(905) 415-1636

CAS v ER and M.B.B: Unexplained Injuries

In the case CAS v. E.R. and M.B.B., 2020 CarswellOnt 9478. Justice Pazaratz was tasked with deciding whether to terminate a final Order that left a 29-month-old child in the custody and care of his maternal grandmother while having supervised access with his mother and father. In late 2019 the parents began having unsupervised approved by the Children’s Aid Society.

Background

The parties child was 7 weeks old at the time of the injury which took place in early 2018. The child suffered an unexplained brain injury and as a result had brain bleeding, hemorrhaging and eye hemorrhaging. He also had bruises on his stomach and his back. He remained in the hospital for a long period of time and unfortunately suffered many severe seizures and further eye hemorrhaging. The doctor who assessed the child determined that the child had suffered at least one episode of severe trauma to the head, back and abdomen and the injuries may result in a permanent disability. At the time of the injury, it was undisputed that the child was only in the care of his parents, who were unable to provide any explanation for the injuries. The family sought a second opinion regarding the child’s injuries and both doctors had independently concluded that the child’s injuries were inflicted onto him by another person. Further, the second doctor’s neurologic findings identified that he suffered traumatic head injuries on at least two occasions. The parents also rejected this determination but were still unable to provide any alternative explanation. No criminal charges were brought against either parent because it was impossible to establish which parent caused the injuries. Children’s Aid Society presented to the court that the child suffered physical harm at the hands of one or both parents.

In response to the abuse, and once the child was well enough to return home, he spent the next 2 years living with his maternal grandparents where his condition was able to significantly improve. During these two years, both parents exercised regular supervised access. In the late fall of 2019, as the parents had complied with all of the terms imposed by the court and the child thriving, the parents were able to begin having unsupervised access. The child remained in his grandparent’s care until January 20, 2020. On January 20, 2020 an Order was made on consent for the child to be placed in the care of his parents for a period of 5 months, under the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society.

Analysis

On June 17, 2020, the Children’s Aid Society was comfortable that it was time for supervision to cease and brought a Status Review Application seeking to terminate the supervision Order. Justice Pazaratz was tasked with determining whether it was time to lift the supervision Order. He heard evidence that the parents had complied and saw to every medical need of the child, cared for the child well, and attended programming to improve their parenting skills. Ultimately, Justice Pazaratz was tasked with deciding whether it was safe for this child to be back in the unsupervised full care of his parents. Justice Pazaratz was happy with the progress the child appeared to be making and agreed that the parents appeared to be doing a good job of taking care of him. However, due to the gravity of the abuse and the resulting injuries on the child, Justice Pazaratz was weary to grant the Order removing supervision. In his opinion, it is our job as a community and judicial system to protect all children and ensure that their vulnerability is not preyed on.

The court sought to engage in balancing various objective when making its determination such as the fact that supervision orders are intrusive and disruptive for the child. Interestingly, the court noted that because of COVID -19, currently supervision is less intrusive and expensive than normal because supervision can be done over teleconference.

Ultimately, Justice Pazaratz decided that it was just too early to life the supervision Order and was not comfortable at this time that the child was 100% in a safe environment and ordered ongoing supervision by the Children’s Aid Society.

For more information, please call us at Feldstein Family Law Group P.C. or contact our firm online.

More From the Feldstein Blog

Ontario Family Law, Translated

The statute is dense. The stakes are personal. These articles unpack the parts clients ask about most.

Case Blog

Gergis v. Michael 2021 ONSC 4754

Background  The Applicant husband and Respondent wife married in 2007 in Egypt. The Respondent is a qualified physician in Egypt although was unable to obtain the certification required ... Read more

June 12, 2026 · 6 min read

Feldstein Family Law Group, P.C.

The Law Is Complex.
The First Step Isn't.

Free, confidential consultation with an experienced Ontario family law lawyer. One call can change everything.

Markham · Oakville · Mississauga · Vaughan

Call (905) 415-1636

Responses within one business day — often the same day.

Our Offices

Serving Families Across Ontario & the Greater Toronto Area

Four Feldstein Family Law Group offices across the GTA — close to where our clients live, work, and raise their families.

Markham

20 Crown Steel Dr Suite 8
Markham, ON L3R 9X9, Canada

Map & Directions

Mississauga

3464 Semenyk Ct Suite 213
Mississauga, ON L5C 4P8, Canada

Map & Directions

Vaughan

3865 Major MacKenzie Dr W Suite 107
Vaughan, ON L4H 4P4, Canada

Map & Directions

Oakville

209 Speers Rd Suite 5
Oakville, ON L6K 0H5, Canada

Map & Directions

Communities We Serve

Feldstein Family Law Group represents clients across the Greater Toronto Area — including Toronto, Markham, Oakville, Mississauga, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Unionville, Stouffville, Aurora, Newmarket, Brampton, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Burlington, Milton, Georgetown, Woodbridge, Maple, King City, and the surrounding communities of York Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, and Durham Region.