willing to incorporate the Easter Bunny belief into their Easter
egg hunt, she responds that the concern was not that it bothered
her, but that it bothered the birth mother. The question remains;
what is the basis for these assertions?
 The Society is unable to point to any concrete evidence
as to these alleged wishes of the birth mother. When asked on
cross-examination, for example, whether there is any written
documentation of such a wish, Lindsay responded “no, but that
there might be something in the case notes”.
 During submissions, Mr. Wood counsel for the Society,
mentioned that there was a case note denoting the birth mother’s
request for a picture with Santa Claus and/or noting that the
birth mother asked the Baars to embrace the concept of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Counsel was unable to point me to
that specific case note and, upon my own review of the evidentiary
record, I was also not able to find such a case note. While this
decision does not turn on this discreet fact, the only remotely
related case note I found was the one dated February 26, 2016, in
which it is written that the Baars “currently have in their care
two siblings whose [mother] celebrates in a traditional manner
and expects this will be the same for her children while in care”.
 However, there is no mention of any of the birth mother’s specific request or directions to the Society. In any event,
any such reference to this case note to substantiate Lindsay’s
actions was clearly drafted after the fact. It is not lost on me
that the date of the case note being February 26, 2016 implicitly
suggestive of some retrospective, tacit concerns raised by the
birth mother in reference to the previous Christmas season.
 I also observe that counsel for the Baars’ requested an
undertaking for “any record(s) that the birth mother requested
that the children have the excitement of the Easter Bunny and
have that anticipation that, waking up on Easter, they would get
to look for Easter eggs and be able to partake in that celebration”. In their response to that specific undertaking, counsel for
the Society pointed counsel for the Baars to the case notes of
February 24 and 26, “where the conversation relating to the
Easter Bunny and Easter eggs was discussed which indicates
the Society’s expectations relating to the children and the children’s beliefs”.
 Overall, I reject the Society’s submissions related to the
desires or directions purportedly made by the birth mother to
the Society with respect to the children and the live issues in
 Rather, the evidence in existence from the birth mother
directly largely contradicts the Society’s submission that the