

54The father alleged that the mother’s lack of significant withdrawal symptoms in May 2024 when her prescription from Dr. Haluso ran out and was not renewed, compared to her severe symptoms during the 2021 withdrawal, is evidence that she never stopped using opiates. The evidence, however, does not support this position. Dr. Hasulo testified that even though the mother was taking a higher dose at the time her prescription was stopped in 2024 than at the time she detoxed in 2021, her withdrawal symptoms in 2024 would not necessarily be worse than in 2021 because of a number of other factors including sleep, nutrition, stress, and other life events, which could also influence one’s withdrawal symptoms.

55The mother’s participation (or lack of participation) in the random urine screens through Dr. Hasulo’s office is of no assistance to this court in the determination of the mother’s substance use and the court does not rely upon the screens. Firstly, the fact that the mother did not always respond to the request for screens or sometimes delayed attending when requested is not evidence that she was using drugs. Secondly, the mother participated in seven urine screens between June 7, 2025, and January 9, 2026. The office attempted to arrange screens 16 times. During 6 attempts the office was unable to contact her because the mother’s phone or email was not working. The screens, which I note were negative, captured only a moment in time. No evidence was offered regarding how long any substance remains detectable in urine and nor to the science behind the screens. Accordingly, the negative urine screens are not proof that the mother was not using.

56The totality of the evidence leads to a finding that the mother was using- non-prescription drugs as of May 1, 2025.

The Mother’s Engagement with Supports

57If the mother does not engage in relapse prevention supports there is a risk of future relapse. The risk of relapse creates instability and jeopardizes the children’s well-being.

58The mother did not engage with withdrawal or relapse prevention supports after Dr. Hasulo stopped prescribing hydromorphone. She states that she used medications she had left over from her 2021 detox, as well as one prescription for Clondine from Dr. Hasulo to support her withdrawal symptoms, and then simply did not require opiates for pain management after that time.

59As stated earlier, the evidence before the court does not allow for a determination regarding whether the mother stopped using opiates in May 2024 and resumed some time prior to May 2025, or whether the mother never stopped. Regardless, there was, at best, a relapse sometime prior to May 2025 that might have been avoided if the mother was engaged in relapse prevention services and was regularly seeing Dr. Hasulo.

60While the mother admitted at trial that, in retrospect, she agrees that her opioid use was problematic, there is still counseling to be done to gain better insight. The mother continues to blame the boarders for the removal of the children. She does not accept personal responsibility. She minimizes the risk of relapse, stating simply that she will attend the pain clinic when needed, keep in touch with her doctor and do her back exercises. This was all available to her in the past and did not prevent relapse. She requires more support.

61Marian Best, addictions counselor, testified at trial that in her experience, individuals whose opioid use started with legitimate use of prescribed medication for pain have a more difficult time admitting dependency and/or addiction. I also acknowledge that the mother would also be reluctant to openly acknowledge dependency given the stigma attached to Opioid Use Disorder, the impact it might have on her relationships with her family (notably her parents), and the impact it might have on the custody dispute that arose upon separation.

62Marian Best conducted an addictions assessment of the mother on January 15, 2026. The report raises the following concerns regarding the mother’s insight:

a. While the mother admitted to problematic relationships because of opioid dependence, it was only in the context of the father’s cannabis use, which she did not approve of, and the father’s disagreement with her taking “pain killers”. She did not identify the other relational impacts of the removal of F and Z from her care, the end of her relationship with the father, or her lack of relationship with her daughter. While there may be many contributing factors to these events, the mother’s opioid use was one of them, yet she fails to recognize this.

b. The mother stated that she did not have any legal problems arising out of her use, despite being involved in child protection proceedings as a result of it.

c. The mother stated that she had 100% confidence that she would be able to resist the urge to use substances in all situations which pose a risk of relapse. Given her history she is either overconfident, naïve, or a combination of the two.

d. The mother reported that she had strong social and family supports. While this may be true, supports are only as good as the information that they are provided. They cannot support a problem they don’t know about. As will be discussed later, the maternal grandparents are not fully aware of the extent of the mother’s disorder. The mother was not open with them about her use even during the time that she admits to using.

63It is important that the mother gain this insight through addictions counseling and relapse prevention programming so she can be better invested in treatment, understand triggers, and be open with her parents so they can provide the support that she and the children require.

64The mother has only just begun this work. She has attended only two relapse prevention meetings since August 20, 2025. She has met with Ms. Best six times, however, only two were counseling sessions.

65The addictions assessment was based on the mother’s self-report. She reported that she had not used opiates since May 2024 and somewhat felt like she was being coerced given that she had not used for a year and a half. This must be taken into account when considering the report’s recommendation that a residential treatment program or an intensive day treatment program are not required. I find that given the impact of the mother’s use on her day to day living as of May 1, 2025, and given the lack of engagement of services until recently, an intensive day treatment program followed by participation in NA and relapse prevention group programming will provide the most effective and efficient manner by which the mother can receive treatment. Only then can the children safely return to the joint care of her and the father.

66Residential treatment is not required because there are existing strengths that can be built upon. Recently, the mother has started engaging in services. Although her insight may be limited, the court finds her to be genuine in her statement that she wishes to continue this treatment. She has been connected with an NA sponsor and is willing to attend meetings. She has started counseling and has identified that she has learned tools to rely upon. There is no evidence of current opiate use. The mother has been attending access consistently in recent months. The grandparents report no concerns regarding the mother during her parenting time with the children supervised by the grandparents. Ms. Best advised that she did not get the impression that the mother was “white knuckling” sobriety or always thinking she may relapse. I cannot find that residential treatment is necessary for the protection of the children from the harm of future relapse.

67However, the mother wishes the children to be returned to the joint care of the parents sooner rather than later. She has only recently engaged in counseling. Attending the two-week day program mentioned by Ms. Best in her assessment will quickly provide her with insight and the tools she needs to recognize and avoid relapse and allow for a quicker integration of the children into her care.

68Ms. Best testified that doing groups are helpful to stay on top of what triggers are, what relapse can look like in terms of emotional decline, and discuss these issues in a group. This, plus participation in NA, both while she is waiting to attend the day program, and following the day program, are important to ensure continued relapse prevention support.

69The mother attended Intervention Pain Clinic on December 29, 2025, after not attending her initial appointment on December 8, 2025, and is now able to obtain spinal injections through that clinic. The mother states that she does not require an injection now but knows she can attend for an injection if needed in the future. However, the mother was not consistent in her evidence about her experience with the efficacy of spinal injections. She testified that she had received a spinal injection in the past through her surgeon. When she received the injection, she was advised that there was a possibility that it would make her pain worse, and in fact, her pain did increase after receiving the injection. As a result, she did not pursue further injections. However, when testifying about the recent consultation with the pain clinic and future pain injections, she did not comment on the potential side effects, and whether she discussed her past experiences during the consultation. Given that she experienced increased pain after receiving a spinal injection in the past, I am not confident that a spinal injection will adequately address her pain in the future. It may. It may not. The mother reported that pain is her greatest trigger for relapse. Accordingly, with the uncertainty regarding the potential efficacy of spinal injections through the pain clinic, continued follow up with Dr. Hasulo is important to ensure effective and appropriate pain management.

70The mother should consider personal counseling as well to address underlying triggers to use. The mother spoke of missing her children, including her estranged daughter, of the conflict both pre and post separation with the father, the loss of a close friend to cancer, the demands of her business, and her pain. It is important that she follow recommendations of her addictions counselor if personal counseling is also recommended.

Support of the Maternal Grandparents

71Both the maternal grandmother and grandfather testified. They have been and are a good support for the mother and children. They have visited with the mother and children consistently, granted, primarily at their home, not the mother’s. The maternal grandfather has coordinated transportation for access with the father despite the past conflict. They have worked cooperatively with the Society regarding the mother’s access, although at times they question the required level of supervision.

72However, it was clear from their evidence at trial that the grandparents are not aware of the extent of the concerns of the Society and the extent of the mother’s opioid misuse history.

a. They were unaware of the extent of the state of the house on May 1, 2025. They were aware there were some drugs found accessible to the children and dog feces that had not been cleaned up.

b. There is no evidence that they were provided with clear expectations as part of a safety plan for the mother, although they are mentioned as “network members” in a “Family Centered Service Plan” from June 2024. Both maternal grandparents testified that they were not aware of any written safety plan when the Society closed its file in April 2025. All they knew was that they needed to make sure the house was clean and that the mother was sober.

c. The maternal grandfather testified that he obtained most of his information about the mother through the maternal grandmother who spoke with the mother more often.

d. The maternal grandmother testified that it was her understanding that the mother’s opiate use was limited to what was prescribed and she did not know that it was “getting out of control”. The mother did not tell the maternal grandparents that she was increasing her dose without physician approval. The maternal grandmother relied on the mother’s assurances to her that she was not misusing her prescription.

e. The maternal grandparents were told by the parents that Z remained hospitalized after birth because of jaundice, not Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

f. Both the maternal grandmother and father testified that the maternal grandmother helped the mother in September 2021. Both Dr. Hasulo and the father described this as a supported detox. The maternal grandmother appears to have minimized this, testifying that she understood that the mother was wanting to “get off” the opiates and that she was in bed and not feeling well saying “well if you call that detox then I guess it is.” Based on both the mother and father’s description of the physical symptoms the mother was experiencing, this event was more severe than “not feeling well.”

g. The maternal grandmother was unaware that the mother resumed taking prescribed opiates after her hysterectomy in 2022. Her impression expressed at trial was that the mother last used opiates prior to the September 2021 detox process.

h. In 2023, the maternal grandmother asked the father if there was something to be concerned about, the father advised that the mother was fine. At trial the maternal grandmother stated that during that time she felt the mother was sad and depressed. The father did not share that the mother had resumed opiate use, and it had again become problematic.

73I also have some concern with the maternal grandmother’s ability to accept that there are serious child protection concerns arising out of the mother’s opiate use. The maternal grandmother continues to believe that the father was not truthful in his allegations regarding the mother’s substance use, and that he was making those allegations to punish the mother. She agreed that she would not listen to the father about his concerns because of this. At trial the maternal grandmother stated that if it were not for the father reporting the mother’s use of someone else’s prescription (which she believes he fabricated) and the individuals who lived with the mother between February and May 2025, then there would be no need for child protection intervention.

74The lack of information provided to the grandparents limited their effectiveness as supervisors. They were unaware of the seriousness of the concerns. If they were, perhaps they would have been more intrusive and asked to enter the mother’s home between January and May 2025, when the boarders were present. They testified at trial that they are now aware they are to ask to see the mother’s home and make sure it is safe for the children.

75I am also concerned that the maternal grandparents’ loyalty to the mother, particularly the maternal grandmother’s, may impair their ability to be reliable reporters of concerns, if it would mean negative consequences for the mother.

76The maternal grandparents clearly have good intentions. If they are provided with information, they will be better able to support the mother and children. It is imperative that the mother sign consents to allow the Society to share all information with the maternal grandparents, including a copy of this decision, so that they may fully understand the child protection concerns which this court has identified, any ongoing concerns, and the terms with which the parents will have to comply. It is imperative that if the maternal grandparents are part of the safety plan, the Society provide them with clear information regarding the expectations, and the potential risks to the children if the safety plan is not followed.

Placement with the Father

77There are no reported concerns regarding the father’s care of the children. His assigned worker from Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”), Taia Giecko, testified and reported that the children are doing well in his care and have a good relationship with him, his partner, and the maternal aunt.

78The father is cooperating with the access arrangements and there is no evidence to suggest he will not continue to do so.

79There were concerns raised by the mother and maternal grandparents about the father’s anger management, and surveillance of the mother, during the parties’ relationship. The evidence is insufficient for this court to make any findings in this regard. Some of his behaviour, such as looking at text messages and taking pictures of the mother when “she nodded off” could be explained by his increasing worry and frustration that the mother was not seeking treatment and did not have insight into the impact of her use. However, this could also be characterized as intrusive and controlling. The evidence also shows that the father has not always behaved in a manner empathetic to the mother’s situation. He referred to the naloxone kits as “death boxes”. He shared video of the mother apparently under the influence with the father of one of her older children. This is not a helpful nor empathetic approach, which is required for the mother to feel safe to acknowledge when she may not be able to take on a caregiving role in the future. The father is expected to do better going forward. This will only serve the children’s best interests.

Conclusion

80The children cannot immediately be adequately protected from the risks of relapse while in the care of the mother through a supervision order. The mother’s recent progress since May 2025 provides a foundation of strengths that can be built upon to work towards an integration of the children to her care. Accordingly, the children will be placed in the care of the father for four months, subject to terms of supervision for the mother and father, with a schedule of increasing access, which shall culminate in the children being in the care of the mother and father equally, as they were at the time of intervention.

ACCESS

81Section 105 of the CYFSA compels the court to make an order for the mother’s access, unless continued contact would not be in the child’s best interests. Section 104 of the CYFSA states that access orders are to be made in a child’s best interests and be on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

82I do not find that an order of discretionary access to be in the children’s best interests. I find that the Society has not expanded in accordance with the children’s best interests. There were concerns regarding the mother’s attendance at access visits initially, but those concerns were addressed.

83On July 24, 2025, Ms. Giecko emailed Ms. Hounsell advising that CAST would like to decrease the level of supervision to “semi-support” due to the mother’s sober presentation and positive nature of the visits. Not only were there no concerns noted by the access facilitators, the reports document very good visits. They show the mother to be fully engaged with the children, participating in age-appropriate activities, speaking positively of the father and his new partner, and appropriately redirecting the children if they asked about when they would be able to go to her home or were upset when the visit ended.

84However, the Society declined CAST’s request to move to semi-support. Ms. Hounsell testified that in consultation with her supervisor the decision was made to decline the expansion to semi-support because they wanted the mother to take some steps to address the issues and at that time she was not engaged in any supports. However, this is not the basis upon which access should be determined. Access is not a tool for the Society to use to encourage parents to address concerns. Its purpose is to preserve and continue a parent/child relationship in a manner that meets the children’s best interests. There was no need, from the context of the children’s bests interests in access visits, for the visits to remain fully supervised given the access notes. The mother’s visits were not moved to semi-supervised until September 4, 2025.

85On June 30, 2025, Justice Valente ordered that the mother shall have access to the children at the discretion of the Society and shall have access to the children at the home of the maternal grandparents at the discretion of the Society. The children began attending the maternal grandparents’ home every other weekend in or around late July 2025. Ms. Hounsell’s affidavit indicates that the mother was approved to spend time with the children during those weekends (but not overnight) until September 12, 2025, and was to be fully supervised by the maternal grandparents. Although Justice Valente’s order was not implemented until three months after it was made, Ms. Hounsell characterized this as “progressing to more access very quickly.” Again, if the mother had been consistently presenting as sober during visits and was supervised, it is not clear why those visits could not have been implemented sooner, particularly because the maternal grandparents were known to the Society and had been approved prior as supports to the mother.

86The mother’s access with the children continues to go well. The maternal grandparents provide very detailed reports as to what happens over the weekends. Despite those positive reports, the Society did not approve the mother to stay overnight at the maternal grandparents until the week before trial, and approval was for only one night over the weekend. She has not yet been approved to be unsupervised with the children.

87Ms. Hounsell repeated that she agreed that the mother was demonstrating good parenting skills during access visits but always noted that positive parenting was “when sober and supervised”. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the mother is presenting during her access visits in a disingenuous manner. Her home is relatively clean and safe, and she is generally cooperative with the Society. There has been no evidence that she has recently been under the influence.

88The Society is required to continually assess parenting time and adjust as is in the children’s best interests. There is ample evidence that supports an immediate move to unsupervised visits, in the mother’s home.

89There is no evidence of recent substance misuse. There is no evidence that the mother is residing or engaging with individuals who may pose a risk to the children. The mother is engaged in NA and addictions counseling. With this decision she is ordered to engage in a day treatment program. These factors together build safety for the children such that access can be unsupervised.

90There are some concerns that the mother still struggles to maintain a clean home. This can be alleviated by supervision terms which allow the Society to assess the home prior to in-home visits commencing, and by the maternal grandparents being part of a clearly written safety plan. Further, the mother indicated a willingness to work with Philip Main, the Society’s Family and Community Worker. Mr. Main can conduct some of his work with the mother when she is exercising access with Z, who is not yet attending school and can also work with the mother on methods to use to maintain the home.

91Ms. Hounsell raised concerns about the mother’s parenting abilities. There were concerns raised regarding locks on the outside of the children’s bedroom doors in the mother’s prior home. There is no evidence that these were used to keep the children in their rooms as punishment. There are allegations that the children appeared to be reliant on iPads for entertainment. This is not a protection concern. In any event, all reports of the mother’s current access show that she engages with the children in age-appropriate activities and games, is active, not passive, in her parenting, and disciplines them appropriately.

92The mother currently exercises access every Tuesday in Scarborough through CAST, semi-supervised, at a local library, and every other weekend at the maternal grandparents’ home or her home, supervised. The mother can sleep overnight at the maternal grandparents’ home one night each weekend.

93There is some challenge in scheduling visits given that the father and children reside in Toronto, and the mother in Cambridge. F’s school attendance should not be compromised by access.

94I am gradually restoring the status quo which existed for this family before the Societies’ involvement. Below, I outline how that is going to happen. The plan starts with generous access and some unsupervised time. Then, more unsupervised time, including overnight. Finally, a restoration to shared parenting time between the parents, over the summer.

ORDER

1The children who are the subject of the order are F, born [birthdate redacted], and Z, born [birthdate redacted].

2The children are not First Nations, Inuk, or Métis Children.

3The children were removed from the care of their mother, T.L.D. (“the mother”) in Cambridge, Ontario.

4The children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1.

5The children shall be placed in the care of the father, P.F. (“the father”) for a period of 4 months, subject to the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“the Society”) and the following terms and conditions:

a. The mother and father shall cooperate with the Society.

b. The parents shall allow a worker from the Society or it’s designate to have access to their home and to the children at home and at school, on both an unscheduled and scheduled basis.

c. The parents shall meet with a Society worker at home, agency, or in the community, as requested by the worker.

d. The parents shall sign consents to release information to allow the Society to communicate with service providers and vice versa.

e. The parents shall advise the Society in advance of any change of address, telephone number, or email address.

f. The father shall follow the Society’s direction and this order in relation to the mother’s access with the children. He shall not permit any unauthorized access by the mother.

g. The parents shall consistently maintain a safe, hygienic, and stable home environment for the children.

h. The father shall ensure the children receive all necessary medical and dental care by attending regular appointments and following through with all treatment recommendations.

i. The parents shall ensure that the children are appropriately supervised at all times and shall ensure that alternate caregivers for the children are approved, in advance, by the Society.

j. The father shall ensure that F attends school consistently and shall attend all required school meetings.

k. The parents shall refrain from speaking negatively about the other with or in the presence of the children and shall not permit others to do so.

l. The parents shall refrain from discussing the ongoing litigation with or in the presence of the children and shall not permit others to do so.

m. The parents shall not be under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, or illegal drugs while in a caregiving role.

n. The mother shall refrain from the use of any prescription pain medication except in accordance with the dosage and frequency as prescribed.

o. The mother shall attend a short-term day treatment relapse prevention program which she can access through Porchlight Counselling Addictions Services, or other service as approved by the Society.

p. The mother shall attend relapse prevention group meetings a minimum of once per week, when she is not attending the short-term day treatment relapse prevention program.

q. The mother shall attend relapse prevention one-on-one counseling through Porchlight Counseling Addictions Services or other services approved by the Society a minimum of once per month.

r. The mother shall follow all other recommendations of her relapse prevention counselor, including engaging in personal counseling if recommended.

s. The mother shall attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings a minimum of once every other week when she is not attending the short-term day treatment relapse prevention program.

t. The mother shall attend monthly for appointments with Dr. Lori Hasulo or her designate for the purpose of monitoring her pain and shall follow all recommendations.

u. The mother shall sign a consent for the Society to share information regarding child protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, including the written reasons for decision leading to this order.

v. The mother shall follow the Society’s direction regarding engaging family members as part of a safety plan.

w. The mother shall work with the Society’s Family and Community Worker on issues identified by the Society, such as home maintenance and childcare, for as long as the Society deems necessary and shall follow all of the Family and Community Worker’s recommendations.

6Access to the children by their mother T.L.D. shall be as follows:

a. Commencing immediately, every Tuesday from after school until 5:30 p.m., unsupervised, in the community.

b. Commencing immediately, every other weekend from Friday to Sunday, supervised by the maternal grandparents or other individual approved by the Society, at times agreed upon by the parties. The mother shall be permitted to be unsupervised with the children from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday and may take the children out in the community or to her home. The mother shall stay overnight at the maternal grandparents. The mother shall allow the Society to assess her home and confirm it is safe and appropriate for the children.

c. After two weekends of access outlined in paragraph 6(b), the mother shall have unsupervised access with the children from Friday to Sunday, at times agreed upon by the parties.

d. After two weekends of access outlined in paragraph 6(b) above, on the weekends the mother is not exercising access in Cambridge, the mother shall have unsupervised access with the children on Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

e. Commencing after two weekends of access outlined in paragraph 6(c), or, when F’s school summer vacation commences, whichever is later, the parents shall share access with the children equally. If the parties are unable to agree to the schedule of the children’s time with each parent, they are encouraged to mediate the issue. If they still are unable to agree, they shall follow the schedule in place at the time of the court’s intervention.

f. Such other times as agreed by the parties.

M. Tweedie, J.

Date: April 7, 2026

CITATION: CAS v. T.L.D., 2026 ONSC 2032

COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-519-0000

DATE: 2026/04/07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

Applicant

AND:

T.L.D. and P.F

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

M. Tweedie, J