Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. J.A. et al, 2026 ONSC 515
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. J.A. et al, 2026 ONSC 515
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicant
AND
J.A., R.A., S.A., Tungasuvvingat Inuit
on behalf of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Respondents
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Smith
COUNSEL: Tara MacDougall, Counsel for the Applicant
Kristen Robins, Counsel for the Respondent J.A.
Michael Chun, Counsel for the children E.A. and L.A.
HEARD: January 22, 2026
WARNING
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
87(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
REASONS FOR DECISION
M. SMITH J
OVERVIEW
1The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) seeks, amongst other things, a temporary, with prejudice order placing the children, L.A. (age 7) and E.A. (age 10) (collectively the “children”), in the temporary care and custody of the Society, pending the disposition of the Application.
2The Respondent J.A. (“Mother”) seeks that the Society’s motion be dismissed and that the children be placed in her temporary care and custody.
3For reasons that follow, the Society’s motion is dismissed. The children shall be returned to their Mother under a supervision order.
BRIEF FACTS
4The family is Inuit from Igloolik, Nunavut.
5The Mother has six children, the youngest two being the subject of these proceedings. The four eldest children live with family members in Nunavut.
6R.A. (“Father”) resides in Nunavut. The relationship between the Father and Mother was toxic. The Father threatened to kill the Mother. He was charged and incarcerated, the specifics of which are unknown. The Mother has not been in a relationship with the Father since early 2024.
7The Mother moved from Nunavut to Ottawa in or around June 2025 with L.A., to be close to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) because L.A. was receiving treatment for hemihypertrophy and an enlarged brain. E.A. moved to Ottawa in November 2025.
8The family has a history of child welfare involvement in Nunavut.
9In late September 2025, the Society received a call from the Ottawa Police Services regarding a dispute involving the Mother who was intoxicated, and other adults, in the presence of L.A. The Society became involved with the family.
10The children came into care on November 11, 2025 because of safety concerns. The Mother agreed to a four-month Temporary Care Agreement (“TCA”). In early December 2025, the Mother terminated the TCA.
11On December 16, 2025, Kaufman J. ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.
12The children were placed together in one of the Society’s internal foster homes. The foster parents are not Indigenous. The children’s first language is Inuktitut. There is a First Nations child living with the children.
13The Mother visits with the children three times per week at Tungasuvvingat Inuit (“TI”).
14The children have expressed that they miss their Mother, they miss her cooking, and they wish to return to her care.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
15The paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (“CYFSA”) is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of the children: s. 1 of the CYFSA.
16Section 74(3) of the CYFSA sets out the criteria that the court must consider when making an order or determination, in the best interests of a child.
17Sections 94(4) and (5) of the CYFSA sets out the legal criteria for a temporary care and custody order.
18If the children are found to be Indigenous, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (the “Federal Act”) applies. It is the paramount legislation regarding child welfare for Indigenous children in Canada.
19Engelking J. concluded that on a temporary care and custody hearing involving an Indigenous child, the Federal Act applies, and not the CYFSA. She ruled that it is the straightforward best interests test as dictated by section 10 of the Federal Act: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. TC and KJ, 2025 ONSC 3633 at para. 40.
20Section 16 of the Federal Act compels a Court to consider the placement hierarchy, which grants priority to a parent or family member. There is a presumption in the Federal Act that it is an Indigenous child’s best interests to be placed with his or her parent unless such a placement is otherwise inconsistent with his or her best interests. The Society carries the onus to prove that a placement with a parent would be inconsistent with the child’s best interests.
21The Federal Act is to be interpreted in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child, the principle of cultural continuity, and that of substantive equality. Cultural continuity is seen as essential to the well-being of each child. The Federal Act also requires a Court to consider, amongst other factors, the child’s views and preferences: Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. S.S. and T.F., 2022 ONSC 744, at para. 65.
ANALYSIS
22In the case before the Court, it is undisputed that the children are Indigenous. Accordingly, the Federal Act applies.
23There are two plans before the Court: (i) the children remain in the temporary care and custody of the Society or (ii) the children are returned to the Mother’s care, under a supervision order.
Position of the Society
24The Society takes the position that under the augmented best interests test, the Court must consider the level of risk to the children. Based on the current and historical evidence, the Society argues that the risk in this case is unacceptable. Once the Court reaches such a conclusion, it must then determine the least intrusive plan, namely a supervision order to the Mother.
25The Society asserts that a supervision order is not appropriate at this time for two main reasons. First, the Mother continues to struggle with alcohol use, and she is not able to reliably abstain. What she requires is a safety plan and support network, particularly given that relapse is a well‑recognized aspect of recovery. Second, as a survivor of trauma, the Mother needs additional time to heal and to build a dependable safety network that can assist her in establishing new, healthier patterns.
26The Society recognizes that the Mother faces significant challenges and that she has taken positive steps and is demonstrating progress. However, at this specific point in time, the Society submits that the safety network remains insufficiently developed and that there is no adequate plan addressing how the family would respond should the identified risks materialize. As a result, the children would remain at a significant risk of harm, including the risk of requiring a return to Society care.
Position of the Mother
27The Mother’s position is that it is in the children’s best interests that they be returned to her care immediately. She submits that she is prepared to work cooperatively with the Society under an interim supervision order, subject to terms and conditions designed to mitigate the Society’s protection concerns and that they constitute an effective safety plan.
28The Mother submits that when you consider the evidence in this matter in light of the governing principles of the Federal Act, it does not support the Society’s position that the most intrusive temporary order available to the Court is the appropriate disposition.
29The Mother further takes the position that the Society has not fulfilled their obligation to try to work with the Mother through less intrusive measures before resorting to the most extreme and intrusive measure which would have the children remain in foster care.
30It is submitted that, when the best interests test is applied together with the principles that are set out in the Federal Act, the result clearly supports returning the children to the Mother’s care.
Position of the OCL
31OCL Counsel advises that he has only had one meeting with the children on January 16, 2026, having been recently appointed. His impression of the children was very positive. Both children were very polite, which is the same observation made by the Society’s child protection worker.
32The children have a bond with each other, and they have strongly expressed that they miss their Mother and wanting to be back in the Mother’s care.
33While OCL Counsel says that he cannot speak to consistency because he has only met the children once, he does rightfully point out that in the evidence presented by the Society, their views appear to be very consistent. OCL Counsel submits that because the children have demonstrated an ability to be polite and calm, and are able to communicate and express their preferences, it strengthens the weight to be given to their views because it shows a level of maturity, despite their age.
34OCL Counsel reminds the Court that the Federal Act supports the autonomy of the family unit. It is submitted that the Mother’s proposed supervision order is capable of adequately mitigating against risk. Given the Mother’s strong and consistent bond with the children, as well as the children’s positive behaviour, the evidence demonstrates that she has fulfilled her parental responsibilities and will continue to do so.
Discussion
35Pursuant to s. 10(2) of the Federal Act, consideration must be given to the children’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being, as well as to the importance of maintaining their ongoing relationships with family, Indigenous groups, communities, or people to which they belong, and of preserving their cultural connections. Section 10(3) of the Federal Act sets out the factors to consider in determining the best interests of Indigenous children.
36It is undisputed that the Mother has faced significant challenges in the past. She was involved in an abusive relationship with the children’s Father, which ended approximately two years ago after a violent incident in which he attempted to kill her. In addition, the Mother has abused alcohol on several occasions, and there were incidents involving the children while she was intoxicated, as described in the Society’s affidavit evidence.
37However, I do not believe that this is a case involving a long‑standing alcohol addiction. I am not persuaded by the evidence that the Mother consumes alcohol daily, is dependent on it, or that her use interferes with her ability to function or meet her own or her children’s basic needs on a day‑to‑day basis. Rather, the evidence indicates that on several occasions she made the poor decision to consume alcohol while caring for the children and exposing them to adult conflict and risk of harm. These incidents appear to have been influenced in part by her association with individuals who encouraged her to drink. The Mother does not lack insight into this issue. She acknowledges the mistakes she has made and, as noted below, has taken positive steps to address them.
38Finding that the children are at risk of harm, the question, therefore, is whether the risk of harm to the children can be adequately addressed through the least intrusive measure available, namely a supervision order to the Mother.
39The answer is yes. In my view, it is in the children’s best interests that they be returned to their Mother under a supervision order.
40Since the children were brought into care in November 2025, the Mother has taken meaningful and substantial steps to address the Society’s concerns. I am satisfied that her circumstances today are markedly different from those a few months ago. The steps she has taken to address the protection concerns include:
i. She has been sober since November 11, 2025. She does not spend time with people who drink alcohol.
ii. She has secured a safe and stable home at a motel that is funded by the City of Ottawa. She has lived at this location since November 14, 2025.
iii. She has connected with TI. According to a letter of support written by the TI team, the Mother has built a trusting relationship with them and regularly reaches out appropriately when she requires assistance. The TI team has observed that the Mother engages in the offered supports and maintains regular contact with the TI team.
iv. She has continued to work with the Society despite the difficult circumstances surrounding the removal of the children from her care.
v. She has been attending access with her children on a regular basis at the TI location. The Society has noted a few missed visits. I accept the Mother’s explanation as to these missed visits. The TI team has observed that during the visits, the children are happy and eager to see their Mother, describing the visits as follows: “they run to her, seek closeness, and appear comfortable and secure in her presence.”
vi. She has been attending counselling at TI. To date, she has seen the counsellor six times, discussing topics such as her past trauma, healthy relationships, and alcohol use. She will continue seeing a counsellor at TI.
vii. She has attended a Circle of Care.
viii. She has a network of supports, including her aunt and two distant cousins, one of whom attended at Court, and her stepdaughter. In addition, she has emotional supports, including two friends who do not drink, her sister who lives in Hall Beach, and her cousin who lives in Arctic Bay. Although these supports have refused to meet with the Society and answer what might be perceived as intrusive questioning, there is no evidence before me to suggest that these people are not appropriate supports for the Mother.
ix. She has in the past and will continue in the future to make sure that L.A. receives medical care from CHEO and that E.A. receives any further follow-up that is needed.
41I am impressed with the Mother. She has not only acknowledged and taken responsibility for the challenges she faces and the mistakes that she made, but she has also shown a genuine willingness to make the changes necessary to address the Society’s concerns. The Mother’s deep commitment to her children is evident. She consistently demonstrates that she will take the steps required to safeguard their well‑being. This is reflected, for example, in the proactive measures she has taken to address L.A.’s health issues.
42The best interests of the children must be the paramount consideration. In considering the other factors set out in s. 10(3) of the Federal Act, I make the following observations:
i. The Society’s plan does not consider the children’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage. This factor is best met by returning the children to their Mother. The children would be with family, they would speak their mother tongue, and live immersed in their Inuit community and culture.
ii. The children have been in their Mother’s care for their entire lives. She has been the source of their stability in the past and is best positioned to continue providing that stability going forward. The Mother has consistently met the children’s needs. It is particularly important to highlight once again the proactive and diligent steps she has taken to address L.A.’s medical needs. Her attentiveness in this regard demonstrates a high level of commitment and speaks directly to her dedication to the well‑being of her children.
iii. The children speak positively about their Mother, referring to her as their safe place. The TI team has described the interactions between the Mother and the children as follows: “warm and nurturing, including age-appropriate physical affection such as hugging and sitting together, and attentive engagement throughout visits.” The bond between the Mother and the children is clearly very strong.
iv. Aside from facilitating access visits between the children and their Mother at TI, the Society’s plan does not meaningfully preserve the children’s cultural identity or their connections to the language and territory of their Inuit community. The Society indicates an intention to explore services, such as support through the school or other culturally appropriate programs. However, despite the children having been in the Society’s care for the past two months, none of these services have been arranged. Given the critical importance of maintaining and strengthening the children’s cultural identity, immediate steps should have been taken by the Society when the children were brought into care. As matters stand, the Society has yet to establish a cultural plan.
v. The evidence clearly shows that the children miss their Mother, and they wish to live with her. Their views and preferences have been consistent throughout, and I do not share the Society’s concern that they were hesitant to express their feelings. Although the children are young (ages 7 and 10), they are well adjusted, capable of expressing their wishes, and their views should not be diminished. Proper and meaningful weight ought to be given to their expressed preferences.
vi. The Mother’s plan is for the children to reside with her. The historical evidence demonstrates that she is fully capable of meeting their day‑to‑day needs and doing so in a manner consistent with their customs and traditions. The Mother now has a safe home to provide for them, and her plan includes the children continuing to attend school and to receive ongoing support from the TI team, CHEO, and her extended network of family and friends. While the Society’s plan may offer physical safety in a non‑Indigenous foster home, it cannot meaningfully address or preserve the children’s cultural needs.
vii. Family violence has been an issue in this case. The children have been exposed to violence involving their Father as well as other individuals who were previously in the Mother’s life. However, the Mother significantly mitigated the risk posed by the Father when she relocated to Ottawa, and the children have had no contact with him since. Moreover, since the children were brought into care, the Mother has taken concrete and proactive steps to end relationships that carried any risk of violence. She has built a strong safety network around herself, including support from the TI team, as well as trusted friends and family members. This network enhances her ability to meet the children’s needs, ensures that they will not be exposed to any form of violence, and provides the Mother with the necessary emotional support.
43Having considered the evidentiary record before me, the best interest factors and the statutory hierarchy of placement, I am satisfied that a foster care placement is not required to ensure the children’s physical, emotional, or psychological safety. The risks that have been identified by the Society can be appropriately mitigated through a supervision order to the Mother, with appropriate terms and conditions.
44The Mother has provided the Court with a draft supervision order. The proposed terms and conditions of the supervision order to the Mother include that she continue to work with the Society, she ensures that the children attend school and that their medical needs are consistently met, she complies with all elements of the safety plan, she remains sober when caring for the children, and she makes sure that the children are not exposed to anyone who is intoxicated by alcohol or other substances, nor to any adult conflict. The Mother also proposes clear directives regarding how she is to respond if confronted with an unexpected visitor or a situation that presents a safety risk, such that she is to leave immediately or contact police.
45The Mother further proposes that she continue participating in counselling to address her alcohol use, relationship choices, and past trauma. She will maintain her involvement with TI, with a minimum of weekly check‑ins, and she will continue to work with the social worker at CHEO to ensure the children’s medical needs are addressed. She also undertakes to reach out to her supports if she feels stressed or at risk of relapse, and to notify the Society if she must rely on a support person to care for the children. The Mother will also continue to work with the Society to enhance her support network.
46I am satisfied that the Mother will be able to comply with terms and conditions of a supervision order. Over the past several months, the Mother has benefited from legal advice and has received consistent support from culturally appropriate organizations and the individuals involved with those organizations. She has established a meaningful support network. There are no compelling reasons to suggest that she would be unwilling or unable to comply with the terms of a supervision order. On the contrary, she has demonstrated an ongoing ability to work cooperatively with the Society. She continues to meet with the child protection worker, attends the Circle of Care, and participates in access. She has also shown a commitment to engaging with other service providers, including TI and CHEO. In all respects, she is doing what is expected of her at this stage.
DISPOSITION
47For these reasons, the Society’s motion is dismissed.
48The children shall be returned to the care and custody of the Mother, subject to the Society’s supervision. If there are any disagreements as to the terms and conditions of the supervision order, the matter shall be returned before me on an expedited basis to determine those terms and conditions.
M. Smith J
Released: January 26, 2026
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. J.A. et al, 2026 ONSC 515
COURT FILE NO.: FC-25-CP89
DATE: 2026-01-26
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
J.A., R.A., S.A., Tungasuvvingat Inuit
on behalf of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
M. Smith J
Released: January 26, 2026