CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MM Applicant
-and-
Durham Children’s Aid Society Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: August 22, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 116 Indexed As: MM v Durham Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”). The Applicant is the mother of a young child (the “Child”) who is currently residing in a group home.
2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5, and 119(5) of the Act.
3The Applicant’s complaints were identified in a Pre-Hearing Report dated April 25, 2025. A second Pre-Hearing Report dated May 16, 2025, confirmed the hearing would be held in writing. It directed the Applicant to file her written submission by June 26, 2025, and the Respondent to file it’s written submissions by July 17, 2025.
4The Applicant provided her submissions as well as supporting documents, including, email communications, letters, and photographs on June 19, 2025.
5The Respondent provided its submissions on July 17, 2025, which included an Affidavit of Edna Dzathor, Child Protection Worker with the Respondent, as well as supporting documents including email correspondence, an incident report, Child Protection Information Network logs (“CPIN”) and an Internal Complaint Review Panel Report dated March 5, 2025 (“ICRP Report”).
ISSUES
6The issue to be determined is whether the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard and with reasons for the following:
a. why the Applicant was not provided an incident report regarding the incident with the Child that occurred at the group home on December 7, 2024 (the “Incident Report”).
b. why the Respondent reduced the Applicant’s visitation with the Child from three days per week to two days per week in September 2024, and then from two days per week to one day per week after January 6, 2025.
RESULT
7I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to have her concerns heard on why it did not provide the Incident Report to the Applicant, but it failed to provide her reasons.
8I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to have her concerns heard on why her visitation with the Child had been reduced, and it provided reasons for why the Applicant’s visitation with the Child was reduced to one day after January 6, 2025. However, I find that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for why the Applicant’s visitation with the Child was reduced from three days per week to two days per week in September 2024, but there is no further remedy to provide.
ANALYSIS
Issue A) The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard but has not provided sufficient reasons for why it did not provide the Incident Report to the Applicant
9The Child is currently in the care of a group home. The Respondent received the Incident Report on December 9, 2024, from the group home which stated that the Child had scratched his face while playing.
10The Applicant submits that she was not told about the incident when it happened, and despite repeated requests, did not receive a copy of the Incident Report until March 24, 2025, as part of the Respondent’s Response. She submits that she has still not been provided with reasons why the Incident Report was not provided to her earlier.
11The Respondent submits that they have provided an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard and provided reasons for the incident itself.
12I find that the Respondent has provided an opportunity for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard. However, although it has now given the Incident Report to the Applicant, there is no evidence that the Respondent provided reasons for why the Incident Report was not provided given.
13A CPIN log dated December 12, 2024, notes that the Applicant spoke with a Respondent worker and let them know that she was very upset about a scratch she noted on the Child’s face. There is no mention of the Incident Report in those notes.
14The incident itself was a topic of discussion at the ICRP Meeting and in fact, the ICRP Report provided details about the incident to the Applicant, including an explanation about how the Child obtained the scratch. However, the ICRP Report does not address providing the actual Incident Report to the Applicant.
15I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to have her concern heard about not receiving the Incident Report, specifically, she could have addressed this during the ICRP meeting while discussing the incident itself.
16However, given the lack of evidence indicating otherwise, I find that no reasons were provided to the Applicant for why the Incident Report was not provided to her.
Issue B) The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard but has not provided sufficient reasons for why the Applicant’s visitation with the Child has been reduced.
17The Applicant submits that she has not been heard or provided reasons why visitation time with the Child was reduced in September 2024 from three days per week to two days per week, and then in January 2025, to one day per week.
18The Respondent submits that it has provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard and has provided reasons.
19I find that the Respondent has provided an opportunity for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard on why parenting time was reduced. It did not sufficient reasons for the reduction of visitation between September and December 2024. This has been resolved as at the date of the hearing and there is no further Order that I can make.
i) Opportunity to be Heard
20Two of the main issues discussed at the ICRP meeting were: (1) communication related to scheduling and (2) understanding the decision to make changes access/parenting time. In fact, item number 4 in the ICRP Report is a response to a request to “understand what led to changes to your access with [the Child] and to know who/what will make changes to your parenting plan”.
21The reduction in parenting/access time was clearly discussed and reported on during the ICRP Meeting. I therefore find that the Applicant had an opportunity at the ICRP meeting to have her concerns heard regarding the reduction of visitation time.
ii) Reasons
22In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 para 13, the CFSRB held that:
… what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.
23After reviewing the material provided by the Respondent, I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient reasons for the reduction in visitation after January 2025 by way of the ICRP meeting and ICRP Report, but it did not provide sufficient reasons for the reduction in visitation between September and December 2024. However, this issue has been resolved as at the date of the hearing.
24Specifically, with respect to the reduction in visitation between September and December, 2024, the Affidavit of Ms. Dzathor states that there is a Court Order dated August 2, 2024, which ordered that the Applicant was to have temporary supervised access with the Child at a minimum of once per week as arranged by the Society. The Affidavit states that the Order provides: “access/parenting time will take place on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 10am – noon at DACS’ office”.
25Additionally, paragraph 13 of the Affidavit states that from the date of the August 2, 2024, Order, to September 2024, the Applicant was having semi-regular access visits with the Child three days a week. It proceeds to provide an explanation for why the access visits were reduced to two per week, specifically, this was done to accommodate the Child’s father’s visitations. The Affidavit also implies that the Applicant’s own behaviour or conflicts with group home staff were the cause of the reduction in visitation. In short, the affidavit provided in response to this application provides fulsome reasons to the Applicant.
26The Applicant emailed the Respondent on January 15, 2025, stating “please advise which days and time my court ordered visits are…I had the understanding that it was Mondays..., Tuesdays and Thursdays…Please confirm asap as I was there yesterday and was informed there was nothing booked for a week.”
27I infer from this email that as of January 15, 2025, the Respondent had not provided reasons and the Applicant still believed that visitations were to take place more than once a week.
No information was contained in the Affidavit or by way of supporting documentation to indicate that this explanation for a reduction in visitations after September 2024 was ever provided to the Applicant, either verbally or in writing. I therefore find reasons were not provided by the Respondent to the Applicant on why visitation was reduced between September – December 2024 prior to the Hearing, but there is no further Order that can be made at this point.
28It is unfortunate that the Respondent failed to comply to the date of the hearing. I find that the Respondent was in contravention of the Act coming into this Hearing, in not having provided reasons. In waiting until the Hearing to provide those reasons, it has used time and resources of both the CFSRB and the Applicant which could have otherwise been avoided. That said, an Order to provide reasons at this point would be redundant as the Respondent has now provided reason in the Affidavit, which was not challenged in Cross-Examination by the Applicant.
29With respect to the further reduction in visitations after January 2025, I find that the Applicant was provided reasons which were evidenced in emails and the ICRP Report.
30Due to safety concerns, the Applicant emailed the Respondent on December 21, 2024, with a request to have a Respondent worker supervise all visits with the Child going forward. The Applicant followed up with emails on January 6 and January 15 to confirm if visits would be supervised and where they would be held.
31The Respondent emailed on January 15, 2025, in response to the Applicant’s request to clarify if she still had visitations three days a week as follows: “please note that your court-ordered visits are scheduled for a minimum of once per week, lasting at least one hour. Given the current circumstances and your request to move visits back to the Society’s premises, your visits will be on Thursdays starting at 3pm”.
32The ICRP Report provides even more fulsome reasons. The ICRP Report explains that a request had been made by the Applicant to have her access times with the Child be supervised by a Respondent worker due to safety concerns. The group home had also requested the supervised access take place at the Respondent’s office. Given these two requests, it summarizes, “while the amount of parenting time/access visits has been in accordance with the court order, we appreciate that during this time there was a reduction of your time with [the Child] due to these required changes and additional complicating factors of staffing availability. The team will work to increase this time moving forward, within the parameters of the court order.”
33I find that reasons were provided for the Applicant to understand why decisions were made to reduce the visitation time with the Child after January 2025.
CONCLUSION
34In find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to have her concerns heard regarding issue a) but did not provide the Applicant with reasons.
35I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to have her concerns heard regarding issue b) but had not provided sufficient reasons for the reduction in visitations between September and December 2024 prior to the Hearing. Given the fact that the Respondent provided reasons during the written Hearing, there is no further remedy to provide.
ORDER
36The Application is upheld in part.
37Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for why the Incident Report was not provided to the Applicant prior to March 2025.
38The remainder of this 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.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley Member