Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.V., 2020 ONCJ 415

WARNING The 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. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.V., 2020 ONCJ 415 DATE: September 16, 2020 COURT FILE No.: C10775/17 BETWEEN: CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO Applicant, — AND — E.V. Respondent (mother) — AND — K.A.

Respondent (Father) Before Justice Melanie Sager Heard in Chambers Reasons for Judgment released on September 16, 2020 Chris Andrikakis........................................................................ counsel for the applicant society Meaghan Patrick................................................................ counsel for the respondent(mother) On his own behalf..................................................................................... the respondent(father) SAGER, J.: 14B Motion addressed in Chambers 1 .

The society has filed a 14B Motion seeking final orders within its Amended Status Review Application dated February 27, 2020, in accordance with a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by the society and the mother. 2 . The society asks the court to make the orders being requested, on an uncontested basis and without the father’s consent as he was personally served with the Amended Status Review Application on July 24, 2020 and has not served and filed an Answer and Plan of Care. 3 .

The society has not addressed in the 14B Motion the fact that the father was served on July 24, 2020, when time limitations under Ontario legislation were suspended. 4 .

Section 2 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 made under subsection 7.1 (2) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act , provides that any provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding in Ontario, including any intended proceeding, shall, subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision-maker responsible for the proceeding, be suspended, and the suspension shall be retroactive to Monday, March 16, 2020. 5 . Ontario Reg. 106/20 as amended, set out that this suspension would be in effect until September 11, 2020. 6 .

Section 6 of Ontario Regulation 73/20 read as follows: End of temporary suspension For greater certainty, any limitation period or period of time within which a step must be taken in a proceeding that is temporarily suspended under this Regulation resumes running on the date on which the temporary suspension ends and the temporary suspension period shall not be counted. 7 . Ontario Regulation 73/20 was revoked on September 14, 2020 by Ontario Regulation 457/20,

section 1. 8 . The father was served on July 24, 2020, after the order was introduced suspending time limits imposed by Ontario legislation. As the order was revoked on September 14, 2020, the time limit imposed by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act for the father to respond to the Amended Protection Application (30 days) did not begin running until September 14, 2020 and does not expire until October 14, 2020. 9 .

I appreciate that the suspension of time limits is “subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision-maker responsible for the proceeding” and that I could permit the society and the mother to proceed without the father’s consent in the appropriate circumstances. This is not the appropriate circumstance to lift the suspension of the time limit applicable to the father in relation to his response to the Amended Status Review Application for the reasons that follow below. 10 .

The original Status Review Application dated February 3, 2020, issued on January 23, 2020, requested an order terminating the supervision order made on August 21, 2020. This order placed A.A-V. in her mother’s care subject to the society’s supervision. There is no evidence of service of this Application on the father in the file. 11 . The Amended Status Review Application dated February 20, 2020, and served on the father on July 24, 2020, requests an order granting the mother custody of A.A-V. pursuant to

section 102 of the CYFSA and an order that the father have access “fully supervised at a supervised access centre (the location of which shall be agreed upon in writing by the parties), or shall be supervised by a mutually agreed upon third party, and shall otherwise be at the discretion of the mother, [E.V.], taking into consideration the wishes of the child.”

12 . The Statement of Agreed Facts filed with the court provides that it is A.A.-V.’s best interest for the mother to have custody of her and that the father’s access “shall be fully supervised at a professional access centre - specifically Access for Parents and Children in Ontario, at a location to be determined by the individual centre’s willingness to accept the case and shall otherwise be at the discretion of the mother, [E.V.], taking into consideration the wishes of the child.” 13 .

In addition to the fact that the order being requested does not include the provision that the parties can agree on a third party supervisor as an alternate to Access for Parents and Children in Ontario (APCO), the effect of the order being sought would be to indefinitely suspend the father’s access to A.A.-V. as APCO centres have been closed since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic and may be closed for quite some time. 14 .

The court’s concern about the effect of the order being requested is compounded by the lack of information in the Statement of Agreed Facts regarding the father’s access to A.A.-V. since December 2019. Apparently, the father was visiting A.A.-V. once per week supervised by the society for two hours between October and December 2019. There is no information about what, if any, visits have taken place since December 2019. 15 . The father’s access is described in the Statement of Agreed Facts as positive. More specifically the father is “attentive to [A.A.-V.]’s needs during access….He follows her cues well.

He is affectionate with her and he engages well with her in play. Overall, [K.A.]’s access visits go well without issue.” 16 . In all the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the court to exercise the discretion granted to it to lift the suspension of the time limitation period applicable to the father and make the final orders being requested by the society and the mother. Order to go as follows: 17 . The father has until October 14, 2020 to serve on the society and the mother and file with the court an Answer to the Amended Status Review Application.

A case conference will be scheduled on a date after October 14, 2020, and the father is encouraged to participate in the next court appearance. 18 . The court appearance will proceed by teleconference. The call in details will be provided to the parties once a court date is scheduled. 19 . If the society intends to proceed by way of Statement of Agreed Facts, they must provide up to date information regarding both the mother and father in

part 4 of the Statement. If the society and the mother continue to seek an order for supervised access at APCO, they shall be prepared to address how that it is in A.A.-V.’s best interest when such access cannot take place under the current Covid-19 closures of APCO centres. 20 . The society shall contact the trial coordinator to

schedule the next court. Released: September 16, 2020 Signed: Justice Melanie Sager