Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. M.G., 2020 ONCJ 167

WARNING T he court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 , (being

Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017 , S.O. 2017, c. 14 ), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 87.—

(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order, . . . (

c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

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

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged .— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part. . . . 142.—

(3) Offences re publication. — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(

c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both. CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel v. M.G., 2020 ONCJ 167 DATE: March 30, 2020 Court File No.: 20066/19 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE Endorsement Justice A.W.J. Sullivan Applicant: Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Counsel: Ms. M. Pannu and s/s Mr. J. Surrao Respondents: Ms.

M.G. (mother) and Mr. S. (father) Counsel: Ms. C. Yousef for Ms. G.; Mr. Z Bobesich for Mr. S. OCL: Mr. S. Misheal for the four children [ 1 ] This is the decision from a Temporary Care and Custody Motion pursuant to subsection 94(2) of the Child, Youth Family Services Act (CYFSA).

[2] The motion considers the temporary placement of four children with different developmental, emotional, medical andeducational needs, the details of which are reviewed below. [3] The children are: 1. M.S. age 13 2. C.S. age 8.5 3. D.S. age 6 4. A.S. age 5 [4] Given the Ontario Government’s directives and those of the OCJ Chief’s office in response to the COVID-19 health crisis, thismotion was held via teleconference with the four counsel named above, the PCAS social worker and mother on the line and in separatelocations.

The father did not participate as he is currently in hospital receiving treatment for his emotional health which is reviewedbelow. This is one of the protection issues in this file. [5] I considered this matter urgent within the emergency directives noted above as the four children are in the care of PCAS afterthe four children were brought to a place of safety when I ordered this to happen during an in-court appearance held on December 18,2019. On that date the PCAS was requesting a supervision order with all of the children with the parents.

The current order is atemporary without prejudice order made on December 18, 2019 with the children in the care of PCAS. [6] Given the current COVID-19 health crisis it is important to note that it has caused a serious adjustment in the administration ofjustice in Ontario. [7] It is trite to state that COVID-19 has not suspended the CYFSA and the Charter. What it has done is brought great hardship tothe people of Ontario that this court, the Ontario Court of Justice, serves.

It is only through the professionalism and dedication of theCourt staff on all levels in the Brampton Courthouse as well as the family lawyers involved and PCAS social workers that this motionand other important matters are being considered, taking measures that implement the above-noted directives while protecting the healthof all and at the same time promoting the law as set out below: [8] In this difficult time, it is I believe an important reminder that the removal of children from parents engages

Section 7 rights ofthe Charter, the security of the person, for both the children and parents: see New Brunswick (Min. of Health & Community Services) v.G.(J), (SCC), [1999] 3 SCR 46. [9] The Supreme Court guides us that such a removal, if done, must… “only be done in accordance with the principles offundamental justice which are found in the basic tenets of our legal system.” …These principles of fundamental justice are bothsubstantive and procedural. [10]

Section 7 Charter rights of the security of the person has been held by the Supreme Court to protect both the physical and thepsychological integrity of the individual. see R. v. Morgenthaler, (SCC), [1988] 1 SCR 30 at 173. [11] The Ontario Court of Appeal in its 2019 decision Kawartha-Haliburton Children Aid Society v. M.

W., 2019 ONCA 316, para.68 and 69, reminded the courts when discussing of the need for the hearing process to be fair that far too often those parents and childreninvolved in CAS litigation come from the marginalized sectors, peoples and groups in Canada. [12] Given the above, I believe that the true test of our law and the fair administration of the law will be measured in how the mostvulnerable in our society are treated and the administration of justice is dealt with in difficult times such as these. [13] It is within the above context that this motion proceeded.

December 18, 2019 the children were brought to a place of safety.

[ 14 ] This family appeared before me on December 18, 2019. This was on a second case management hearing to be spoken to. On the first appearance on November 6, 2019, the only substantial order made was the appointment of the OCL for the four children.

The court at that time directed the parents to assure that the children were being brought to school and the children were not to be brought to the court on the next appearance date. [ 15 ] Justice Clay, who worked with the family on November 6, 2019, wrote the following in his endorsement clearly identifying the protection concerns and warning the parents to take steps to address these in co-operation with the PCAS: Justice Clay wrote: Noted that the father met with duty counsel and was provided with legal aid Ontario information. … the parents were served and that an Arabic interpreter was working with them. …I am very concerned about the four children in this matter.

The father has stated emphatically outside of court (as set out in the detailed CAS affidavit) and at court that he does not want to stay in Canada. He feels that he has not been supported here and wants to go home. Family was sponsored here. Parents both say that the father speaks for the family but I am very concerned that the mother has no independent voice in this matter. Two of the four children have exhibited symptoms of possible autism. None of the children are attending school. The family is isolating itself and ignoring the offered help of the Coptic community and the PCAS.

The children are remaining with the family at this time. I told the parents very directly that I understand that the family has experienced trauma in the refugee settlement camps. I understand the cultural shock of coming to Canada and the different expectations. The children are entitled to have their health needs met and should be given an education. If the parents do not get a health card and have them see a doctor (and Erin Oaks for child C and

D) and if they do not register in and attend school court may have to consider them being removed from their home so it can occur. This is the last thing anyone wants to do . [ 16 ] As noted above PCAS in its Protection Application was seeking a supervision order with the children remaining with the parents. [ 17 ] When this family appeared before me on December 18, 2019, for me to describe that court appearance as chaotic would be generous. [ 18 ] The four children were present at court and needed to be in the courtroom as they are high needs children.

One child who is developmentally delayed and autistic was running around the courtroom. This for me was not the issue. The court attempted to engage the parents and in particular the father, Mr. S, about whether they would work with the PCAS to have the children’s medical needs addressed as well as attend school. A senior PCAS social worker had been attempting to assist the family for one year, offering services which were refused by and large. [ 19 ] During this exchange it was apparent that the father was quite controlling of the mother and did not want Ms. G. to speak. Mr.

S.’s main concern had to do with how he felt he was being mistreated by practically everybody and was waving around papers that he claimed he needed completed and some services provided to him from the Canadian government. It was after approximately 20 minutes of give-and-take that it was apparent that there existed protection concerns regarding the emotional, educational or medical welfare of the children principally because of the father’s domineering and emotional state. [ 20 ] Mr.

S. also announced that the family was going to lose its apartment and would be homeless and would need to live in a shelter and that he and the family were going to leave Canada. The issue of losing their home seems to have been a new piece of information that caught all by surprise. [ 21 ] I took a recess in the hope that the parents could again engage with duty counsel and the society worker to come to a compromise. After the break the father’s emotional well-being continued to deteriorate in the court such that courthouse police officers attended the courtroom and sat in the back.

It was not the court’s direction for the police officers to attend nor did the court ask them to leave as Mr. S. began to moderate his behaviour as he had earlier in the day, after some discussions with them which helped the situation. [ 22 ] It was in this context that the children were ordered by the court into the care of the PCAS with terms in a temporary without prejudice order.

[23] There was then a third conference on January 8, 2020 at which time the parents had retained a family lawyer who also speaksArabic. Work had started to prepare the parents’ plan and access was being arranged with the assistance by PCAS with drives to theparents. I also indicated that I needed baseline assessments of the four children’s medical and educational needs which had begun overthe holiday break.

A fourth conference was scheduled for February 25, 2020 to review the parents’ progress and work with the PCAS. [24] At the fourth conference on February 25, 2020, the OCL appointed one of its panel lawyers in the Peel community who alsospeaks Arabic. The older children are able to express their views and preferences.

Some of the children have limited vocabulary in eitherArabic or English. [25] At the fourth conference on February 25, 2020, I received a detailed update by PCAS in a 17F confirmation form on the fourchildren’s needs and progress and services offered to the parents as well as a proposal that would see the children returned in stages totheir care over the next 3 to 4 months, provided real cooperation was made. [26] This conference, however, did not commence until the father arrived at 12:15 p.m. I had asked that he attend, and a taxi was sentfor him when he did not appear by about 10:00 a.m.

I was told that now he and Ms. G. were living in separate locations. Ms. G. was in ashelter and had there a large room that could accommodate all four children. The shelter was supportive of Ms. G. where she wasengaging in services. I was told that if the children would not return soon to her she might be moved to a smaller room at the shelter. Aconsent could not be reached on that day and as well I required further evidence filed before I would consider a change to the currentorder.

It was also evident at this conference and based on discussions that there was tension in the parents' messages to me and their planas to whether they would be planning together or separately. [27] A Temporary Care and Custody motion was scheduled for March 25, 2020. The parents requested an earlier date that could notbe accommodated. [28] For today's Temporary Care and Custody Hearing, PCAS and the mother filed pleadings but not the father and the OCL.

Thereason the father did not was because his mental health had deteriorated over the past month and as noted above he is hospitalized. [29] The OCL relied on the filed affidavits which contained information regarding the children and their views and preferences andconnection to the parents so as to argue this motion on their behalf which was done. The children’s voices were present at this motion.

Temporary Care/Custody Hearing law: [30] In these motions the onus is on the society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable groundsto believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the parents, it is more probable than not that the child will sufferharm. Further, the onus is on the society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms of conditions of an interimsupervision order: see Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup.Ct.).

As often stated this is a two-part test that the society has to meet. [31] A court must choose the least disruptive placement consistent with the adequate protection of the children. Subsection 1(2) ofthe CYFSA. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 24489 . [32] If consistent with the principles set out in the legislation, the court must consider family and community plans prior to placingthe child in care. See Subsection 94(5) of the CYFSA. It is understood that this test is not perfection. Rather it is a balancing the risks asopposed to benefits.

It is open to the court to craft supervision terms designed to the child while at the same time preserving the child’scultural heritage and family ties. CCAS of Toronto v. J. 2012 ONCJ 269 . This is a best interest analysis. [33] The interim protection terms imposed by the court must be proportionate to the need shown by the evidence. CAS Toronto v.M.A., 202 O.J. No. 1432, Windsor-Essex CAS v. S. B., 2007 ONCJ 288 , 2007 O.J. No. 2700.

Evidence of Peel CAS [ 34 ] The Peel CAS relied on three affidavits in this motion. The first was filed on October 25, 2019, a second updating one dated March 5, 2020, since the children came into care and a third reply on March 24, 2020. [ 35 ] CASP asked that the children remain in its care. [ 36 ] Counsel for the Peel CAS highlighted the work that the society did with the parents for a year before bringing the matter to court. A very experienced worker had been working with the family to support them along with their local Coptic church.

Eventually the needs of the children and the risk posed caused the PCAS to file a Protection Application and bring the matter court. [ 37 ] It was pointed out in submissions by the OCL that much of the evidence of difficulties that CASP was experiencing in communicating with the family and attempting to develop a plan for the children to attend school and have their medical needs addressed, both in the short-term and long-term, was directly the result of the father dominating the discussions and the father refusing and controlling the family and in particular the mother. [ 38 ] As I noted above, I had been provided an update of the children’s needs in a detailed 17F confirmation form at the fourth conference on February 25, 2020.

I had attached this as reference to that conference endorsement for that day. [ 39 ] It was referenced today and accepted by all in this motion in addition to the updates regarding testing outlined in the March 5, 2020 PCAS affidavit as being accurate and trustworthy evidence for me to accept.

These documents outlined the work that the PCAS has done along with the foster parents to have assessed the children’s medical, developmental, emotional and educational needs as follows: [ 40 ] Medical needs: on December 20, 2019, the foster parents took the four children for their admission medical after the children came into care.

They were seen by Pulse Urgent Centre in Brampton and the doctor prescribed to them cold medication and gave the children M. and C. antibiotics for strep throat. [ 41 ] The children D. and C. met with the pediatrician and had blood and radiology tests completed as well as arranged to meet with an eye doctor. The children have a referral for hearing tests as well. [ 42 ] There is a dental appointment scheduled and an appointment with the doctor caring for their needs, Dr.

Kharti on March 27, 2020, to review all of the assessments provided regarding the children's needs. [ 43 ] On February 6, 2020, all four children were brought for a general checkup at their family doctor and all were found to be in good health. The child A. had pinkeye and was given a prescription. [ 44 ] On February 10, 2020, all four children had a visit with the eye doctor and they were tested except the child C. who would not sit still for an assessment. The child M. has good vision but will need reading glasses for fine print. The child A. has blurred vision and requires glasses day-to-day.

The child D. has 20/20 vision. The child C. who could not sit still for testing was referred to a doctor that works with children who refuse testing. [ 45 ] On February 18, 2020, the children were brought to the We Welcome the World Centre for educational assessments. The older children were given short form assessments and an exemption to begin school and further assessments will be completed later. The children were to begin school on Monday, February 24, 2020: 1. Child M. in grade 7; 2. Child A. and D. grade 1 and kindergarten respectively;

Child C. who needs an assessment regarding autism will eventually be going to daycare. [ 46 ] The foster parents reported that the children are jittery and sensitive and jump at large noises which seems to be a reaction to arguments that they have been exposed to while living with their parents as the children are sensitive to voices when they are loud. [ 47 ] The foster parents explained that the children have talked about police coming to their home because of arguments between the parents when they live together. [ 48 ] The children A. and D. have been brought to the family doctor who has made a referral for a psychiatric assessment of them both.

The concern of the doctor is that they might be showing early signs of schizophrenia.

This apparently is the mental health struggle that the father is currently experiencing. [ 49 ] It was pointed out by PCAS that in its work with the mother from as early as January 2019 that there were attempts to have her independently bring the children to the doctor and have them registered and attend school despite the father's objections. [ 50 ] In the most recent affidavits from PCAS it outlines the fact that it does recognize that the mother has taken some significant steps recently to plan independently for the children from the father.

Its concern is that this progress needs time to be consolidated and as well aspects of her plan are just coming together such as locating proper housing. [ 51 ] CASP argues that although Ms. G., over the last 2 months, has left and gone to a shelter where she lives separate from Mr. S., she has returned to assist Mr. S. with his daily needs and to encourage him to attend a doctor for his mental health which he refused to do. [ 52 ] In the reply affidavit March 24, 2020, of the PCAS and confirmed in the mother’s affidavit for this motion, is that on February 29, 2020, Mr.

S. was arrested and charged with uttering a threat and assault towards Ms. G. [ 53 ] Ms. G. in her affidavit explains that how she has been attempting, for a considerable period of time, to encourage her husband and encourage others as well to push her husband to seek assistance for his mental health. This led to her returning temporarily on February 26, 2020 for the purpose of helping care for himself and feed him. It was not her intention she argues to return permanently but just to help him. It was during this time that he refused her to leave and when after many attempts the police arrived to assist, that Mr.

S, in the presence of the police, assaulted her and threatened her. [ 54 ] Below are terms of a Release Order from a Justice of the Peace in Brampton on March 4, 2020. Some of the conditions in this release order are that Mr. S. is not to communicate directly or indirectly, by any physical or electronic or other means with Ms. G. except in the presence or through legal counsel: 1. Not to attend any known place where Ms. G. is living, working or going to school or may frequent; 2. Any contact between himself and his children to be through the CAS or pursuant to a Family Court Order dated after March 4, 2020.

Affidavit of Ms. G. [ 55 ] In her affidavit in support of the return of the children she described how for several years her husband has been showing signs of suspicion and paranoia towards others who have been helping them or attempting to help them. This occurred both here in Canada and in Cyprus where they were living after fleeing Egypt where they had experienced persecution and little assistance from the government. [ 56 ] She explains that how their family doctor here in the Peel region, who speaks Arabic, has provided medication to her husband

in the past. Her husband started this and stopped. The doctor also offered her husband an injection that would assist for a long period of time which he refused. [ 57 ] The doctor explained how her husband might need to go on disability as his condition is such that he will not be able to work. [ 58 ] She explained how while living at the shelter her husband has called on several occasions over her cellphone asking her to come back to help him with his daily needs. She does not hide the fact that she has done this on occasion.

She found his health and overall situation deteriorating. [ 59 ] She does explain how in the past the police have been involved in her life here in Canada because of her husband’s behaviour. She explains how he argued randomly with a person in stores. [ 60 ] She explains how she returned to assist him on February 26, 2020 and he then refused to allow her to return to the shelter.

It was not until late in the evening of February 29, 2020 through her persistent telephone calls that the police arrived and witnessed while present her husband assaulting her and generally not in a healthy situation. [ 61 ] As noted above, Mr.

S. was brought before a Justice of the Peace and he was released and not, as she had hoped, ordered to undergo a mental health assessment. [ 62 ] She gave a statement to the police at the police station and again underlines the fact that although her husband is not well now he is not a bad person. [ 63 ] On March 10, 2020 she received a call from the Mississauga Hospital from a doctor at the mental health unit asking for background information regarding her husband as he was admitted in the hospital being treated and she was told how her husband’s complaining about seeing things amongst other issues. [ 64 ] Ms.

G. explains how she was conflicted in working with the PCAS since the children were brought into its care. But she recognizes the need to plan for the children separate from her husband. She admitted that she has been trying to help him get well.

She disagrees with the society’s assessment of her that her loyalties lay with her husband over her children. [ 65 ] She points out that she has been controlled by him and had little options in the past but now has explained how she has a support network around her since attending the shelter and has learned independent skills that she did not have prior to the December 18, 2019 court intervention.

Some of these are around independent living in the Peel region, being able to access government services, learning the transportation system and opening a bank account independent of her husband. [ 66 ] Her plan is the life independently with the children from her husband. With the assistance of the Catholic Cross Cultural Services and her Coptic church community she is now in a position to rent an apartment for her and the four children. It was explained to the court that if the children were returned to her that the Egyptian Coptic centre is prepared to co-sign a lease/rental agreement for Ms.

G. and she is actively looking for accommodation for April 1, 2020. [ 67 ] She will continue to work with the Peel Children’s Aid Society and follow the recommendations regarding having the children attend school on a regular basis except for the youngest child who will remain with her until daycare is arranged. She has attended some of the medical appointments for her children and will follow up with their family doctor and the specialist that have been put in place to assist with the children’s developmental needs. [ 68 ] Ms.

G. indicated that in terms of assisting her husband her focus is that of the children and he when better will have to have visits supervised by the PCAS as directed. [ 69 ] She wishes to enroll in English language skills training and eventually look for employment.

[ 70 ] Her income is that of Ontario Works and the Federal child tax benefit, together this income is approximately $3000 per month. [ 71 ] The OCL noted in submissions that the mother was always shown she is capable of caring for the children. The principal issue has been the emotional and mental health and controlling nature of Mr. S. It was noted that the society’s earlier affidavits focus entirely on Mr. S. as being the obstacle to the children obtaining education as well as addressing their medical needs because of his paranoia and controlling nature.

The OCL reported that the children have shown affection to their mother and father during visits and have always indicated to the OCL, at least those that have been able to express their views and preferences, that they wish to return to the care of their parents and in this case to their mother who has always been their primary caregiver.

Discussion and Decision: [ 72 ] Considering the totality of the evidence I find that the four children are at risk of emotional harm as well as the risk to their physical well-being. [ 73 ] This is primarily because for the past year their educational needs have not been addressed nor their medical/ developmental needs. [ 74 ] From the evidence I have received I find that this is principally due to the resistance of the father, Mr S in refusing to work with the PCAS and refusing to permit the mother to follow through by coercion and intimidation of her. [ 75 ] It is recognized that there is evidence that PCAS did encourage the mother to do so independently of Mr.

S., however, this was in the context of the family living together. [ 76 ] I accept the mother’s evidence that for years she has been struggling to deal with the father’s emotional health as well as maintaining the well-being of the children. [ 77 ] I accept that she has been subject to the father’s dominating behaviour . [ 78 ] The family has been together since 2006. The parents have these four children together and have been through a lot.

There is no doubt a history that binds the family. [ 79 ] At this point in time the mother is planning on her own and this is an important move on her part and one that is necessary now. [ 80 ] This was a struggle for her to recognize over the past several months. She has taken this step and has indicated as such in her evidence. [ 81 ] She has, I believe, been open with the social workers about the controlling nature of her husband.

This was apparent on February 28, 2020, as explained in paragraphs 38 through 41 of the affidavit of the PCAS, dated March 5, 2020. [ 82 ] In these paragraphs it is explained that during an access visit, at which time both parents were present along with an Arabic interpreter, the father was acting and talking in a controlling manner to the children. During an occasion when he left to go to the washroom Ms. G. advised the interpreter to the worker that she wants to leave the house and that she is not happy there and says she is being held captive. She feels like a prisoner because Mr.

S. watches everything she does, even when she goes to the bathroom. [ 83 ] When the social worker asked her if she was prepared to leave on that day, Ms. G. said not then as she did not want Mr. S. to

“try anything.” [ 84 ] Ms. G. in her affidavit explained how she was required to contact the police who eventually assisted her in leaving on February 29, 2020 during which in the presence of the police Mr. S. assaulted and threatened Ms. G. and was charged. [ 85 ] I was provided with a copy of the release conditions that Mr. S. is now subject to. [ 86 ] This Order assists to some degree, but it is not a blanket guarantee that he will not attempt to reach out to his wife given his emotional and mental health difficulties. This Order should assist the police in responding to a request, but this depends on Ms.

G. if she is contacted/harassed by Mr. S. [ 87 ] This is where the risk lies at this time. The understanding and willingness of Ms. G. to prioritize the children over the needs of her husband. [ 88 ] I believe that the intervention of the court in December 2019 with the children being brought into the care of the CAS has underlined to her the seriousness of her family situation and the need to focus her limited resources on the children. [ 89 ] None of the protection concerns that I have received focus on Ms. G.’s parenting ability to care and love her children.

The principal concern has been the emotional well-being of the father that has thrown this family into a crisis. Mr. S. continues to be a protection concern. I am satisfied, however, that considering the evidence, that a supervision order placing the children with Ms. G. would address the protection issues presented in this file with her living separate and apart from Mr.

S. and his contact to the children to be at the discretion of the PCAS only. [ 90 ] Although not argued directly in this motion, I recognize that some of the gains and parenting that the children received by the foster parents will change when all four children are with Ms. G. on her own. [ 91 ] I heard that the children have responded well to the care and direction they have received. This also is an indication that there was a foundation of care provided to all four children while they were being raised by the parents as they responded quickly to the calm routine offered to them in care these past two months.

I believe that all recognize that at this motion it is not whether the children will be better off with someone else but rather whether Ms. G.’s plan can address the recognized protection concerns and provide adequate care to her children. [ 92 ] Yes, there will be some change with the transfer to Ms. G.’s care, but she too is planning to live in a calm environment away from the confusion and domination of Mr. S., at this time. As to what connection and role Mr. S. will play with his children, this is not the time to concentrate on this.

His contact for now will be via the PCAS albeit through phone and video link. [ 93 ] Ms. G. is open to working with PCAS. Over the past year I find that PCAS has been diligent in its mandate to provide guidance and counselling and other services to this family while carrying out its investigation of the protection concerns. I was informed today that the PCAS will continue with its work mainly by videophone conferencing with the mother while the children are in her care given the COVID-19 crisis.

I was informed that the type and level of continued supervision are assessed and based on each family and the children’s needs. [ 94 ] Ms. G. has been open to services offered to her at the shelter. Her plan in

part consists of finding, with the assistance of her support network, a rental apartment which she hopes to obtain in early April 2020. [ 95 ] The COVID-19 health crisis also poses unique challenges for the return of these children to the mother’s care. Although school is out until further notice, and this will not be part of their daily routine, it is an important aspect of the service to this family and the children that are no longer available at this point in time.

[ 96 ] Ms. G. has participated over the phone recently with doctors' assessments and I would imagine that except for urgent medical intervention many of the services that the children will need will be on hold for the next little while. [ 97 ] It is understandable that some of the momentum gained recently regarding the children’s educational requirements and health needs will have to wait until the green light is given to resume these activities. [ 98 ] In the meantime, Ms.

G. will no doubt have her hands full in terms of assuring the children and herself abide by the government health recommendations to distance themselves at their home. This will require her to rely on the assistance of her support network more than ever. The PCAS and Ms. G. will need to work closely to assure that her basic needs and those of the children are addressed in these difficult times. Temporary Order: [ 99 ] That the four children of this file, M.S. age 13, C.S. age 8.5, D.S. age 6, and A.S. age 5 shall be placed in the care and custody of their mother Ms. M.G.R.G. The timing of which is as follows: Ms.

G. shall provide to PCAS adequate proof that she has obtained proper rental accommodation for herself and the children at which time PCAS with the mother's participation and consent shall transfer the children into her care and custody as a group or staggered into her care over no greater than 7 days. [ 100 ] Ms.

M.G. shall assure that the children’s medical needs and educational needs are addressed as required considering the government directives to address health/safety during the COVID-19 measures and she and the children shall follow the “remain in” and “stay apart” from others in public directions of the Ontario government at this time. [ 101 ] Ms.

M.G. shall avoid taking with her all four children if she is required to go out shopping or attend to her needs and should enlist the support of PCAS and her support network to assist with shopping or caring for the children in her apartment as a first measure. [ 102 ] If any child needs medical attention, except for an obvious emergency, she is to contact the PCAS worker and her contact network to assess the situation and obtain first remote medical attention/direction before attending a hospital or clinic unless directed to do so. [ 103 ] Ms.

M.G. shall permit the PCAS to meet with her and with the children directly or via video link as required and when contacted by PCAS and Ms. G. is not available to talk with them, will reply within the same day. This will need to be coordinated as PCAS shall have an Arabic interpreter available for all communication with Ms. G. and the children. [ 104 ] All contact/access between the children and their father Mr. S. shall be supervised at the discretion of the PCAS. Until a further order, Ms. G. shall not facilitate video access between the children and their father Mr. S.

An Arabic interpreter will be present during this access. [ 105 ] Ms. G., with the assistance of the PCAS, shall at the first practical opportunity register the three older children in school in Peel. [ 106 ] Ms.

G. shall, after being given an opportunity to review the same with her lawyer, sign reasonable requests for consent to release of information forms so that PCAS may communicate with her and the children’s service providers. [ 107 ] PCAS to communicate with the Ontario Government for any emergency funds available to this family that might now exist given the COVID-19 measures. [ 108 ] PCAS shall also communicate with the Federal Government department dealing with monthly child tax benefits to assure that if these funds were directed to PCAS, while the children were in its care, or somehow discontinued that it will assist Ms.

G. to re-register as need be so that Ms. G. receives this assistance on an expedited basis.

[ 109 ] If any party requires clarification of the terms of this order, that party may request a teleconference with notice to all via my assistant. [ 110 ] The PCAS in cooperation with Ms. Yousef, mother’s counsel, will assure that this endorsement is interpreted into Arabic orally and the terms of the supervision reviewed with her. [ 111 ] PCAS shall have a social worker with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter review this decision and terms of the order with Mr. S. March 30, 2020 Justice A.W.J. Sullivan This endorsement to be emailed to each counsel.