By Maria Golarz, Senior Associate Research Lawyer, Lam Family Law*

Looking for some key child protection cases from 2025 to keep in your back pocket?

The following annotated list highlights important 2025 cases to read (or re-read) on substantive and procedural issues in child protection. The annotations include paragraph links to CanLII and explain the main issue addressed (i.e., why you should look at this case).

This is my second annual recap of key child protection cases. You can find the 2024 edition here.

Relevant Legislation

1.    Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 14, Sch 1 (“CYFSA”).

2.    Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99 (“FLR”).

3.    An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2019, SC 2019, c 24 (“Federal Act”).

Access / Access Status

4.    Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E., 2025 ONCA 623 (CanLII), Sossin, Favreau, and Wilson JJ.A. [also below under “Appeals”].

  • Distinction between access “holder” vs. “recipient” (important as only holders can apply for openness once child is being placed for adoption): paras 14-27.

5.    The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. C.P. et al., 2025 ONSC 3315 (CanLII), Kalajdzic J.

  • Court has jurisdiction to make child an access “holder”, and to order sibling access for a child in care to a child not in care: paras 50-57.

6.    Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.M., 2025 ONCJ 364 (CanLII), D. Paulseth J.

  • Thorough review of when access will be ordered after an extended society care order: paras 193-208 & 222-225.
  • Here, not in the children’s best interests to have access to parents. However, each child was to be access “holder” to siblings: paras 209-221 & 226-238.

Appeals

7.    Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E., 2025 ONCA 623 (CanLII), Sossin, Favreau and Wilson JJ.A. [also above under “Access / Access Status”].

  • An appellate court should not interfere absent an error in principle, a failure to consider relevant factors, or a lack of factual basis for the decision: para 12.
  • An appellate court can receive “further evidence” relating to events after decision under appeal, under s. 121(6) of CYFSA: para 9.
  • The ONCA applied the Palmer test, observing that it was sufficiently flexible where best interests of child are primary. Court must consider whether evidence: (i) could not, with due diligence, have been obtained before trial; (ii) is relevant, i.e., bears upon decisive or potentially decisive issue; (iii) is credible, i.e., reasonably capable of belief; and (iv) if believed, could have affected result: para 9.

Evidentiary Issues

8.    The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. A.W., 2025 ONSC 3182 (CanLII), Breithaupt Smith J.

  • Critical discussion of double and triple hearsay from CAS, including child statements: paras 8-18.
  • Mother’s motion to change placement of youngest child (age 9) from paternal grandmother’s care to her own granted: paras 1, 5, & 53.
  • On the issue of CAS affidavits, see also The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. P et al., 2025 ONSC 3344 (CanLII), Kalajdzic J., at paras 34-45 [“trial affidavits should not be treated as a summary of case notes”].

9.    Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.N., 2025 ONCJ 106 (CanLII), Harris J.

  • Test for third-party records: paras 88-103 & 119.
  • Here, CAS’s request for police records related to father’s incarceration granted (although not initially, where CAS notice of motion was “overly broad and did not include any timeframes”). However, records from Ministry and detention centre required adjournment to hear from those offices: paras 117-123 & 134.

10.    Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y., 2025 ONCJ 623 (CanLII), Harris J. [also below under “Proper Role of CAS”].

  • Voir dire on admissibility of evidence from OCL Clinician who was also CAS employee (father asserted this dual role created a conflict of interest): paras 2-3, 7, 36-38, 47-58, & 60-63.
  • Here, OCL evidence not reliable due to conflicting interests, and not necessary where other sources of child’s views and wishes: paras 47, 58-59, & 64-67.

Indigenous Children

11.    CAS v. R.C, 2025 ONSC 6503 (CanLII), Wood J.

  • Thorough discussion of approach to determine whether child falls within CYFSA definition of “a First Nations, Inuk, or Metis child”: paras 10-29.

12.    Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S. B-M., 2025 ONSC 4247 (CanLII), MacEachern J.

  • Child found to have First Nations’ heritage through father (specifically paternal grandparents) although father did not self-identify (due to Indigenous Services Canada decision) and child was too young to self-identify: paras 5-9.

13.    Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K.L.C., 2025 ONSC 6581 (CanLII), MacEachern J.

  • Where child is Indigenous, Federal Act applies to temporary care hearing, and is paramount to CYFSA. Under Federal Act, test on temporary care and custody hearing is “straightforward best interests test”, i.e. the best interests of the Indigenous child, which considers several expanded factors: paras 13-19.

14.    HCFS v. B.M., 2025 ONSC 4862 (CanLII), Law J.

  • Child under 6 cannot remain in society care for more than 12 months: s. 122, CYFSA. However, six-month extension may be granted if in child’s best interests: s. 122(5), CYFSA: para 9.
  • Test for an extension of timelines: para 23.
  • Here, child (aged 1) had already been in care for 16 months. Society sought return to mother; however, mother currently lived in “halfway house” where other residents could not be around children. Six-month extension granted: paras 5-8 & 30.
  • Court considered that child was Métis, and that Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (“TRC”) Report had call to action to reduce number of Indigenous children in care. Strict interpretation of s. 122 would be inconsistent with TRC and would “exacerbate the barriers to family reunification”: para 13.
  • Court also provided thorough analysis of remedial nature of CYFSA and Federal Act: paras 14-21.
  • Large and liberal interpretation of s. 122 was preferable where extension of time meant Indigenous child could eventually return to parent, family, or community: paras 122 & 24-27.
  • See also Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. K.M., 2025 ONCJ 545 (CanLII), Pawagi J. [below under “Procedural Issues”].

15.    Linck Child, Youth, and Family Supports v. Walpole Island First Nation, 2025 ONCJ 121 (CanLII), Vickerd J.

  • Disclosure issues are governed by Family Law Rules: paras 19-25.
  • Test and relevant principles for disclosure, with modifications for recent changes in law and for Indigenous children: paras 26-55.
  • Court specifically considered TRC calls to action with respect to disclosure request: paras 47-49.
  • First Nation’s request for disclosure, including entire unredacted file and historic CAS involvement with grandmother, granted. First Nation did not need to demonstrate that records were relevant, and court did not need to assess probative and prejudicial value: paras 1, 46-48, 51, 55, & 57.
  • Critical remarks about delay in this proceeding: para 56.

Proper Role of CAS

16.    Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y., 2025 ONCJ 638 (CanLII), Harris J.

  • Overview of proper role of CAS: paras 582-590.
  • Criticism of problematic CAS evidence, including:
    • lack of direct evidence from intake worker, kinship worker, or access worker;
    • no evidence from child’s doctor, school, or member of child’s current community other than kith caregiver;
    • lack of comprehensive contact logs related to mother’s access;
    • no evidence of grandmother’s attempts to contact CAS;
    • failure to disclose concerns from aunts regarding child’s loss of language;
    • failure to disclose kith caregivers’ longstanding intention to adopt or attendance at CAS adoption meetings;
    • false claims of weekly access with maternal family;
    • false claims that child was on waitlist for language supports: para 591(a).
  • Criticism of problematic CAS conduct, including: highly aggressive litigation position, “inconsistent with appropriate role of a Children’s Aid Society”; unfair treatment of parties; lack of compliance with CYFSA: para 591(b)(c)(d).
  • Here, following trial, CAS request for deemed custody order with kith caregivers dismissed as not in child’s best interests, and mother’s plan had not been sufficiently reviewed. However, child in need of protection, and placed in CAS interim care for three months, on specific access terms with family and kith caregivers: paras 15-16, 564-575, 579-580, & 592.

17.    Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.Y., 2025 ONCJ 623 (CanLII), Harris J. [also above under “Evidentiary Issues”].

  • Brief discussion of unfair conduct by CAS counsel in providing OCL counsel re-examination questions to be asked of OCL clinician. Courts and participants in legal system must have confidence in independence and integrity of institutions in Ontario responsible for representing children’s interests and protecting children. CAS should not have assisted in rehabilitating the evidence of another party’s (OCL’s) witness: paras 68-72.

Procedural Issues: e.g. Default, Adding Parties, Extending Time

18.    Family & Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County v. C.H et al., 2025 ONSC 5697 (CanLII), Piccoli J. (appeal).

  • Parties in child protection matters can be noted in default. While there is no provision in CYFSA or Family Law Rules to note a party in default, r 10(5), FLR is “clear” that if a party does not file an Answer, they are not entitled to further participate: para 52.
  • Right of respondent to participate in child protection proceedings must be balanced with CYFSA and Family Law Rules timelines. “[V]ulnerable children cannot be left in limbo.” Court can only lengthen timelines if in child’s best interests: para 53.
  • Test to set aside default hearing: para 54.
  • Test for adding parties: para 65.

19.    Native Child and Family Services of Toronto v. K.M., 2025 ONCJ 545 (CanLII), Pawagi J.

  • Thorough review of test and general principles for extension of timelines under s. 122(5), CYFSA: paras 16-23.
  • Additional considerations for Indigenous child: paras 24-32.
  • Clarity on procedure for considering extension: paras 33-39 & 45 [“best practices” summary].
  • See also HCFS v. B.M., 2025 ONSC 4862 (CanLII), Law J. [above under “Indigenous Children”].

Ancillary Orders and Miscellaneous

20.    Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. O.G., 2025 ONCJ 363 (CanLII), Sherr J.

  • Discussion of social media postings in child protection cases, and court’s ability to order that such postings be removed: paras 67-76 & 78-84.

21.    Two cases appointing amicus curiae for a parent:

22.    Two cases on medical treatment and decision-making:

23.    Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. J.M., 2025 ONCJ 381 (CanLII), Paull J.

  • Overview of when costs may be ordered between parents (orally, no para numbering).

*with thanks to Rebecca Winninger and Sierra Larmand for their suggestions and edits.

 

This blog is informational only and should not be relied on as legal advice.