The agency failed to explore less intrusive options like voluntary supervision or family support
The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a child protection agency's motion for custody, ordering a nine-year-old’s return to her mother after finding insufficient evidence of harm and criticizing the agency's reliance on speculation and failure to consider less disruptive measures.
Linck Child, Youth, and Family Supports sought to maintain temporary custody of the child, referred to as "Z," citing concerns about the mother’s associations and alleged risks to the child’s safety. However, the court found that Linck’s evidence did not substantiate claims of imminent harm or neglect.
Z had lived with her mother, “SA,” until late 2022, when reports were made to child protection authorities alleging drug use in the home. SA’s adult son intervened, removing Z from her care, leading to prolonged disputes involving police and child welfare agencies. In early 2023, Z was placed with relatives under temporary court orders while authorities investigated the mother’s living conditions and associations.
In June and October 2024, Linck applied for warrants to remove Z, citing new concerns, including an incident involving an acquaintance arrested outside SA’s home with drugs. A second warrant resulted in Z being taken into custody in October.
The court reviewed Linck’s claims of risk to Z, which included the presence of alleged “unknown individuals” at the mother’s home and a prior association with a person charged with drug-related offences. However, the court emphasized that Linck’s evidence relied heavily on speculation and anonymous reports, with little credible proof that Z was exposed to any harm. The court determined that key facts had been misrepresented or omitted, including positive statements from Z about her well-being and stability at home.
The court criticized Linck for failing to explore less intrusive measures, such as voluntary supervision or engaging family support. The court noted that Linck’s evidence contained inconsistencies and that its actions—removing Z from her mother twice without solid justification—had caused significant distress to both the child and the mother.
The court ruled that Linck had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Z faced a likely risk of harm in her mother’s care. The court stated that Linck’s concerns amounted to mere speculation and ordered Z’s immediate return to her mother under supervised conditions if necessary.
