AS v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 178

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AS Applicant

-and-

Durham Children’s Aid Society Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: December 05, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 178 Indexed as: AS v Durham Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AS, Applicant Self-represented

Durham Children’s Aid Society, Respondent SG, 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 concluded on October 21, 2025, that the following allegations were eligible to proceed:

• The Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his/her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he/she raised concerns about the services he/she is receiving (section 120(4)4 CYFSA).

• The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his/her interests (section 120(4)5 CYFSA).

3The Applicant is the mother of three children, who are in the care and custody of their father pursuant to an Order for temporary supervision made April 2025. A protection application remains before the Court.

4In its response dated October 31, 2025, the Respondent argues that many of the issues raised in the Application are matters that are currently before the court or have been before the court. In support of this argument, the Respondent provided extensive documentation, including multiple court documents.

ISSUE

5Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues that are currently before the court or that have been before the court?

RESULT

6I find that issues a, b, c, e, and g below are not before the Court in the current child protection proceeding and are separate and different.

7I find that issues d, f, and h below are before the Court in the current child protection proceeding and are not separate and different and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

ANALYSIS

8Section 120(8) of the CYFSA states that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court.

9The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

10In reaching my decision I reviewed:

• The Application received October 20, 2025, including attachments.
• The Respondent’s Response dated October 31, 2025, including attachments.
• The Applicant’s Submissions on jurisdiction dated November 10, 2025.
• The Respondent’s Submissions on jurisdiction dated November 20, 2025.

Issues

11The Applicant has identified the following issues in her complaint:

a) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for repeatedly opening and closing her file.

b) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns that she is a victim of domestic violence, and her children have experienced abuse, and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for not taking protective action with regard to these concerns, including:

i) An allegation that in 2021 the Applicant was assaulted in front of her children and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not opening a protection case.

ii) An allegation that in 2023 one of the Applicant’s children was assaulted by their father who was charged, and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not initiating a protection response.

c) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of its actions in response to a report that the children’s father was using disparaging comments to the children regarding the Applicant.

d) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide sufficient reasons for not offering trauma-informed and/or family therapy or mental health support to the children.

e) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not heard her concerns in relation to the father’s use of alcohol and drugs and possible possession of firearms and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of its actions in response to her concerns.

f) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for excluding her from decision-making in relation to her children.

g) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation regarding concerns related to foster placement safety concerns occurring in June 2024, September 2024 and April 2025.

h) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for not reunifying her with her children.

12The Applicant submits that her complaints are specifically about the quality and fairness of services provided by the Respondent’s workers and its compliance with statutory obligations.

13I will deal with each of the issues set out in the Application:

a) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for repeatedly opening and closing her file.

The Respondent submits that they had 26 involvements with the Applicant and her family between February 2015 and November 2023 and acknowledge that instead of bringing the matter to the child protection court the Respondent worked cooperatively with all family members in addressing the various issues of discord and disruption that were caused when the relationship between the Applicant and her spouse ended.

The Applicant submits that the Respondent repeatedly closed files despite verified findings of emotional harm. She submits that she consistently asked for the files to stay open, but the Respondent sent her closing letters, without termination meetings, answering the Applicant’s questions, or meaningful involvement of both caregivers.

Given the foregoing I conclude that these issues are not before the court.

b) The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent with regard to her concerns that she is a victim of domestic violence, and her children have experienced abuse before 2019 and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for not taking protective action with regard to these concerns, including:

i) An allegation that in 2021 the Applicant was assaulted in front of her children and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not opening a protection case.

ii) An allegation that in 2023 one of the Applicant’s children was assaulted by their father who was charged, and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not initiating a protection response.

As noted above, the Respondent submits that they had 26 involvements with the Applicant and her family between February 2015 and November 2023 and acknowledge that instead of bringing the matter to the child protection court the Respondent worked cooperatively with all family members in addressing the various issues of discord and disruption that was caused when the relationship between the Applicant and her spouse ended.

The Applicant submits that when new risks emerged, such as physical assault charges involving her children the Respondent refused to investigate or open a protection file solely because the case was before family court.

Given the foregoing I conclude that these issues are not before the court.

c) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of their actions in response to a report that the children’s father was using disparaging comments to the children regarding the Applicant.

The Respondent submits that with no specific documentation referenced it has reviewed its records and concluded that any comments noted do not rise to the level of psychological and emotional harm as claimed by the Applicant.

I see no reference to this issue in the court documents that have been provided.

I conclude, based on the foregoing, that this issue is not before the Court.

d) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide sufficient reasons for not offering trauma-informed and/or family therapy or mental health support to the children.

The Respondent submits that the therapeutic intervention for the children is an issue that is currently before the child protection court.

The April 16, 2025 Order includes a term which states, “(the Father) shall follow the Society’s worker’s recommendations with respect to supports and services to address the children’s needs, including ensuring the children attend individual counselling to address their current and past trauma and engage in family counselling to support the transition of the children into his full-time care and/or parenting visits commending with their mother…”.

The Respondent also submits that as recently as October 7, 2025, the issue of the purposes and parameters of therapeutic intervention was addressed in court and that a consent regarding the involvement of Dr. Walker-Kennedy is currently circulating between the parties.

Given the foregoing I find that this issue is before the court.

e) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not heard her concerns in relation to the father’s use of alcohol and drugs and possible possession of firearms and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of their actions in response to her concerns.

The Respondent submits that their November 2024 Reunification Assessment noted that the father was free of impairment by drug or substance use or mental health conditions and that neither the father nor the children have reported any concerns in this regard.

I could find no other mention of these issues in the court documents I reviewed.

I concluded, therefore, that this issue is not before the court.

f) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for excluding her from decision-making in relation to her children.

A Temporary Order was made in the ongoing child protection matter on April 16, 2025, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of their father supervised by the Respondent.

The Respondent submits that the Applicant was charged with criminal offences including 3 counts of Abduction By Parent and there is a non-contact order in place that prevents the Applicant from having contact with her children.

The Respondent has submitted that custody is a term used to describe decision-making and that the issue of custody/decision making authority is and continues to be an issue before the child protection court. I agree.

Given the foregoing I conclude that this issue is before the court.

g) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation regarding her foster placement safety concerns occurring in June 2024, September 2024 and April 2025.

The Respondent has submitted some information about the Applicant’s concerns regarding the foster placements, but there is no information that these concerns were or are before the Court.

Issues related to the foster placements would not normally be before the court nor do they appear to be in this instance.

h) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for not reunifying her with her children.

The Respondent submits that the child protection court granted a temporary order on April 16, 2025, and that the child protection matter is ongoing and there is a Settlement Conference scheduled for February 2026.

The Respondent submits that the children are represented by independent legal counsel through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in the ongoing child protection matter and it is the children’s preference to not have contact with the Applicant, but more recently they have indicated they would attend the contemplated therapeutic intervention to determine their contact, if any, with the Applicant.

I conclude that this issue is squarely before the Court.

ORDER

i) The CFSRB will not conduct a review of the issues d, f, and h above.

j) The following issues shall proceed to a full day pre-hearing, where mediation will be offered to the parties:

a. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for repeatedly opening and closing her file.

b. The Applicant’s allegation alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her concerns that she is a victim of domestic violence, and her children have experienced abuse before 2019 and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for not taking protective action with regard to these concerns, including:

i. An allegation that in 2021 the Applicant was assaulted in front of her children and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not opening a protection case.

ii. An allegation that in 2023 one of the Applicant’s children was assaulted by their father who was charged, and the Respondent has not provided reasons for not initiating a protection response.

c. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of its’ actions in response to a report that the children’s father was using disparaging comments to the children regarding the Applicant.

d. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent has not heard her concerns in relation to the father’s use of alcohol and drugs and possible possession of firearms and that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation of its’ actions in response to her concerns.

e. The Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent has failed to provide her with an explanation regarding concerns related to foster placement safety concerns occurring in June 2024, September 2024 and April 2025.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

k) Pursuant 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, December 05, 2025.

Karynn von Cramon

Karynn von Cramon Member