CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AB Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: AB v The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
AB, Applicant Self-Represented
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent Amanda Rozario, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application filed on May 27, 2024 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
BACKGROUND
2The Applicant is the mother of two children, V and J. The Respondent was involved with the Applicant’s family in 2018 and again from 2020 to 2024. The Applicant has repeatedly raised concerns about the wellbeing of the children in the care of their father. In particular, she has alleged that the father is sexually abusing V. The Respondent has investigated but not verified those allegations.
3The Applicant and the children’s father have engaged in extensive family law litigation, including two trials before the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”). The first trial, which ended in November 2019, granted the parents joint custody. In December 2021, the children’s father brought a Motion to Change, resulting in a second trial which concluded in December 2022. In that trial, each parent sought sole decision-making authority with respect to both children and for the children to live primarily with them. Before a decision was issued, however, the trial was re-opened at the father’s request, to present new evidence. Testimony in the re-opened trial ended in late 2023 with final written submissions to follow by February 2024. No decision from the second trial has been filed with the CFSRB.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4Before turning to the issues I must decide, I review the Application’s procedural history.
5In July 2024 the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide detailed particulars of her allegations and to provide specific documents related to the SCJ family law proceedings. The Applicant did not comply with either direction.
6On September 18, 2024, following a pre-hearing, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide a numbered list of proposed issues. After the Applicant provided a list of 51 proposed issues, the CFSRB reviewed the list and created a more focused list of seven issues. That list is attached as Schedule A.
7In a December 10, 2024 Interim Decision, the CFSRB directed that the hearing would be held in writing and set out a schedule for the parties to provide documents and submissions. In February 2025, as the Applicant had still not provided the court documents she had been directed to file in July 2024, the CFSRB directed her to do so. On March 9, 2025, the Applicant filed partial transcripts from the re-opened SCJ trial. She did not file the documents she had been directed to provide in July 2024 and February 2025.
8On March 13, 2025, the CFSRB again directed the Applicant to file the SCJ documents and extended the date for doing so to March 17, 2025. The Applicant requested and was granted a further extension to March 21, 2025. She did not file the SCJ documents by March 21, 2025. Instead, on March 24, 2025 she wrote asking for a further unspecified extension. The CFSRB denied the extension request. In April 2025, the Applicant finally provided the documents she had been directed to provide in July 2024.
9Although the Applicant resisted providing the SCJ documents and questioned their relevance, those documents were essential in determining the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application.
ISSUES
10Is the CFSRB barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing some or all of the issues in Schedule A because those issues have been decided by the court or are before the court?
11With respect to any issues that are not barred by section 120(8)(a), did the Respondent meet its obligations under the Act to hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests?
RESULT
12The CFSRB is barred from reviewing Issues 1 (a, b, and c), 3, 5, 6 and the first part of Issue 7, as those issues they were before the court.
13With respect to the remaining issues:
The Respondent has provided the Applicant with adequate reasons for Issues 1d, 2 and the second part of Issue 7.
The Respondent attempted to engage with the Applicant with respect to Issue 4. It cannot be held accountable for her failure to respond.
14The Application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
15Section 120(8)(a) of the Act states:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) Is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court;
16The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the existence of child protection proceedings does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD, the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB because those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court”. Similar reasoning applies when there are family law proceedings involving an individual who has brought an application to the CFSRB. The question in each instance is whether the issues in the court proceedings and the issues for which an applicant seeks CFSRB review are separate and different.
17For each of the seven issues in Schedule A, I must therefore first determine whether the issue is separate and different from the issues before the SCJ. If I determine that the issue is not separate and different, then section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing that issue and the issue must be dismissed. If I determine that the issue is separate and different, then I must decide whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions related to that issue.
Issue 1: The 2020 Investigation
18The Applicant makes several allegations related to the Respondent’s 2020 investigation which followed a referral from a medical professional. The Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent not providing certain documents to the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (“SCAN”) Program at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children are included in her April 9, 2022 SCJ affidavit. As a result, I find that Issues 1 a, b, and c are not separate and different than the issues before the SCJ and must be dismissed.
19Issue 1d involves an allegation by the Applicant that the Respondent made changes to a report at the request of the children’s father but failed to do so at the request of the Applicant. This issue was not placed before the SCJ. The question, then, is whether the Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for its decisions related to this issue. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Respondent has met its obligations under the Act.
20The Respondent submits, in its October 18, 2024 Supplementary Summary Reply, that this is a new allegation. I agree. This allegation is not set out in the Application and there is no evidence before me that it was raised with the Respondent. In the Supplementary Summary Reply, the Respondent has provided an explanation of why it revised a report to SCAN. I note also that in its March 19, 2021 letter to the Applicant, the Respondent gave her information about how she could request corrections for any alleged inaccuracies in her records. Finally, under Part X of the Act, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction over alleged inaccuracies in children’s aid society records. For these reasons, Issue 1d is dismissed.
Issue 2: Decision to close the 2020 investigation and to not provide protective measures
21I find that only limited aspects of this investigation were before the SCJ. Thus, the CFSRB is not barred from reviewing this issue.
22The Respondent received a referral from a medical professional on August 5, 2020. A Respondent worker contacted the Applicant on August 6, 2020 and met with her in person on August 7, 2020. This meeting was followed by telephone conversations on August 12 and 14, 2020 and a telephone call on September 11, 2020 to advise the Applicant that the investigation was being closed as inconclusive. When the Applicant continued to raise concerns about the Respondent’s decisions regarding the investigation, the Respondent worker spoke with her by telephone on November 12, 2020 telephone call and met with her at her home on November 19, 2020. On both occasions, the Applicant raised her concerns about the investigation and the worker explained how the Respondent had reached its conclusions.
23In February 2021, the Applicant wrote to several Respondent staff, including the Respondent’s CEO, expressing concerns about the investigation. The Respondent wrote to the Applicant on March 19, 2021, addressing each of those concerns. The Applicant thus had ample opportunity to share her concerns with the Respondent and the Respondent provided adequate information about how it had reached the decisions with which the Applicant was dissatisfied. I find, therefore, that the Respondent met its obligations to hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide her with reasons for its decisions regarding the 2020 investigation.
Issue 3: Concerns about V wetting herself
24This issue was placed before the SCJ in the Applicant’s April 9, 2022 affidavit. Accordingly, I find that this issue is not separate and different than the issues before the SCJ and must be dismissed.
Issue 4: Failure to provide a safety plan or interview the Applicant after the father was criminally charged in January 2021
25Although the criminal charges are briefly mentioned in the father’s October 24, 2022 affidavit, I find that Issue 4 was not before the SCJ.
26I accept the Respondent’s unchallenged evidence that after the Applicant advised it of the charges, a Respondent worker reached out to the Applicant multiple times in January and February 2021 without receiving a response from the Applicant. I also accept the Respondent’s unchallenged evidence that when the worker did succeed in speaking with the Applicant, she raised no concerns regarding the criminal charges.
27I find that the Respondent attempted to engage with the Applicant on this issue but was unsuccessful in doing so due to the Applicant’s lack of response. Accordingly, this issue is dismissed.
Issue 5: The father’s declaration in a civil case regarding his caregiving capacity
28The Applicant placed this issue before the SCJ in her April 9, 2022 affidavit. She submitted to the SCJ that the father’s positions in the civil case and the family law proceeding are inconsistent. She made this argument in support of her position that she, rather than the father, should have primary care of the children. I find that this issue is not separate and different from the issues before the SCJ and it must therefore be dismissed.
Issue 6: The 2023 Investigation
29The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided with reasons relating to decisions the Respondent made during the 2023 investigation into allegations that V was sexually abused by her father. A review of the documentation before me, however, reveals that the Respondent’s decisions related to this investigation were a central issue before the SCJ in the re-opened trial.
30The Applicant’s allegations of sexual abuse were put before the SCJ in the May 19, 2023 affidavit of the father’s counsel and in the father’s August 8, 2023 affidavit. In addition, the Respondent’s contact notes regarding the investigation were exhibits at the reopened trial.
31Also, the transcript filed by the Applicant records her counsel cross-examining Respondent staff at length about the Respondent’s investigation-related decisions. The questions the Applicant seeks answers to through the CFSRB process are the very questions that her counsel put to Respondent staff during the re-opened trial. For example, during cross-examination of Respondent staff, the Applicant’s counsel asked specifically about the child’s March 15, 2023 disclosure regarding “the pokey thing,” and the April 24, 2023 correspondence from Chantal’s Place to the Respondent. He also asked:
…why didn’t the CAS take any action? I mean, did you not consider this to be a serious – some serious disclosure coming from [the Applicant’s daughter]?
32I find that the Respondent’s decision making related to this investigation was an issue squarely before the SCJ in the re-opened trial. As such, Issue 6 is not separate and different from the issues before the SCJ and must be dismissed.
Issue 7: Steps taken following communication from the Safe Centre of Peel (“SCOP”) and Refusal to Transfer the Applicant’s family’s file
33Issue 7 consists of two separate allegations. The first is that the Applicant was not provided with reasons related to steps the Respondent took after it received a report by SCOP in April 2023. The second is that she was not provided with reasons regarding the Respondent’s August 2023 denial of her request to have her file moved to SCOP.
34With respect to the first allegation, I have already found that the Respondent’s decisions related to concerns of abuse in April 2023 were placed before the SCJ and as such the CFSRB is barred from reviewing this issue. This part of Issue 7 is dismissed.
35With respect to the second allegation, the Respondent’s letter of June 22, 2023 explains why it is not agreeing to move the file to SCOP. I find that the explanation was sufficient for the Appellant to understand why the Respondent has made this decision. The letter acknowledged the Applicant’s desire for support from workers with expertise in intimate partner violence and noted that Respondent staff had that expertise. When the Applicant remained dissatisfied with the decision, the Respondent’s Society Service Relations Manager met with her on July 20, 2023 to further explain the basis of the decision. I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for the decision. Accordingly, this part of Issue 7 is dismissed.
Disclosure Issues
36In her January 27, 2025 Reply, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent has violated court orders requiring disclosure of her file. It is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to enforce court orders. Any alleged violation of court orders is a matter for the court rather than the CFSRB.
CONCLUSION
37For the reasons set out above, I have found that almost all the issues in Schedule A were before the SCJ during the lengthy family law litigation between the Applicant and her children’s father. It may seem unfair to the Applicant that many of her complaints to the CFSRB are barred due to legal proceedings which she did not initiate. The fact remains, however, that during the SCJ proceedings the Applicant, and in some instances, the children’s father placed the Applicant’s concerns and the Respondent’s response to those concerns before the SCJ. Section 120(8)(a) of the Act sets mandatory limits on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. As a result, the CFSRB is barred from reviewing the issues that were placed before the SCJ and those issues must be dismissed.
With respect to the remaining issues, I find, for the reasons set out above, that the Respondent has met its obligations under the Act. The remaining issues are thus also dismissed.
ORDER
38The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
39Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated, August 08, 2025.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley Vice-Chair
Schedule A: Issues
- The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided with reasons related to decisions made by the Respondent as part of the Respondent’s 2020 investigation (related to concerns about the child, V) including:
a. Why the Respondent allegedly did not provide medical records from Brampton Civic to SCAN in August 2020;
b. Why the Respondent allegedly did not provide a medical report from Dr. Shahin to SCAN in August 2020;
c. Why the Respondent allegedly did not provide certain information to SCAN, including that provided by the Applicant in October 2020; and,
d. Why the Respondent corrected information in a report to SCAN in November 2021 on the request of V’s father but not make changes as requested by the Applicant.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard about her concerns or provided with reasons related to the Respondent’s decision to close the investigation and allegedly not provide “protective measures” for the children.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard about her concerns about the child, V, wetting herself in 2021 when V’s father picked her up and the Applicant was not provided with reasons why this was not considered a protection concern.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided with reasons relating to the Respondent’s alleged failure to provide a safety plan for the family or interview the Applicant during its investigation after V’s father was charged criminally on January 19, 2021 and the child, J, witnessed assaults on the Applicant.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard when she raised concerns in April 2022 that V’s father had declared under oath in a civil case that he had lost his caregiving capacity.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided with reasons relating to decisions the Respondent made during an investigation commenced in April 2023 in which it did not verify concerns of sexual abuse of the child, V, by her father including:
a. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to investigate a report by Chantal’s Place in or around May 2023 that the child, V, was returning from access with blood from her bum, and further to a letter from Chantal’s Place to the Respondent on April 24, 2023.
b. Why the Respondent deviated from a 12-hour response on April 20, 2023;
c. Why the Respondent deemed that the child, V, was safe to return to her father’s home on April 24, 2023 and not a child in need of protection, despite a police statement from V allegedly mentioning that she is afraid to return;
d. Why access between the child, V, and her father continued despite police detectives allegedly asking Respondent staff to interrupt this access and allegedly without a safety plan in place;
e. Why the Respondent did not start a child protection application with the court;
f. How the Respondent considered the information provided by the Applicant related to medical information, photos, the child V’s alleged sexualized behaviour, the children’s difficulties during transitions during exchanges, V’s father’s refusal to provide consent to mental health services, and the children’s family doctor’s alleged recommendation that the children see a social worker at Dr. Grunwald’s office;
g. Why the Respondent did not address Mayor Patrick Brown’s alleged request to the Respondent to investigate the Applicant’s child protection concerns;
h. Why the Respondent allegedly did not inform the Applicant about the child V’s report to Respondent worker TR on March 15, 2023 that V’s father “put a pokey thing in her pee pee and it hurt”;
i. Why the Respondent allegedly did not accept or discuss police documentation and EMBRAVE documentation the Applicant provided to the Respondent in September 2023; and,
j. Why the Respondent interviewed the child, V, without police present on April 25, 2024, despite an alleged direction by the police on April 20, 2023 for the child, V, to have a second forensic interview with SCAN.
- The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided with reasons related to the steps the Respondent took after it received a report by the Safe Centre of Peel (“SCOP”) in April 2023 and the Respondent’s August 2023 denial of her May 2023 request to have her file moved to SCOP.