June 25, 2026 – Objectives of Child Protection Legislation in Ontario

“I therefore begin with a broad consideration of the scheme of the CYFSA and its object.

A requirement of the CFSA was that the Minister publicly review the Act, or specified provisions of it, every five years. These reviews were to be conducted by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services to enable the government to better understand how its laws, programs and policies are experienced on the ground. The information gathered as part of these reviews provided an opportunity for learning and change, and also supported the Ministry and its partners to provide high-quality services for children, youth and families in Ontario. In September 2014, the third legislative review of the CFSA was announced.

The 2015 review stressed the need for change for children in protection proceedings. It recommended a change in the language to reflect the realities of families and also recommended a change to the test for access to “Crown wards”. The CYFSA achieved both these objectives.

As this court said in Kawartha–Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, 432 D.L.R. (4^th) 497, and in L.M. v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2019 ONCA 841, 149 O.R. (3d) 18, the new Act reflected a significant change for children in care. The age for protection was raised from 16 to 18. The archaic and stigmatizing term “Crown ward” was replaced with “extended society care”. Other key changes included:

• • • • •  Making services more culturally appropriate for all children and youth in the child welfare system, including First Nations, Inuit, Métis, to ensure that they receive the best possible supports;
        • Focusing on early intervention, to assist in preventing children, youth and families from reaching crisis situations in the home; and
        • Improving review of service providers to ensure that children and youth receive consistent, high-quality services across Ontario.

The paramount purpose of the Act remained as it had been: “to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children” (s. 1(1)). Other purposes in s. 1(2) emphasize the best interests of children:

(2) The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well-being of children, are to recognize the following:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. While parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.
            2. The least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.
            3. Services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that,

i. respects a child’s or young person’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,

ii. takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons,

iii. takes into account a child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

iv. takes into account a child’s or young person’s cultural and linguistic needs,

v. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children and young persons in accordance with their best interests, and

vi. includes the participation of a child or young person, the child’s or young person’s parents and relatives and the members of the child’s or young person’sextended family and community, where appropriate.

4. Services to children and young persons and their families should be provided in a manner that respects regional differences, wherever possible.

5. Services to children and young persons and their families should be provided in a manner that builds on the strengths of the families, wherever possible.

6. First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples should be entitled to provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services, and all services to First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and young persons and their families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their cultures, heritages, traditions, connection to their communities, and the concept of the extended family.

7. Appropriate sharing of information, including personal information, in order to plan for and provide services is essential for creating successful outcomes for children and families.

Most importantly for this case, the new Act changed the criteria for access to children in extended care by removing the presumption against access and making the child’s “best interests” predominant in determining access. As stated by this court in Kawartha and repeated in Peel, the change was not “just semantics” but represented “a significant shift in the approach to access for children in extended care.” Some of the changes to the test for access include:

• • • • • The burden is no longer on the person requesting access to demonstrate that their relationship to the child is beneficial and meaningful and in no way will impair the child’s future adoption opportunities.
        • When the court undertakes a best interests analysis, it assesses whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and considers the potential impairment to future adoption opportunities, but only as part of this assessment and only where relevant;
        • There is no longer a “presumption against access” and it is no longer the case that a parent who puts forward no evidence will not gain access. and
        • While any evidence of possible impairment to adoption opportunities would have thwarted previous requests for access, under the new Act, access is to be ordered for a child with otherwise excellent adoptive prospects if it is in her overall best interests.

The changes referred to in Peel include:

• • • • • Highlighting in the first statement of the Preamble that children are “individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard” and ensuring that children’s wishes are considered and given due respect when any decision is made that affects their lives;
        • Confirming that the aim of the CYFSAis to be consistent with, and build upon, the principles expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;
        • Expanding the protections and unique considerations for all First Nations, Inuit and Métis children;
        • Expanding the age of “protection” to include 16 and 17 year olds; and
        • Specifically referencing siblings in the non-exhaustive list of persons who may seek access. This inclusion was made to specifically “promote the consideration of [sibling] access application[s], and as part of efforts to promote the rights and voice of children throughout the Act.”

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415 (CanLII) at 32-37