RA v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 136

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RA

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: October 03, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 136 Indexed As: RA v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RA, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Karen Freed, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed 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”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant is the mother of the child, I.H. (“the Child”). The Application relates to concerns the Applicant has about how the Respondent handled her allegations involving physical harm of the Child at daycare. The Respondent did not investigate the Respondent’s allegations.

ISSUES

4The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Report dated May 27, 2025, sets out two (2) issues for the Hearing:

1. The Applicant alleges that she was not heard when she shared her concerns regarding her daughter possibly being hurt at the day care.
2. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for why the Respondent did not complete a protection application.

5I queried the wording of the second issue at the start of the hearing. Both parties agreed that the issue should have read: The Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons for why the Respondent did not complete a protection investigation.

6After reviewing a complaint under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act, the only remedy given to the CFSRB under s. 120(7) of the Act is to order written reasons for the complaint or to dismiss the complaint. The CFSRB cannot order the Respondent to complete an investigation.

RESULT

7I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant as required when it made a decision to not complete an investigation into her concerns regarding the Child possibly being hurt at the day care.

8I also find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons for its decision to not complete a protection investigation.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that she was not heard when she shared her concerns regarding her daughter possibly being hurt at the day care.

9I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant when it made the decision to not complete an investigation into her concerns regarding the Child possibly being hurt at the day care.

10Subsection 120(4)4 of the Act allows the Board to review allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2). Subsection 15(2) requires service providers, like the Respondent, to “ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving”.

11The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) of the Act as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 (para 15).

12The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent. In other words, the Act does not give the Board the power to determine whether an investigation occurs or the outcome of an investigation conducted by a society into a complaint.

13The Applicant testified that she contacted the Respondent because the Child was being physically harmed and she wanted help from them. She testified that she did not receive this help and felt ignored.

14The Applicant testified that in April 2024 she reported to the Respondent’s Intake Screening Worker, S.D. that the Child had been sustaining pinch marks to various parts of her body at daycare. She testified that the last incident of “nail marks” was reported to the daycare in April 2024 and that she reported it to the Respondent a few days later. I note that the Applicant had significant difficulty providing evidence about dates, and therefore I have relied on the Respondent’s evidence in this regard.

15S.D. presented their evidence in chief by way of Affidavit (filed at Exhibit 3) and was cross examined by the Applicant.

16S.D. testified that she received a call from the Applicant on April 22, 2024, reporting concerns regarding the care that the Child had been receiving at daycare. S.D. provided a detailed report of what the Applicant had reported in paragraphs a – j of paragraph 7 of her Affidavit, including that the Child suffers from Cerebral Palsy and is not mobile and nonverbal, and that beginning in November 2023 the Child began coming home with deep nail marks on her body. S.D. testified that the Applicant told her that in or around February 2024, the Child was ill and out of school for some time. Following her return to daycare, the Applicant observed two more marks on the Child. S.D. testified that she heard from the Applicant that on the last day the Child attended the daycare the Applicant asked for the name of the staff member who had changed the Child and was informed by the supervisor that it may have been an intern, but she wasn’t sure. The staff were asked about the marks and did not have any information. S.D. testified that the Applicant also told her that she had spoken to the director of the daycare about her concerns and that the Applicant detailed to S.D. a safety plan that had been developed to ensure the child did not sustain further injury. S.D. testified that the Applicant described to her that except for the Child’s injuries, she had no other concerns regarding the care provided at the daycare.

17On cross-examination S.D. agreed with the Applicant that they had talked quite a bit and agreed that the Applicant had reported concerns about the daycare that she wanted investigated.

18S.D. testified that while she was receiving the report from the Applicant the Respondent received a second report about the Child from R.M., a supervisor at the Child’s daycare. That report was received by the Respondent’s Telephone Intake Screener, C.C. S.D. explained that she provided C.C. with a verbal summary of her call with the Applicant and prepared and uploaded a written report to the Child Protection Information Network, the information system used by the Respondent, (where the documentation could be accessed by C.C.), as a decision was made that C.C. would carry the case forward.

19S.D. testified that she had no further contact with the Applicant until January 2025.

20I am satisfied from the evidence of both the Applicant and S.D. that S.D. took considerable time with the Applicant and heard all her concerns about the Child being harmed at daycare during the intake report the Applicant made on April 22, 2024. S.D.’s evidence, particularly during cross-examination, was that she engaged in active listening and discussions with the Applicant and made the Applicant feel her concerns were being taken seriously.

21C.C. also presented her evidence in chief by way of Affidavit (filed at Exhibit 3) for the Respondent and was cross examined.

22C.C. testified that she became involved in the case on April 22, 2024 when she received a report from the daycare and that to familiarize herself with the matter, she reviewed the information documented in the initial report of S.D. C.C. testified that according to the written referral, the Applicant reported that beginning in November the Child began coming home with deep nail marks on her back and other parts of her body and that the Applicant did not name or identify a specific person who may have caused the reported markings on the Child.

23C.C. testified that on April 22, 2024, she followed up with the daycare and spoke to managing supervisor R.M. who later that same day provided the Respondent with a written report. The report documented the conversations and interactions the Applicant had with daycare staff on April 18 and 19, 2024, about marks she had observed on the child on April 5, 2024.

24C.C. also testified that the report documented the steps the daycare planned to implement to address the reported concerns.

25C.C. testified that she subsequently consulted with her supervisor, E.Z., and the Community Caregiver supervisor, S.S.J., and that it was determined that the case did not meet the threshold for a child protection investigation because a specific daycare worker was not identified as a concern, and the daycare had implemented a plan that would address and prevent any future injuries to the Child. C.C. testified that this was explained to the Applicant on April 23, 2024, as described under Issue 2 below.

26S.D. testified that on January 21, 2025, the Applicant again contacted the Respondent and asked to speak with the worker assigned to investigate concerns relating to the Child’s daycare. S.D. returned the Applicant’s call that day. The Applicant made complaints about C.C. not investigating her report in April 2024 and about how C.C. had treated her during their telephone conversation. S.D. testified that the Applicant reported to her that she had been traumatized by the encounter with the Respondent in April 2024 and had not sent the Child back to daycare.

27S.D. testified that the Applicant told her during their conversation on January 21, 2025, that she had attempted to contact C.C. since April 2024 and left messages on her voicemail asking both C.C. and her supervisor to contact her but had not received a response. This is the only evidence I have on this point. The Applicant testified that she’d had other contacts with the Respondent, but was very unclear regarding types of contact, frequency and dates. C.C. did not testify as to the Applicant making any contact with her after April 2024.

28S.D. testified that the Applicant described to her that the “Toronto Education Board” went back out and “found fault” based on the concerns identified by the Applicant.

29S.D. testified that the Applicant reiterated her concerns about the Child being physically harmed in February and April 2024, describing pinch marks. On this occasion the Applicant explained to S.D. that there were five staff present in the Child’s class of ten and that it had taken weeks for staff to identify who had changed the Child’s diaper and had changed their responses on three occasions, ultimately providing a first name “E”.

30S.D. testified that the Applicant explained that she was willing to speak with a supervisor about her concerns and service experience, and to inquire whether an investigation could be opened to “get to the bottom of what happened” to the Child.

31S.D. testified that she provided a summary of the Applicant’s concerns to her supervisor who advised her that the concerns were service related, and that no new child protection information was received, so to prepare a narrative and email it to telephone intake supervisor J.J. for follow up, which S.D. did on January 22, 2025.

32S.D. testified that on January 23, 2025, she received an email from the Applicant summarizing the concerns identified during their January 21, 2025, conversation and her request that the Respondent open an investigation to address the child protection concerns. S.D. testified she had no contact with the Applicant after that.

33The Respondent conceded that no one contacted the Applicant following her January 21, 2025, conversation with S.D. C.C. testified on cross-examination that her supervisor made her aware of the Applicant’s service complaint, but she was not instructed to contact the Applicant and knew nothing more about it.

34S.D.’s evidence is that the Respondent construed the Applicant’s concerns as a service complaint, which nonetheless should have been followed up on. In considering whether the Applicant was heard when she shared her concerns regarding the Child possibly being hurt at the day care I have considered S.D.’s evidence that in January 2025 the Applicant shared what she thought was new information. During that conversation, the Applicant referenced a Ministry of Education investigation and the first name of a staff who may have changed the Child’s diaper and who could potentially be connected to the injuries the Child sustained. This was new relevant information regarding the Applicant’s complaint, which was not provided (or available) when the Applicant first reported the complaint to the Respondent in April 2024. The Applicant had a reasonable expectation that the Respondent would consider this new information and make a decision about whether it warranted an investigation, and that the decision would be shared with her, but the Respondent made no further contact with her. The information provided in January 2025 merited a response.

35To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the Respondent taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. Based on S.D.’s evidence, which is the only evidence I have about the January 2025 communication, I am satisfied that S.D. engaged in active listening and discussions and made the Applicant feel her concerns were taken seriously. After that, though, the Respondent did nothing further. It would be impossible to conclude the Society took any steps to address the Applicant’s concerns or communicated with her so that she felt her concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that she felt dismissed and ignored.

36While I have concluded on the evidence that the Respondent heard the Applicant when she first shared her concerns regarding the Child possibly being hurt at the day care in April 2024 the Respondents obligation to hear the Applicant did not end then. The Applicant contacted the Respondent with both service concerns and new information in January 2025. Based on the evidence that the Respondent made no effort to follow up on either I find that the Respondent did not continue to hear the Applicant.

37Ultimately, I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant when she shared her concerns regarding the Child possibly being hurt at the day care.

Issue 2: The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with reasons for why the Respondent did not complete a protection application.

38I find that the Applicant was not provided with meaningful reasons by the Respondent for its decision to not open a case or investigate her concerns with sufficient detail to allow her to understand the decision.

39The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that a parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision at issue to allow him or her to understand why and how a decision was made.

40The Applicant testified that C.C. never reached out to her at all. C.C. testified on cross examination that she called the Applicant on April 23, 2024. The parties agreed that a telephone conversation occurred between the Applicant and C.C that day., but I was unable to determine from the evidence who initiated that call.

41C.C. testified that during the April 23, 2024, telephone conversation she informed the Applicant of the Respondent’s decision not to investigate and explained the rationale for the decision, explaining that the Respondent does not investigate entire daycare centers, rather it assesses safety concerns related to specific individuals. At that point, no specific daycare worker was identified as a concern. She also explained that the daycare implemented a plan that would address and prevent any future injuries to the Child. C.C. explained to the Applicant that the daycare would be advised of the Respondent’s decision and that they would be advised to continue with an internal investigation according to the Ministry of Education standards. C.C. explained to the Applicant that each daycare has a Ministry Representative that oversees their program and suggested that she reach to that representative to address any ongoing concerns.

42The Applicant’s evidence about the April 23, 2024, telephone conversation is that C.C. was very rude; said that she did not believe the Child had been harmed at daycare; said that the injuries may have been caused by the Applicant; and hung up on her.

43On cross-examination C.C. denied the Applicant’s allegations about her behaviour during the April 23, 2024, phone call, testifying that she would never say she did not believe that the Child had been harmed or that the Applicant caused the injuries. She also denied hanging up on the Applicant. She apologized if the Applicant received the Respondent’s decision and information that way, but was resolute that she did not behave in the way the Applicant alleges. I accept the evidence of C.C. She has been employed by the Respondent since 2003 in a variety of professional capacities that lend credibility to her assertions. This is not to question the Applicant’s sincerity. She was very worried about the Child during the phone call on April 23, 2024.

44On cross-examination the Applicant said that C.C. had told her that the file would be closed, but that she did not know that that meant there would not be an investigation. She testified that she thought the investigation was ongoing.

45The Applicant repeatedly stated in her evidence that she felt ignored by the Respondent. The Applicant filed a clinical note from the Hospital for Sick Children dated March 25, 2025 (Exhibit 2). While much of the content of the note is not relevant to my determinations in this hearing, I note that it states that “A is working closely with R to get closure from this event with CAS.” I have concluded that the Applicant did not understand the reasons for the Respondent’s decision not to investigate her concerns and was still trying to understand the Respondent’s decision not to investigate the complaint as recently as March 2025.

46Based on the evidence of the Applicant and the Respondent, I find the Applicant was not given a sufficient explanation of the Society’s decision not to complete an investigation. While the Respondent provided a great deal of information regarding the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards as evidence in this hearing, there is no evidence that this information was provided to the Applicant when the Respondent’s decision was explained to her on April 23, 2024.

47The Respondent argued that the Applicant was merely dissatisfied with the Respondent’s decision. While that is true and may have been the case even if additional information was provided about the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards, the Applicant had reported very concerning information about her disabled child’s treatment at daycare. Greater care and attention were needed in the explanation given to the Applicant regarding the Respondent’s decision not to investigate her concerns.

48Further, as noted above, the Applicant expressed her concerns again in January 2025, providing the Respondent with new information and requesting that an investigation occur. S.D.’s evidence is that the Respondent determined this to be a service complaint, and the Respondent has conceded that they did not follow up with the Applicant. Whether or not the Applicant’s January call was characterized as a service complaint, the Respondent had an obligation to follow up with her and to explain again, and in consideration of the new information, their decision not to investigate her concerns. They did not do this.

49For the above reasons, I find that the Applicant was not provided sufficient information regarding the factors taken into account in making the decision to allow her to understand why the Respondent decided to not investigate her concerns in either April 2024 or January 2025 and to understand how that decision was made.

ORDER

50Within 30 days the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant containing the following:

a) Reasons for its decision not to complete an investigation into the Applicant’s complaint after the Applicant reported her concerns to the Respondent in April 2024, including an explanation of for if/how the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards were applied.

b) Reasons for its decision not to complete an investigation into the Applicant’s complaint after the Applicant provided new information to the Respondent in January 2025, including an explanation of if/how the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards were applied.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

51Pursuant 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, October 03, 2025.

Karynn von Cramon

Karynn von Cramon Member