Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Catholic Children’s Aid Society, Applicant
AND:
E.O., Respondent
T.J., Respondent
D.M., Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz
COUNSEL: J. Persaud, Counsel, for the Applicant A. Katz, Counsel, for the Respondent (E.O.) A. Williams, Counsel, for the Respondent (T.J.) D.M. – Self-Represented
HEARD: April 17, 2026
Endorsement
1What the hell is going on?
2This is an April 13, 2026 motion by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“the Society”) seeking, among other things:
a. Temporary placement of a 5-year-old female child A.O. in the mother’s care, under numerous terms of supervision.
b. Temporary access to the child’s father T.J. (“the father”) to include weekly unsupervised time alternating between one overnight and two overnights. There are multiple terms.
3Until now, A.O. has been in foster care with the parents’ access in the discretion of the Society.
4The Society filed a supporting affidavit of Emily Moore dated April 13, 2026. No other affidavits were filed.
5At the outset, the Society presented temporary minutes of settlement in relation to A.O., signed by the parties, and also signed by D.M. the father of another of the mother’s children, 18-month-old O.A. Pursuant to December 29, 2025 minutes of settlement, O.A. has already been returned to the mother, with D.M. to have access in the discretion of and supervised by the Society.
6So today, I was asked to simply make an order pursuant to the terms everyone agreed to, relating to A.O.
7But having read the Society’s affidavit, I was really quite shocked by what the Society had agreed to. And what it wanted me to agree to.
8Paragraph 69(f) of the Society worker’s affidavit states:
Previously, (the mother) has made significant allegations about (the father). While (the mother’s) reports about (the father) changed, they were nonetheless serious, including that that (the father) watched pornography and masturbated in A.O.’s presence, used drugs, and that he raped A.O. multiple times. There was a joint investigation with the Crimes Against Children’s Unit at Hamilton Police, but the investigation closed as there was insufficient evidence to proceed. (The mother) stated she would leave A.O. in (the father’s) care despite having had concerns he was using drugs and sexually harming her child.
(Emphasis added)
9Wait. The mother says the father “raped the child multiple times”. And I’m supposed to trust the father? I’m supposed to just go along with minutes of settlement which somehow gloss over this incredibly serious allegation?
10The Society says the mother admitted she would “leave A.O. in (the father’s) care despite having had concerns he was using drugs and sexually harming her child.” And I’m supposed to trust the mother?
11To add to my consternation, in paragraph 54 the society worker says that the mother indicated A.O. does not wish to have access to the father.
12I asked the Society’s lawyer how the agency could expect me to make the requested order, granting the father unsupervised overnight access in light of such serious allegations of sexual abuse toward this young female child.
13Ms. Persaud noted that there was a joint investigation by the Society and the police but the investigation was closed because there was “insufficient evidence to proceed”.
14Insufficient evidence to proceed? Maybe that prevented a criminal charge. But this is family court. This vulnerable child still needs to be protected.
15Ms. Persaud indicated that the Society has otherwise satisfied itself that the allegations are unfounded, and that there is a serious, ongoing concern about the mother making unfounded allegations.
16But that just raises more questions.
17If the mother is so untrustworthy, why is the Society entrusting the child to her? Why did they already entrust the younger child O.A. to her?
18And if there is any possibility that the mother was being truthful about the allegations – again, why entrust the child to a woman who would knowingly leave a young daughter with a sexual abuser?
19If there is other evidence the Society has, to definitively discount the allegations about the father, why wasn’t that evidence presented to the court today?
20I have no information that the child was even asked about any of this, or what she might have answered.
21The father has never denied any of the allegations under oath.
22To make matters worse, after I expressed these concerns, D.M. was in court and volunteered more information.
a. He said he has his own concerns which he feels the Society is ignoring.
b. He said a former girlfriend of T.J. told him that the father had been sexually trafficking her, and that he was using drugs.
c. The woman didn’t want to complain, so the mother and D.M. forwarded this information to the Society.
23When I asked Ms. Persaud, she confirmed that the mother and D.M. had made a complaint about this to the other local child protection agency – Hamilton Child and Family Supports – and that the matter was investigated. Again, nothing about this was mentioned in the Society’s affidavit filed on this motion. I have no details about what exactly was alleged, what sort of investigation took place, and on what basis the allegation was resolved. But this is a serious and relevant allegation, given the information the Society already had about inappropriate sexual behaviour by the father.
24To add further concern, the father’s lawyer then noted that the Society has done nothing about the fact that the mother has changed the child’s school, without anyone’s consent.
25The mother then asked to speak.
a. She told me she had expressed concerns about the father, but the Society told her she should agree to the father having access or she would be accused of alienation.
b. She said the Society had already placed A.O. in her care on April 11, 2026, and that the Society worker had assisted in setting up a new school placement for A.O.
26How in the world all of these people signed temporary minutes of settlement – each having so many misgivings – is beyond me.
27I reject the minutes. The Society’s motion is dismissed.
28At the end of today’s discussion, Society counsel advised that A.O. would be returned to foster care.
29I would urge the Society to seriously review its handling of this case. And to improve the quality of the evidence it provides to the court.
Justice A. Pazaratz
Date: April 17, 2026