Exceptional, Not Routine: Police Enforcement Orders Under Section 36(2) of the CLRA

By letter dated December 16, 2025, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (“OACP”) addressed the legal community to provide guidance on the proper use of child apprehension orders under section 36(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”).[1] The OACP sought to clarify the proper use of police enforcement clauses in parenting agreements and/or minutes of settlement. The letter appears amidst a broader debate concerning how trauma, tension, and distress experienced by families involved in child protection interventions can be reduced. Causing harm in the course of an apprehension undermines the legislative guiding principles applicable to child protection agencies and Children’s Aid Societies (“CAS”), which emphasize preserving, sustaining, and restoring families in the least disruptive manner possible.[2]

Defining Section 36(2) of the CLRA 

By way of background, in certain circumstances where a court is satisfied there is a real and reasonable risk of harm to a child, it may order police assistance to locate and return the child to their parent or guardian pursuant to section 36(2) of the CLRA.

 Such an order may only be made where:

1. A person is unlawfully withholding a child from another person who has decision-making responsibility, parenting time, or contact with the child;
2. A person is prohibited by court order or separation agreement from removing the child from Ontario, and the court believes they intend to do so; or
3. A person who has parenting time or contact with the child intends to remove the child from Ontario, and there is a serious concern that the child will not be returned.[3]

Notable Commentary from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police

In their letter to the legal profession, OACP notes that orders under section 36(2) of the CLRA are meant to be “exceptional, time-limited remedies”. The Association goes on to say that “police enforcement should be used sparingly.” Moreover, “recurring forced police apprehensions are not in the best interests of the child and should never become a long-term fixture in a child’s life to manage the parents’ behaviour”.

A party seeking an order pursuant to section 36(2) of the CLRA must serve the police service(s) of jurisdiction with their motion materials and draft order incorporating these standardized terms and conditions in accordance with the Family Law Rules and section 36(3) of the CLRA.[4] OACP strongly recommends that standardized terms and conditions be incorporated into any draft order. OACP advises that failure to include the standard terms and conditions provided by the local police associations may lead the police service(s) to oppose counsel’s motion or to seek to quash an order that was obtained without notice.

Subjecting Children to Unnecessary Police Oversight and Force

OACP’s letter underscores the view that it is not in the best interests of the child to have unnecessary interactions with police. The Association notes that section 36(2) orders are not intended to be used as a long-term, multi-use, on-demand tool for the ongoing or general enforcement of parenting arrangements. Nor are they to be included in parenting agreements and/or minutes of settlement as an ongoing compliance tool.

In Patterson v. Powell, Justice Pazaratz notes that section 36(2) orders are not to be used as on-demand enforcement tools.[5] Justice Pazaratz recommends that parties canvass less destructive and more therapeutic alternatives rather than turning to ongoing police enforcement clauses.[6] This is especially so for vulnerable children in high-conflict families who are likely already sensitized to the presence of police as signifying that one or both parents are out of control again.[7] Justice Pazaratz affirms that section 36(2) of the CLRA is intended to be a protection for children, not a weapon for disgruntled parents.[8]

Conclusion

When police attend apprehensions, it results in heightened tension and distress among families and communities with lived experiences of carceral violence. Children and their families may experience renewed trauma following police interventions that disrupt the family unit.[9] Therefore, lawyers should be cautious of adding enforcement clauses to parenting agreements and/or minutes of settlement.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.