2019 ONCJ 759, 2019 ONCJ 759

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be at tached 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 pro​ceeding, 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 corpora​tion 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. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: Children ’ s Aid Society of Halton Region v. L.S.A. , 2019 ONCJ 759 DATE: 2019·08·30 COURT FILE No.: Halton 556/14 B E T W E N : Children’s Aid Society, Region of Halton Applicant — AND — LSA – Mother MIA – Father

Respondents Before Justice Susan Sullivan Heard on October 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 22, 29, 31 2018; January 21, 2019; February 4, 11, 12, and 13, 2019, March 1, 2019 Reasons for Judgment released on August 30, 2019 Diane Skrow ……………………………………………………………………….. Counsel for the Applicant Society Nilofar Sharif .................................................................. Counsel for the Respondent Mother MIA ................................................................................................................ On his own behalf Rasim Misheal ............................................ Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the children S. SULLIVAN J.:

Part 1 – Introduction [ 1 ] This is the court’s ruling following a trial held in this matter on October 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 29, 31, 2018; January 21, 2019; February 4, 11, 12, and 13, 2019. Closing arguments were provided orally, with additional final submissions made in writing. Submissions concluded on March 1, 2019. [2] The subject children are TMA (born XXX, 2003) (“TMA”) and LCA (born XXX, 2005) (“LCA”) (collectively “the children”). They are fifteen (15) and thirteen (13) years old. [3] The applicant is the Children’s Aid Society, Region of Halton (“the Society”). [4] The respondent mother is LSA (“Mrs.

A” / “the mother”). [5] The respondent father is MIA (“Mr. A” / “the father”). [6] This proceeding was commenced when the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 (“ CFSA ”) was in effect. On April 30, 2018 the CFSA was replaced with the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 , S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“ CYFSA ”/”the Act”). Pursuant to s. 11 of O. Reg. 147/18, the trial in this proceeding was heard under the new Act, specifically

Part V, which deals with child protection proceedings.

Part 2 – Positions of the parties [7] The Society seeks a finding that the children are in need of protection pursuant to subsections 74(2) (b)(i)(ii), and (

f) of the CYFSA . [8] Further, the Society seeks a final order that:

(

a) the mother shall be granted custody of the children pursuant to

section 102 of the Act; (

b) there shall be no access between the father and the children pursuant to

section 104 of the legislation; and (

c) there shall be a restraining order such that there be no contact between the father and the mother, and/or the children pursuant to subsection 102(3) of the CYFSA . [9] The mother’s position and that of the Office of the Children's Lawyer mirror the Society’s request. [10] In addition, the mother seeks an order that: (

a) she be permitted to obtain and renew passports for the children without the father’s signature and consent; and (

b) she be permitted to travel with the children for vacation purposes without the father’s written consent. [11] The Society and the Office of the Children's Lawyer support the mother’s further requests. [12] The father is opposed to the mother being able to apply for the children’s passports and to their ability to travel; he wants “authorization or consent rights”. [13] The father is also opposed to the restraining order being made. [14] The father requests an order that: (

a) he and the mother shall have joint custody of the children; (

b) he shall have access with the children following completion of his proposed reunification plan; (

c) the school board shall be permitted to release report cards to him directly; (

d) at least five (5) “nice photos” of the children shall be released to him on a monthly basis; (

e) he shall be provided electronic or hard copies of the children’s projects; and (

f) he shall be permitted to renovate the family home so it can be sold. [15] The Society takes no position regarding the father being provided with report cards. The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer oppose this re- quest. [16] The provision of pictures and the children’s projects are a form of access, and the parties’ positions regarding access apply to these requests.

Part 3 – Evidence [17] This trial was conducted as a blended proceeding. I did not consider evidence that went solely to the issue of disposition in determining if the children were in need of protection. [18] The Society called three

(3) Society workers as witnesses; Jennifer Christian (“Ms. Christian”); Catherine Wells (“Ms. Wells”) and Inderjit Grewal (“Ms. Grewal”). They provided their evidence in chief by way of affidavit and were subject to cross-examination. [19] Mrs. A testified on her own behalf. [20] Mr. A also testified. Psychiatrist Dr. Stephen Webb (“Dr. Webb”) gave evidence on behalf of the father. [21] Roy Reid (“Mr. Reid”), a clinical investigator with the Office of the Children's Lawyer, also gave evidence. His evidence in chief was by way of affidavit and he was subject to cross-examination. [22] The court’s witness was Dr.

Daniel Ashbourne (“Dr. Ashbourne”) of the London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”); he completed a parenting capacity assessment dated July 29, 2016 and provided an addendum dated November 7, 2016. [23] Forty-eight (48) exhibits were filed. [24] The parties agreed that the children’s statements would be admitted as the state of mind hearsay exception. [25] I have reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented and the submissions made.

Part 4 – Background facts [26] This

part contains facts that were not disputed, unless otherwise indicated. [27] Mr. A was fifty-three (53) years old when he testified. [28] Mrs. A was fifty-two (52) years old when she testified. [29] Mr. and Mrs. A married August 4, 1995. [30] Prior to marriage, they lived together for approximately four (4) to five (5) years, at the maternal grandparents’ home. [31] The parents separated October 10, 2013. [32] Mr. A has not had access to the children since the date of separation. [33] Prior to the birth of the children, Mrs. A worked full-time as a high school teacher with the Toronto District School Board.

[34] Following the birth of TMA, she worked part-time. Since LCA’s birth, she has been a stay-at-home mother, except for in 2013 when she worked briefly for the Town of Oakville for a few months. [35] Mrs. A ’s evidence is that she and Mr. A mutually agreed that she would work part-time after TMA’s birth. Further, she testified that after LCA’s birth, they agreed that she would be a stay-at-home parent, instead of paying the costs related to them both being employed (i.e. the cost of daycare, car insurance, gas, etc.). [36] Mr.

A ’s evidence is that he did not find out she was working part-time until they were driving to work together one day. He further testified that Mrs. A refused to return to work after LCA’s birth. [37] Mr. A is a mechanical engineer. During the parents’ relationship, he worked at Indal Technologies in Mississauga. This business later became Curtis Wright. When the company was restructured, Mr. A ’s position became redundant.

He became unemployed in April, 2012. [38] The family had two (2) openings with the Society prior to the current involvement (which commenced in October, 2013). [39] In January, 2004 the Society received a referral from a Public Health Nurse. The Society did not conduct an investigation. [40] In June, 2012 the Society received a referral from the Halton Regional Police Service (“HRPS”) regarding concerns of physical abuse of the mother by the father; the maternal grandmother had contacted HRPS and stated concerns.

During its investigation, the Society received a subsequent referral from HRPS in the form of an occurrence report dated June 29, 2012. During the investigation, the mother did not make any disclosures regarding physical abuse, but did disclose feeling pressured by the father to get a job. She also reported that the father had been recording some of her telephone conversations. The father denied the physical abuse and shared his belief that the mother should get a job.

The Society verified the protection concerns that the children were emotionally affected by domestic violence in the home. [41] The Society’s current involvement with the family began on October 1, 2013 when it received a referral from TMA’s teacher at XXX Public School. [42] On October 8, 2013 the Society received an occurrence report from HRPS regarding its attendance at the family home on September 30, 2013. No charges were laid immediately following this home visit. [43] On October 10, 2013 the mother and the children were interviewed by the police and Ms. Christian.

Subsequent to these interviews, the father was charged with four (4) counts of assault. [44] The father’s bail conditions included terms that he not attend the family home and have no contact with the mother and the children. [45] The father’s criminal trial began in December, 2014. It ended while the mother was testifying. The criminal charges were withdrawn.

Part 5 – Brief overview of court proceeding [46] The Society’s protection application, dated November 26, 2014, had a first return date of December 4, 2014. Therein, it requested: (

a) a protection finding pursuant to subsections 37(2)(

b) and 37(2)(

f) of the

CFSA ; the children shall be placed in the care of their mother, subject to a seven month supervision order; (

b) the children shall have no access with their father, until a comprehensive Child Maltreatment Assessment is completed by the Child Advocacy & Assess​ment Program at McMaster Children’s Hospital; (

c) the father shall not attend the family home located at XXX, Burlington; XXX Public School; or any other place known for the mother and the children to be and this shall be enforced by the Halton Regional Police Service or any other police service where the parties and/or the children may be at any given time; (

d) the father shall not attend at or harass by way of phone calls to any agency or community resource who is working with the children, including but not limited to Radius Child and Family Services and Access Counselling; (

e) the Society shall provide the father updated information on an ongoing basis, as required; and (

f) costs. [47] On December 4, 2014 the Honourable Justice Victoria Starr made a tempo​rary without prejudice order that the father shall not attend the family home, the children’s school, or any other place known for the mother and the children to be and that this order shall be enforced by the police. Justice Starr also ordered that, on a without prejudice basis, there shall be no access between the children and the father, pending adjournment of the matter. [48] The mother, in her Answer and Plan of Care dated January 27, 2015 sought an order for costs. While not expressly stated in

Part 5 of her Answer, it appears that she agreed with the Society’s request, save that she requested that visits by the Society worker be announced. [49] The father, in his Answer and Plan of Care dated February 23, 2015, under

Part 5, requested the following final order: (

a) access; (

b) return the children to his care; (

c) place the children in his custody; and (

d) costs. [50] In his Answer, when prompted to give details of the order that he wanted the court to make, he included the following requests: (

a) the mother pay his costs and the Society costs; immediate nightly, as a minimum, phone calls with the children “to insure their safety, allow me to be part of their lives again and to start to reverse LSA’s negative and untrue statements about me which has damage my once excellent relationship with them”; (

b) immediate supervised access with the children, at a minimum of two nights per week and every other weekend. He noted that he preferred unsupervised access because, “supervision is not actually necessary”. On the days of his access, he would be living at the home at XXX, Burlington ON without Mrs. A being present at the home;

(

c) involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer; (

d) release of the children’s medical records from Dr. Ramsaywak; (

e) disclosure of the Society’s file by March 30, 2015, with no redactions, including no vetting of records to remove solicitor/client privileged information and identifying information of non-professionals; (

f) monthly updates from the clinics providing services to TMA and LCA, which shall include, at a minimum, the specific information he outlined in his Answer; (

g) responses to his stated questions regarding “CAAP study”; (

h) responses to his stated questions for the Society; (

i) a “detailed plan & case schedule” for the resolution of this case “from pre- sent to finish”; (

j) weekly (more as required), “status update appointment phone calls” be- tween him and the Society, which shall be scheduled for one hour, minimum. Also, the Society shall provide status updates by fax to compliment the phone calls. He noted that the phone calls are required “to help this case stay on schedule, once CAS releases the Case Plan and Schedule”; (

k) release of all “CAS & Court proceedings audio and/or transcript”, if he re- quests it; and (l) “Equal funding Legal Compensation packages for the Applicant (CAS) & Respondent (Mr.

A) so that both parties have fair legal representation”. This included a request to “create a court order or equivalent to mandate CAS current government (taxpayers) funded budget be evenly shared between the applicants and respondents”, and to “...create a court order mandating that CAS shall use only the services of duty counsel to represent CAS on a shoe string budget as outline by legal aid, instead of their team’s highly specialized lawyers”. [51] On April 9, 2015 a temporary care and custody motion was heard by Justice Starr and she ordered, in part: (

a) the children shall be placed in the care of the mother, subject to the super- vision of the Society; (

b) the father shall not to attend the family home, the children’s school, or any other place known for the mother and the children to be. This is enforceable by Halton Regional Police Service, and any other police service where the parties and/or the children may be at any given time; (

c) the children shall not have access with their father until such time as a comprehensive Child Maltreatment Assessment has been completed by the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program at McMaster Children’s Hospital; and (

d) the Society shall give the father file disclosure every thirty (30) days starting from the date of the next batch about to be disclosed (expected to be April 17, 2015). [52] On August 20, 2015 Justice Starr made an order, on consent, that a parenting capacity assessment be completed by Dr. Ashbourne of the LFCC.

[53] On October 8, 2015 Justice Starr ordered that the father shall pay to the mother, within sixty (60) days, $3000.00 in costs arising from the temporary care and custody hearing. [54] On February 23, 2016 Justice Starr dealt with both the oral and written motions brought by the father, amongst other things. In part, she ordered: (

a) all requests for third party disclosure are dismissed without prejudice to the father’s right to renew his requests for said relief, on notice to the Society, the mother, and to the third parties from whom he seeks disclosure; (

b) any items of disclosure or relief requested by the father in any notices of motion which predate this date and which have not been dealt with today or previously, are dismissed on the basis that the father has declared that there are no other disclosure requests set out in those notices of motion that remain outstanding; and (

c) the following requests for relief from the father (some set out in his notice of motion, some not) are dismissed: (

a) request for permission to discuss the children and their attendance at school with school professionals; (

b) request to have the parties’ son stop taking Prozac; (

c) request for information with respect to the steps taken by the mother and the Society to ensure that the children are safe from harm from their family dog, a Rottweiler; (

d) request for compliance by the Society and the mother without further order of this court in the event that Dr. Ashbourne provides a written recommendation that the father have immediate access to the children; (

e) request that the Society pay for the services of a lawyer to represent him in these proceedings; (

f) request that the mother provide him with photographs (current) of the children (without prejudice to the father’s right to renew his request at a later date to be set by the court, in the event that the mother refuses to provide same); and (

g) request to vary the April 9, 2015 order which prohibits him from attending at the family home. [55] On February 23, 2016 Justice Starr also varied the April 9, 2015 order to state, “On a temporary basis, the children shall not have access with the father until such time as the comprehensive parenting capacity assessment currently under​way with the London Family Court Clinic has been completed, the report made available to the court and the parties, and this court orders otherwise.” [56] On May 24, 2017 the Society amended its protection application. Therein, it requests the following final order: (

a) a protection finding pursuant to subsections 37(2) (b)and 37(2) (

f) of the CFSA ; (

b) the children shall be placed in the custody of the mother; (

c) there shall be no access between the father and the children; and (

d) a restraining order.

Part 6 – Credibility and Reliability [57] The Society workers submitted their evidence in a fair, clear and straight- forward manner. Their evidence was substantially consistent with the evidence of the other witnesses and often corroborated by independent documentation. They kept contemporaneous notes of events, which enhanced the reliability of their evidence. Their testimony was not undermined in cross- examination. [58] Ms. Christian readily acknowledged that she erroneously referred the father to Caring Dads program. Her willingness to easily make this admission contributed to her believability.

[59] Ms. Wells presented as a very empathetic social worker. I was particularly impressed when she spoke of how she really wanted to succeed in helping the father develop insight into his behaviours and the impact of his conduct and thought processes on the children. She sincerely acknowledged his heartache; his love for his children; and apologized to Mr. A when her testimony seemed to upset him. Her genuineness permitted me to readily accept what she had to say. [60] Ms. Grewal was the worker for a relatively short period of time.

She presented her evidence in a matter of fact way and I had no concerns regarding the veracity of the little information she shared. [61] Mr. Reid tendered his evidence in an informed, consistent, and complete manner. His testimony was not disturbed in cross- examination. [62] Dr. Webb readily identified that he is an advocate for the father. His role and goals were evident; until he was cautioned not to do so, he actively attempted to provide his views on case management decisions and assessments that have occurred in this matter.

During cross-examination, he presented as somewhat cautious and guarded with his answers; it was clear that he was trying not to stray from his advocacy role. Notwithstanding this, he did answer questions regarding his observations of and interactions with Mr. A with detail, even when the information he provided was not overly helpful to the father. In the end, his professional integrity was not compromised by the advocacy role he has chosen to assume. [63] Dr.

Ashbourne was qualified, on consent, as an expert in parenting capacity assessments; custody and access assessments; child development; and parental alienation. His evidence was also given in a straightforward manner. His assess​ment was exceptionally detailed and balanced. He readily acknowledged the limitations of his assessment. [64] Mrs. A’s evidence was very credible and reliable. Her testimony was presented in a free-flowing manner.

It included a great amount of detail regarding important events, and these specifics remained consistent both at various points during her examination in chief and when she was cross-examined. [65] Mrs. A’s fear of Mr. A was palpable. She tried hard to contain her emotion when recounting events of the marriage. [66] I was impressed by the fact that the mother readily acknowledged facts that were not in her interest. For example, she accepted partial responsibility for the traumatization the children experienced when they lived together as a family. [67] It was very clear that Mr.

A loves his children very much and that he desperately wants to have access with them and otherwise participate in their lives. That said, his evidence was not credible or reliable. [68] Mr. A often gave his evidence in a rambling and disjointed manner. At times, he would rapidly change topics. I considered that he is a self-represented litigant and his self-described difficulties with expressing himself. I also noted that Mr.

A is an educated man who allowed himself five (5) years to prepare for this trial, and other steps in this case; he has not sought employment for this time period so that, as he explained, he could be a full-time lawyer. As well, with the consent of all parties, Mr. A was permitted to have some self- made notes with him while testifying, to be of assistance. Also, with Mr. A’s approval and that of the other parties, I provided him with some assistance at various times as to how to present his case. These efforts did not change the manner in which he testified. [69] While giving evidence, Mr.

A was routinely emotional, often appearing as he was crying. He quickly recovered and moved on with his evidence. [70] When challenged about his evidence, Mr. A often became evasive, argumentative, and was quick to blame others. He tried to control the cross-examination by giving tangential answers that did not directly answer the questions put to him, but rather attempted to further his own agenda. [71] It is unlikely that Mr. A’s behaviour was as close to perfection as he states, and so misinterpreted by others as he claims.

His lack of ability and/or willingness to concede many points that were so clearly established by the compelling evidence of others impacts his credibility and reliability.

[72] Also, Mr. A’s credibility and reliability was compromised by the inconsistencies in what he said under oath and what documentary evidence establishes. For example: (

a) When being cross-examined by mother’s counsel, Mr. A was asked about paying recent propane bills, Mr. A said he paid the bills upon receipt. When he was provided with documentary evidence to the contrary, he explained that he received the notice of non- payment while the trial was ongoing, when he was getting little sleep; (

b) Mr. A was steadfast in his evidence that he does not bruise easily. When shown a pre-anaesthetic questionnaire he completed February 12, 2013 wherein he noted that he does bruise easily, his response was that he was speechless and did not know why he wrote that in the medical form; and (

c) Mr. A denied controlling how much electricity the family used. When shown a copy of the Burlington Hydro bill dated July 19, 2013 on which Mr. A had calculated the usage of hydro during peak hours for the fridge, the air conditioner, and the shower, Mr. A replied that he made these calculations because he ‘loves doing numbers’ and that he ‘likes calculating everything’. [73] For the above-noted reasons, where there are discrepancies in the evidence between the father and the other witnesses, I have preferred the evidence of others over that of the father.

Part 7 – Statutory findings 7.1 Legal considerations [74] Pursuant to s. 90(2) of the CYFSA , as soon as practicable, and in any event before determining whether a child is in need of protection, the court shall determine: (

a) the child’s name and age; (

b) whether the child is a First Nations , Inuk or Métis child and, if so, the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities; and (

c) where the child was brought to a place of safety before the hearing, the location of the place from which the child was removed. 7.2 Analysis [75] No party has disputed the statutory findings as requested by the Society. [76] A finding pursuant to subsection 90(2)(

c) of the Act does not apply, as the children were not brought to a place of safety. [77] Therefore, I find that the subject children are: (

a) TMA (born XXX, 2003). He is 15 years old;

(

b) LCA (born XXX, 2005). She is 13 years old; (

c) The children are not First Nations, Inuk or Metis children.

Part 8 – Protection findings 8.1 Legal considerations 8.1.1 G enera l [78] The threshold issue in child protection proceedings is whether the subject child is in need of protection. Without such a finding, thecourt does not have the jurisdiction to make any final orders, except for an order dismissing the application. This includes that a section102 custody order cannot be made if there is not a finding that the child is in need of protection. See: Children’s Aid Society of Torontov. E.B., 2018 ONCJ 333 (Ont.

C.J.). [79] The onus of proof to determine a finding in need of protection is on the Society on a balance of probabilities. See: Children’s Aidsociety of the Niagara Region v. P.L.R., (ON SC), 2005 CarswellOnt 1406 (Ont. S.C.J.). [80] The definition of a child in need of protection does not require that all persons having charge of the child be shown to have createdthe risk of harm contemplated. It is sufficient that one of them satisfies the circumstances for the court to make a finding. See: Children'sAid Society of Algoma v. A.B.,

(2018) ONCJ 831 (Ont. C.J.). [81] Despite anything in the Evidence Act, in any proceeding under

Part V of the CYFSA, the court may consider the past conduct of aperson toward any child if that person may care for or have access to a child who is the subject of the proceeding. Consideration of suchevidence may occur at the protection finding stage. See: subsection 93(1)(

a) of the CYFSA; Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S. (B.),

(2013) ONCJ 492 (Ont. C.J.). [82] A child protection proceeding is unlike ordinary civil litigation and the court can choose a flexible approach in determining therelevant time period for facts capable of consideration with respect to a finding of protection. See: CAS of Hamilton-Wentworth v. K.R.and C.W., 2001 CarswellOnt 5006 (Ont. S.C.J.). 8.1.2 Ri sk of physic a l har m [83] Subsection 74(2)(

b) of the CYFSA states: Child in need of protection

(2) A child is in need of protection where, (

b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by orresulting from that person’s, (

i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child; [84] The Society must prove that the risk of physical harm is real and likely, not speculative. See: Children's Aid Society of Rainy River(District) v. B. (C.),

(2006) ONCJ 458 (Ont. C.J.); Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., (ON SC), 2000

CarswellOnt 2156 (Ont. S.C.J.). [85] It is not necessary for the Society to prove intention to cause the children harm before finding that a child is in need of protection.See: Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.),

(2008) ONCJ 774 (Ont. C.J.), affirmed at Jewish Family & Child Service v. K. (R.)[2009], ONCA 903 (Ont. C.A.). However, it must be more than trifling physical harm. See: Children's Aid Society of Rainy River(District) v. B. (C.), supra. [86] A child may be at risk even if the conduct is not directed specifically towards that child. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society ofMetropolitan Toronto v. O. (L.M.), (ON CJ), 1995 CarswellOnt 4393 (Ont. Prov.

Div.). [87] Verbal abuse, aggression, and inappropriate situations that children are exposed to can constitute risk of physical harm: CatholicChildren's Aid Society of Hamilton v. S. (L.), 2011 ONSC 5850 , 2011 CarswellOnt 11097 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 380. 8.1.3 E motio nal ha r m [88] Subsection 74(2)(

f) of the Act states: Child in need of protection

(2) A child is in need of protection where, (

f) the child has suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious, (i) ) anxiety, (ii) depression, (iii) withdrawal, (iv) f-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or (

v) delayed development, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or patternof neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child. [89] With respect to determining whether emotional harm has occurred, the court does not require expert evidence. See: Simcoe MuskokaChild, Youth and Family Services v. L.V., 2016 CarswellOnt 18773 (Ont.

S.C.J.). [90] However, in meeting its burden of proof under these sections of the Act, it is not sufficient for the Society to simply establish thatthe child is merely sad or is experiencing some minor emotional unhappiness. The evidence must disclose on a balance of probabilitiesthat the harm to the child is “serious”. See: Jewish Family and Child Services from Greater Toronto v. Ki. Sl.,

(2017) ONCJ 447 (Ont.C.J.). 8.2 Facts [91] The court has been provided with an overwhelming evidentiary basis upon which to find that TMA and LCA are children in need ofprotection. 8.2.1 H ouse r ules [92] When the family lived together, Mr. A was fixated on minimizing the household expenses, primarily by limiting the family’s use ofwater and hydro. This obsession resulted in him exerting an overwhelming amount of control over the actions of Mrs. A and the children.

[93] The following are examples of the rigid rules he imposed: (

a) Mrs. A and the children were not allowed to use hot water in the home after 7:00 a.m. because this is when the hydro rates increased. To make sure that they had hot water in the home after 7:00 a.m., Mrs. A was expected to boil two (2) kettles of water, pour the boiled water into five (5) thermoses, put them in a cooler bin, with the lids sealed, in the dining room; (

b) Mrs. A could not use the coffee machine and kettle after 7:00 a.m.; (

c) Mrs. A and the children were restricted in when they could use the hairdryer; (

d) Mrs. A was not permitted to use air conditioning in the home. Mr. A set up a fan in the basement to blow cold air through the house. He also placed large sheets of foil over the windows to curb the heat that came into the home from the sun; Mrs. A had to hand- wash the dishes, in accordance with Mr. A ’s specific directions, despite them having a dishwasher in the home for thirteen (13) years, which was not installed until 2013; (

e) Mrs. A had to hand-wash the laundry and hang it outside and around the house, such as in doorways, the sunroom, and on the fence. Their washing ma- chine was broken for four and a half (4.5) years prior to separation and had not been fixed or replaced. The dryer was broken for three and a half (3.5) years prior to separation; (

f) Mr. A would take Costco sized cranberry juice bottles to his mother’s farm to fill up with water for use in the family home; and (

g) The water resulting from showers (taken before 7:00 a.m.) had to be saved and bailed into several pails. Once the water was cooled to room temperature, the pails were stationed near the home’s toilets and this water was to be used when the toilets were flushed. Mr. A “tripped” the toilets so they could not flush, thus making sure that the use of recycled water was the way the toilet bowls emptied. [94] Mr. A closely and consistently monitored the family’s compliance with his requirements.

For example, if he saw that a faucet lever indicated its last usage was to provide hot water, he required explanations as to why this was the case. [95] Mr. A’s oversight intensified after he was laid off from his job in April, 2012. [96] An event that has been referred to as the ‘hairdryer incident’ at trial illustrates the impact of non-compliance with these rules on Mrs. A and the children. [97] In May, 2012, around 8:30 p.m., both children had completed their showers. While in the kitchen, their mother asked them if they wanted to use the hair- dryer, to which they replied that they did. Mr.

A was in the living room. Mrs. A turned up the volume of the radio in the kitchen, and she and the children went to the ensuite master bathroom to use the hairdryer, as this was the farthest place in the home from where Mr. A was last seen. [98] While the children were drying their hair, Mr. A appeared in the bathroom doorway. He was angry. He told them to turn off the “god damn hairdryer” before he broke it. As Mr. A went to unplug the hairdryer, Mrs. A put her hand over the electrical outlet. He proceeded to peel her hand back “like it was silly putty”.

While he made a fist with one hand, he used the other to yank the plug from the wall. [99] TMA stood in front of his mother to protect her. As a result, he was the one who received Mr. A ’s punch. TMA was hit in the head. As Mrs. A and LCA cried, and TMA screamed in pain, Mr. A walked away, without an apology or showing remorse.

8.2.2 Mr s. A ’s e mpl o yment [100] Mr. A ’s obsessive interest in the family’s finances was also highlighted by his intense desire and involvement in Mrs. A becoming employed. [101] He incessantly required that she customize her resume and apply for ‘real jobs’ and not ‘50 cent jobs’. When she digressed from his plans for her in this regard, he called her derogatory names and followed her around the house, at- tempting to redirect her to this task (and others he thought she should be doing) by clapping his hands loudly near her face. [102] Mr.

A acknowledged that it was his expectation that his ex-wife work full-time outside of the home and until she was, she work full-time at trying to obtain said employment. He advised that he tried to get her to use the washing machine at night, as she had problems staying focused during the days on finding employ​ment. He also told Dr. Webb on October 26, 2016 that after he was laid off, he became ‘increasingly adamant’ that Mrs. A return to work. [103] Mr. A ’s expectations included that Mrs. A pursue employment as a French teacher, even though she was not qualified to teach this subject.

He noted that she was able to manipulate people in the past, as she got a job right out of teacher’s college when others were unemployed, so she could do this again. [104] Mr. A ’s view is Mrs. A’s unemployment was the sole cause of their marital difficulties. [105] In early July, 2013 Mrs. A overheard Mr. A tell TMA that it was his job to ensure that his mother became employed. Mrs. A went into the family room, where TMA and his father were having this this conversation. She found them facing each other, in close range. Mrs. A got in between them and extended her right arm to protect TMA. She told Mr.

A that TMA did not need to hear this. Mr. A became angry, told Mrs. A to get out his way and while doing so, grabbed her upper arms and shoved her. She lost her footing and landed partially on the floor and partially on the couch. LCA was also present and both children witnessed this. LCA said, ‘you said you were going to call’, referring to the police. Mr. A went on a tirade, shouting statements such as, ‘there she goes’; ‘wanting to break up the family’; ‘stupid bitch’; ‘only thing you are good at’. TMA pleaded with his mother that she not call the police. Both children were upset, shaking, and crying. Mr.

A then proceeded to blame their mother for upsetting the children and said to her, in front of the children, that he wanted her to be charged with child abuse. 8.2.3 Ot her fo r ms of e motion al ab use [106] Mr. A ’s controlling and abusive tendencies extended beyond those related to financial issues. For example: (

a) he limited the amount of garbage Mrs. A. could throw out to no more than ¾ of a garbage bag every two (2) weeks and he would check the garbage to determine the appropriateness of what she threw out; (

b) he required that she carry out her chores in the manner as directed by him and when she did not comply with his requirements, he would follow her around the home, clapping loudly very close to her face, while directing her actions; (

c) he routinely criticized her parenting of the children; (

d) for many years, he called her derogatory names, in front of the children, such as “pathetic piece of shit”, “loser” “failure” “fuck up” “fucking lousy excuse of a mother”; (

e) he demanded to know where she went when she left the house;

(

f) he taped many of her telephone calls without her knowledge (she discovered the downloaded phone calls on the family computer); and (

g) he required that she show receipts for all purchases she made. [107] The children were often present and witnessed their father’s unacceptable treatment of their mother. 8.2.4 P hysical abu se [108] Mr. A was also regularly physically abusive towards Mrs. A . [109] Sometimes, the children witnessed his treatment of her. On these occasions, they were tremendously upset by it. [110] Other times, the children were fortunate to be absent when the mistreatment occurred.

However, there were times that upon their return to the home, their father ensured they were made aware of the particulars, from his perspective, of what transpired. [111] In June, 2012, Mrs. A had put the permitted ¾ of a garbage bag to the curb. After doing so, she found Mr. A in the garage, opening the garbage bag, yelling and swearing about what she had thrown out. He then proceed to yell at her for what she had disposed of. She was so anxious about his behavior that she called her mother. When Mrs. A got off the phone, Mr. A grabbed her left arm, twisted it, and dragged her from the foyer to the living room.

When there, he sat her in a blue Lazy Boy chair, holding her in his lap by wrapping his arms around her waist. He proceeded to tell her she was crazy, and not making any sense. Around 2:00 p.m., the police showed up; the maternal grandmother had called them. When TMA and LCA returned home from school, Mr. A told them that their maternal grandmother had called the police for no reason. He further said that the maternal grandparents were dead; they were home wreckers; they were scum. He told the children (and Mrs.

A) that they were not to have anything to do with them. [112] In July, 2013 Mrs. A wanted to get rid of an old couch. Mr. A did not want her to throw it out. She moved it to the curb. He moved it back into the home. When she attempted to move it back out again, and they were both holding the couch attempting to direct it in their desired directions, without warning, he forcefully slapped her in the right cheek. Shocked, she dropped the couch and started to run. He called her names, such as ‘stupid dumb bitch’ as he ran after her. She even​tually returned home, and when she did, LCA’s bedroom window was open. Mr.

A told LCA that her mother is threatening to break up the family again and whatever she says is all lies. LCA noted to her mother the red mark on her face. [113] On September 30, 2013 the children missed their school bus, so their mother drove them to school. While there, she spoke with the physical education teacher, Ms. K, about what was going on in the home. As a result, she returned home later than expected. Mr. A was irate by her delayed return. He wanted her to be looking for a job. He complained and called her ‘brainless’ and ‘brain dead’.

He was worked up because three (3) job postings had to be replied to by 4:00 p.m.; she returned at around 11:00 a.m. She was overwhelmed by his continuous berating and negativity, and called the police. When the children came home later in the day, Mr. A asked LCA if she knew what ‘stunt’ her mother pulled this day. He asked LCA if she knew what her mother did to the family. He told both children to go to school the next day and tell their friends that their mother is scum for calling the police on the family for no reason. Mr. A continued to escalate and demanded that Mrs.

A tell the children why she called the police on the family. He followed her around while doing so, and the children got in between them. Mr. A called TMA a stupid boy, told him to move, and then he shoved him. Mrs. A called the police again, and Mr. A said, ‘there she goes again’; ‘calling the police’; breaking up the family.’ 8.2.5 Mr s. A ’s treat ment of Mr. A [114] At times, Mrs. A responded emotionally and physically to Mr. A ’s domestic violence and controlling behavior. 8.2.6 Mr. A ’s tr eat ment of t he chil dren

[115] In addition to the impact of the above on the children, Mr. A was also con​trolling and harmful to the children in other ways. For example: (

a) he was very insistent on reprogramming TMA’s bowel habits so that he would have a bowel movement in the mornings before he went to school. TMA was required to eat bran buds for breakfast, which he did not like. It often took him a while to eat the buds, and at these times, his father would become upset with him. TMA was not able to modify this behavior and his father’s insistence caused him anxiety; (

b) on more than one occasion, Mr. A dragged TMA to the car to go skiing when he did not want to. Mr. A insisted on getting maximum usage from the ski passes he bought; (

c) on more than one occasion, if the children were not listening to their father, or doing what he wanted them to do, he would follow them around and clap his hands near their face, as he did with their mother. He also tapped them on the head when angry at them. This was mostly done to TMA and was done in a con​frontational way, while saying things like, ‘earth to TMA’ and ‘is anyone in there’; and (

d) the children were also spanked by Mr. A and red marks were left on their buttocks. [116] There was an occasion when Mr. A told the children that they would end up living in a cardboard box on the side of the road in the “Jane and Finch area” if the police and/or the Society were called and they spoke to them. The children did not know where this was. Mr. A explained it was where people who do drugs and prostitutes live. The children did not know what a prostitute was, so he explained this too. This scared the children greatly. [117] Mr. A was often very demanding of the children regarding their learning.

To ensure their continued focus on the educational task at hand, on occasion Mr. A would hold the children in a lock down position in the family’s blue Lazy Boy chair, often covering their mouths so they could not scream for help. [118] For example, there was an occasion when Mr. A held TMA in a lock down to ensure that he continued to work on his French longer than he wanted to. TMA was eventually able to get away from his father and he went to his room and shut his door. Mr. A was angry and started to yell for TMA to come back downstairs. When he did not do so, Mr.

A charged up the stairs and attempted to push open his bedroom door. He was not able to open the door, because TMA was standing behind the door to stop it from opening. Mr. A told TMA to open the door or he would take it off its hinges. Mr. A shoved the door open and dragged TMA down the stairs by one arm. As TMA tried to escape his father’s hold, he grabbed on to the railing and lost his balance. He fell forward, hit his head on the wall, and fell down the stairs. He ended up lying on the floor at the bottom of the staircase, crying and screaming. Mr.

A ’s only reaction was to say that it would not have happened if he came when called. Mr. A did not console him, comfort him, or apol​ogize to TMA; he just walked away. LCA was also present when this all occurred. 8.2.7 I mpact upon th e childr en [119] On October 10, 2013 Ms. Christian observed, while interviewing the children about the ‘house rules’, they presented with “high anxiety”. She also recounted that TMA specifically expressed an extreme fear of his father and indicated that he felt his father was going to come to the home and harm them. [120] Mrs.

A described the children as having become fearful, anxious, and hyper vigilant as a result of their experiences while they lived as a family unit. The children wanted to protect her, to be her bodyguard. [121] Mrs. A also noted that LCA was relieved following her father’s absence from the home, but she was also worried about the ramifications of him being taken away by the police, what he might do next. [122] Mrs. A testified that TMA was also relieved following Mr. A ’s departure from the home, but he too was very anxious about what could be the repercussions of them revealing the lives they lived for so long.

TMA became suspicious of people. He was uncooperative and unwilling to speak much of his experiences. He did not trust people.

[123] On January 22, 2014 LCA expressed to Ms. Christian worry about her mother. TMA expressed strong hateful feelings towards his father. [124] TMA had anxiety attacks, nightmares, sleep disturbances and flashbacks. [125] There was a time that Mrs. A and LCA were trying to wake him up for school. When he woke up, he immediately bolted out of the room. They found him under the kitchen table, in a fetal position, shaking, crying, and repeatedly saying, “Please don’t hurt me MIA.” [126] In or about February, 2014 TMA was referred by his family doctor to child psychiatrist, Dr.

Brajovic, at the Joseph Brant Hospital Child and Adolescent Unit. [127] Dr. Brajovic diagnosed TMA with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Separation Anxiety. He was prescribed medication. The side effects he experi​enced were drowsiness, constipation and dry mouth. [128] TMA missed school from February, 2014 to May, 2014 given his significant separation anxiety. He returned to school in June, 2014 when he was doing better emotionally. [129] In 2016, TMA again did not attend school for a significant period of time; from after March Break, 2016 to the end of the school year.

He was not permitted to remain in school given his regular vomiting. Medical testing concluded that his vomiting was not due to any physical issues; they were attributed to an emotional condition. He returned to school in September, 2016. [130] TMA’s regression in 2016 is noted to have coincided with Dr. Ashbourne’s parenting capacity assessment, in which he was expected to participate. [131] On September 26, 2016 Ms. Wells asked LCA whether she thought that in the future she might want to see her father. With respect to her response, Ms. Wells notes, “LCA’s demeanour changed radically.

She started to cry, and she stated that she did not want to see her father. LCA stated that she feels safer with no communication with her father.” [132] LCA’s reaction to seeing her father on September 18, 2018 by chance on her way to meet with Mr. Reid, is indicative of the impact on her of her experiences with her. Mr. Reid testified, (while acknowledging that it was the first time they met) that her face was flushed, her speech was rapid, and she was not calm. She appeared almost on edge. She quickly commented that she was afraid after just seeing her father. Mr. Reid had to take steps to calm her fears.

TMA was also anxious following this event. 8.3 Analysis [133] While the parents and the children lived together, there was ongoing domestic violence (verbal, physical, emotional, psychological) that included con​trolling behaviour by the father towards the mother. Sometimes, the mother responded to this emotionally and physically towards the father. The children were exposed to this abusive behaviour. There was also ongoing adult tension/adult conflict around the children. As well, the children were directly subjected to the father’s abusive and controlling tendencies.

The children were emotionally harmed by these experiences, and were placed at risk of physical harm. Therefore, I find that the subject children are in need of protection pursuant to subsections 74(2) (

b) and (

f) of the CYFSA .

Part 9 – Is intervention through a protection order required to protect the children in the future? 9.1 Legal Considerations

[134] Subsection 101(1) of the Act provides that where a court finds that a child is in need of protection, it must first satisfy itself thatintervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future. [135] The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order forprotection or from circum​stances which have arisen since that time. See: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.P. et al., 2019 ONSC3482 , 2019 CarswellOnt 9259 (Ont.

S.C.J.) 9.2 Analysis [136] Based on the facts noted above that resulted in the protection finding, and those noted below regarding disposition, I find thatintervention through a protection order is required to protect both children in the future.

Part 10 – Efforts to assist 10.1 Legal Considerations [137] Subsection 101 (2) of the Act requires the court, prior to making a dis​positional order under subsections 101(2) or 102, to inquireas to what efforts the Society or another person or entity has made to assist before intervention. [138] Also, as will be discussed later, the court must consider the services provided that relate to reunification / access prior to making adetermination as to the appropriate access order to make. 10.2 Facts 10.2.1 Mothe r and c hildren [139] In the Fall of 2013, Ms.

Christian encouraged the mother and the children to connect with “Access Counselling in & FamilyServices” as it was the quickest place for them to attend counselling services, which they did. [140] In the Fall of 2013, Mrs. A also connected with staff at “Halton Women’s Place” and received support. [141] The mother also received services from “Nina’s Place” and “SAVIS” (Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services). [142] In the Fall of 2013, at the Society’s recommendation, the mother also made a referral for the children to attend at “Radius Childand Youth Services” (“Radius”) for assessment and treatment.

She followed up with these services for the children. [143] When Radius advised that the children were not in a position to receive intensive treatment until their feelings of personal safetywere addressed, a referral was made to Reach Out Centre for Kids (“ROCK”), and the mother followed through with services fromROCK, for both herself and the children. [144] In February, 2016 LCA began spending time with a Society ‘big sister’ volunteer on a regular basis.

10.2.2 Father [145] Mr. A was encouraged by Society workers to speak to his family doctor or a counsellor about his emotions. He denied the need for support. As well, Mr. A was encouraged to attend counselling to obtain insight into TMA’s and LCA’s needs and experiences. [146] When the father learned that Ms. Christian was subpoenaed to testify at his criminal trial, he refused to communicate with her any further. In order for the Society to be able to continue to provide services to him, the Society assigned Ms. Wells to work with the father, while Ms.

Christian continued to work with the mother and the children, given their already established relationship. [147] Ms. Christian recommended to the father that he participate in the Caring Dad’s program. It was an error for her to do so as it was a prerequisite to participation that the parent have access with their child. Notwithstanding this, Mr. A advised that he should be teaching this course. [148] Ms. Wells recommended the father to the DBT program at St. Joseph’s Hospital. Dr. Webb determined that he did not qualify for this service. In October, 2016 Ms. Wells wanted to speak to Dr.

Webb privately regarding this, to see if there were other programs that could be helpful for the father, but Mr. A would not allow her to do so. It was not until November, 2017 that she had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Webb. Dr. Webb and Ms. Wells met on two (2) occasions. [149] Mr. A received support from Dr. Webb. [150] The father did a fourteen (14) week DBT program at Thrive Counselling. Mr. A did not call a witness to provide evidence about this. Mr. A disparaged the program in conversation with Ms.

Wells and denigrated the other group partici​pants as lesser people, indicating that they were not individuals of his calibre. [151] The father attended counselling with Mihaela Armat (“Ms. Armat”). Mr. A did not call her to testify. Dr. Webb’s understanding is that Ms. Armat worked with Mr. A on DBT strategies. 10.2.3 Child Maltreatment Assessment through the Child Advocacy and Assess ment Pr ogra m (CAA

P) at Mc Master Child ren ’s Ho spital [152] The Society recommended that the family participate in a comprehensive Child Maltreatment Assessment through the Child Advocacy and Assessment Pro- gram (CAAP) at McMaster Children’s Hospital. [153] Mr. A refused to sign the consent to permit the worker to make the referral to CAAP until he was assured the mother had signed it. [154] On January 19, 2015 Ms. Christian sent the consent to the father, together with a letter advising that the mother had signed the consent, and providing him with some information regarding CAAP. [155] Ms.

Christian did not receive the signed consent, but the father did communicate his willingness that she contact CAAP about their availability to conduct the assessment, on a non-identifying basis. [156] Ms. Christian was informed that the assessment could start in May, 2015; it would take nine (9) to ten (10) weeks to complete, and a report would be available by August or September, 2015. These timelines were available only if the family committed to the assessment without delay.

[157] In early February, 2015 Ms. Christian advised Mr. A of the information she received from CAAP regarding when it could commence the assessment and the amount of time it would take. On February 18, 2015, she received a fax from the father marked ‘confidential and without prejudice.’ The attached consent form for the CAAP assessment was significantly altered by the father.

The father was advised that the Society would not accept the consent due to the amendments he had made. [158] On April 9, 2015 Justice Starr ordered the CAAP assessment. [159] On June 8, 2015 CAAP declined to conduct an assessment of this family. 10.2.4 Psych ologic al assess ment of the f ather [160] On April 9, 2015 Justice Starr ordered, in part: (

a) the father shall attend at and participate in a psychological assessment by a practitioner approved and paid for by the Society; and (

b) the father may, at his own expense, arrange to have a psychological assessment done of him by a psychologist of his own choosing instead of one chosen and paid for by the Society, provided that he provides the name and contact information for the psychologist to the Society in advance and signs such consent as is necessary for them to speak to the psychologist in advance of the assess​ment and provide court documents to him or her. [161] Ms. Christian made contact with numerous psychologists to determine whether they were available to do this assessment in a timely matter. Dr. Oren Amitay (“Dr.

Amitay”) indicated that he could commence the assessment immedi ately. [162] On April 28, 2015 Ms. Christian sent a fax to the father regarding the proposed assessor, Dr. Amitay, together with a copy of Dr. Amitay’s resume and a consent. She requested that the father sign the consent in order for the assessment to begin as soon as possible. [163] On May 7, 2015 Mr. A advised that he was not in agreement with Dr. Amitay doing the assessment, as his office is downtown Toronto and this is too far for him to travel.

He requested that the Society provide him with other proposed assessors. [164] On May 11, 2015 the Society received a fax from Mr. A in which he requested that the Society confirm that his psychological assessment would be ‘without prejudice’. Also, he advised the Society that he had found a psychologist, Dr. Ilacqua, whom he would like to conduct his psychological assessment. The father included, within his fax, his own consent form created from the Society’s consent form.

He added to the top of the consent, ‘without prejudice court ordered psychological assessment’ and then signed the consent for the Society to speak to Dr. Ilacqua. The bottom of the consent also stated “confidential and without prejudice”. [165] On other occasions, Mr. A advised the Society that he wanted the assessment of him to be ‘without prejudice’ (in faxes dated May 19, 2015; May 21, 2015; May 25, 2015; and June 2, 2015). [166] The Society advised Mr.

A that his psychological assessment would not be on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. [167] Subsequent to CAAP’s refusal to complete an assessment, the Society moved towards seeking a parenting capacity assessment. Its three (3) proposed assessors indicated that it may not be necessary for the father to undergo a separate psychological assessment, as this is completed as part of the parenting capacity assessment.

10.2.5 Paren ting c ap acity ass ess ment [168] On July 7, 2015 the father was provided with a letter from Ms. Christian regarding the proposed individuals who were available to conduct a parenting capacity assessment. She also provided the curriculum vitae of each assessor, and invited the father to advise the Society of his choice prior to the July 27, 2015 court date. [169] The Society recommended three assessors to complete a parenting capacity assessment: (

a) Dr. Oren Amitay; (

b) Dr. Milton Blake; and (

c) Dr. Nicole Walton-Allen. [170] On July 21, 2015 the Society received a forty-seven (47) page fax from the father. He requested that the Society book a psychological assessment with Dr. Ilacqua. He also included several curriculum vitae of individuals working with the LFCC. He requested that Dr. Ashbourne of the LFCC perform the parenting capacity assessment. [171] On August 20, 2015 the parties consented to and the court ordered that the parenting capacity assessment be completed by Dr. Ashbourne of the LFCC. [172] Dr. Ashbourne’s assessment is dated July 29, 2016. [173] With respect to Mr.

A ’s relationship with the children, Dr. Ashbourne wrote in his assessment: Should the decision be made to arrange for the father to see either one or both children, careful monitoring is going to be needed to evaluate the access and the impact of any form of access on the children and family members. LCA is currently the most resilient child and most likely better able to manage contact, but one would worry about her getting caught in the middle once again between her parents. Initially having the mentor / big sister present to support LCA might be considered. The assessor is unsure, however, how Mr.

A would contain himself and not move to try to learn more about the family, try to influence the household, or stop himself from making LCA his eyes, ears, and mouth piece in the home. Similarly, Ms. A would need to not place LCA in the middle by asking her questions about her time with the other parent. The bottom line is that the children’s voices should prevail and they get to determine whether they see their father or not. [174] On October 25, 2016 Ms. Wells wrote Dr. Ashbourne for details as to how reunification may be carried out. [175] On November 7, 2016 Dr.

Ashbourne provided an addendum to his assessment. Therein, he noted: (

a) access is not the first step in order to support the children emotionally; (

b) consideration of some form of contact is recommended; (

c) the children’s reaction to these baby steps will be instrumental in what are appropriate next steps; (

d) success on early baby steps will allow for some relaxation and reduced anxiousness, such that they may then be more receptive to other forms of contact including access to extended family and perhaps later, their father;

(

e) initially, some brief (supported, facilitated, monitored) time between the children’s cousin M and LCA (and TMA if he wanted to attend) could be arranged and facilitated by either Ginny (from ROCK), Ms. Wells, or someone similar that knows the children well. This time should first be brief, in a public / neutral space and involve perhaps a half an hour of time together. This time could be expanded over a few contacts to eventually be a couple of hours in length once a week so as to allow for an activity such as bowling or a movie. The older female cousins may be able to join in time and also attend.

After successes with these initial contacts, the next step/stage could be going to the cousin’s home for a visit/ meal (without the father present). Success with contacts with cousins/extended family could later (such as next summer) move to include some time together at the family cottage and include overnights. Moving through the various stages/ steps may take months or longer depending on the children experiencing it positive. [176] Dr. Ashbourne also made recommendations regarding how to encourage the children to have access with their father.

This included the father initially providing the children with a few pictures / cards or a brief message in letter or card form for the children to look at with a supportive person such as Ginny from ROCK. The next step could entail very short phone contact with a support person present to oversee the call on speaker phone. Next, a brief video message could be provided from the father to the children that they could look at in a supported / graduated manner. Only then and if ready could the children be encouraged to move to some limited, supported, facilitated and monitored time with their father.

Should this all go well, then the next step would be to combine the access to father and the time with extended family together for the children (in a supported, facilitated, monitored) manner. Once any contact is happening with the children by the father, he can be re-referred to the Caring Dad’s Program to complete this service. [177] Dr. Ashbourne also provided information regarding various programs that work to build better communications and healthier relationships. [178] In sum, Dr.

Ashbourne noted that: small steps related to the children and their cousins / extended family, before big changes are considered such as contact with father. Then intensive interventions to shift things towards encouraging contact with dad and improving / healing family relationships between the children and their parent(

s) will be needed and this will likely require extensive time to complete. 10.2.6 Reunif icatio n services [179] Efforts were made to try some ‘baby steps’ towards reunification/access. (

i) Involv e ment of M A [180] One involved arranging a fifteen (15) minute access visit between LCA and her cousin MA (“M”). The following transpired: (

a) on November 22, 2016 Ms. Wells made two phone calls to M’s father, CA. She did not receive a call back, so she wrote him a letter on the same date, suggesting that M and LCA meet on December 19, 2016; (

b) CA advised that M was not available on December 19 th or over the Christmas holidays; (

c) on January 3, 2017 Ms. Wells left CA a message suggesting a meeting between the cousins on January 3, 2017. She called him again on January 4, 2017 suggesting that the children meet at his home and she would come to supervise; (

d) on January 4, 2017 CA stated that he will not allow his son to participate because he will not allow him to meet at such an institution as the Society; (

e) on January 5, 2017 Ms. Wells called the Milton Library to investigate whether the library had the capacity for the children to meet;

(

f) on January 5, 2017 Ms. Wells called CA and suggested that they meet at the library; and (

g) on January 5, 2017 CA called Ms. Wells and said that his family will not participate in having the children meet at all. He was rude and abrupt with Ms. Wells and said that the Society and the mother were the root of all the problems his brother is experiencing. [181] The father could not understand why a Society worker had to be involved in the contact between M and LCA. He equated the cousins’ meeting to when LCA went to camp and met people there for the first time, and the initial time she met her ‘big sister’.

His position was she did not know people at camp or the big sister either at first, but the Society did not insist on being present for their initial meetings. (ii) Christ mas gi fts [182] Another ‘baby step’ involved the mother providing the father with a list of Christmas gifts that the children wanted and that the father would buy the gifts for the children. [183] On December 19, 2016 the father complained bitterly about having to call several Shopper’s Drug Mart stores to locate the stuffed penguin that LCA asked for. [184] Mr. A had issues with the suggested gift list.

He followed some recommendations, but disregarded others. He said that he wanted to buy TMA and LCA unique gifts. He said he spent a lot of time coming up with something different and he thought his gift choices demonstrated great creativity on his part. [185] In permanent marker, he wrote on the headband that was part of the stuffed penguin.

He also wrote on an electronic gift he had purchased for TMA, including on the adaptor; the message on this latter component was, “Merry Christmas Love Dad!” He resealed the gift in its original packaging. [186] The father pointed out that his written messages were not evil or foul. He explained that he wrote on the gifts because he wanted the children to know that he loved them. [187] The gifts were not well received by the children. TMA ripped open the penguin to check if the father had placed a recording device within it. There was no device.

LCA flung the pencils and waxed crayons across the floor and said she was not going to use them. (iii) Profe ssion al sup ports to assist with r e unificati on /ac cess [188] On January 30, 2017 Ms. Wells called parenting coordinator Lourdes Geraldo to determine whether she could assist with the reunification process. She did not return Ms. Wells’ call. [189] On January 30, 2017 Ms. Wells called parenting coordinator Gary Direnfeld to determine whether he could assist with the reunification process.

He said that he would not get involved if the family was involved with court. [190] On April 12, 2017 the father asked Ms. Wells to call Debbie Silwinski at Brayden Therapeutic Services (“Brayden”). On April 20, 2017 Ms. Wells called Brayden and they thought they could be of assistance. [191] The father delayed in agreeing to pay for professional services to assist with reunification. He finally agreed to pay Brayden’s initial retainer of $2,500.00 in or about March/April 2018.

[192] If Brayden was used, the mother, the father, and the children would all be working individually with their own therapists. As noted in Brayden’s February 23, 2018 letter, its staff would not offer an opinion on whether it is safe for him to meet with his children or if visits should continue. [193] On April 18, 2018 Ms. Wells liaised with Mary-Jo Franchi-Rotchecker (“Ms. Franchi-Rotchecker”) and Gregory Koval (“Mr. Koval”) of Accendus Group (“Accendus”) to receive information regarding its services. Ms.

Wells was advised that it was best practice for them to work with all members of the family, rather than each family member having their own therapists. They explained that, in order for them to have the children gain their trust, they would need to know both of the children’s parents too. This made sense to the Society and the Society accepted this approach as being better for the family. [194] On April 26, 2018 Ms.

Wells sent a letter to Accendus asking for a proposal regarding services they could offer this family. [195] On June 1, 2018 the Society received a written proposal from Accendus, which in turn was sent to the parents. [196] The Society was prepared to pay Accendus $5,250.00 plus HST for the family to spend fifteen (15) hours with Ms. Franchi- Rothecker and Mr. Koval to work towards the reunification of father with the children. The Society was also prepared to pay Dr.

Ashbourne to meet with the children if needed, as part of the reunification / access process. [197] The mother agreed to the Society’s proposal to work with Accendus. [198] T he father did not. [199] He insisted that Dr. Fiddler’s “Family Moving Forward” be used. [200] Mr. A explained he disagreed with Accendus’s approach to reunification, as it involved “studying” the situation.

He rationalized that if the Society was accepting of reunification in 2016 when the children were in poorer shape, and now they are doing better, they should just start with the contact; there was no need to study the situation further. [201] The June 1, 2018 proposal from Accendus reflected the graduated, facilitated and monitored process that Dr. Ashbourne outlined as appropriate and necessary in his Novembe

[…]