CR v. Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, 2025 CFSRB 179

BETWEEN:

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk

Date: December 08, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 179

Indexed as: CR v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CR, Applicant

Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, Respondent

DD, 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 unders.120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

ISSUES

3The CFSRB Pre-Hearing Report dated August 29, 2025 confirmed the issues for hearing as being the following allegations by the Applicant:

The Applicant alleges that:

a. he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the impact of identity confusion resulting from the Respondent’s alleged failure to properly establish his identity through obtaining government issued identity documentation such as his birth certificate; and,

b. the Respondent did not provide him with reasons for why it allegedly failed to properly verify the Applicant’s identity when he was a child, particularly as a child in the care of the Respondent, through obtaining official government issued documentation of the Applicant’s identity as required by then policy CH-0204-03.

The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the inappropriateness of Respondent worker, MC, accusing him of changing his name.

RESULT

4Having reviewed the testimony and the documentary evidence, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided him with reasons for the decisions it made affecting his interests in relation to the issues set out in paragraph 3 of this Decision.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that:

5The Respondent had involvement with the Applicant when he was a child. His primary caregiver at the time was his mother. During the course of the Respondent’s involvement, the Applicant’s mother placed him in the care of the Respondent on several occasions by way of voluntary Temporary Care Agreements. The Applicant also spent four days in the Respondent’s care by way of an apprehension. In total, over a period of approximately 26 months, the Applicant spent approximately four to five months in the Respondent’s care. The Respondent also had periods of involvement with the Applicant as an adult/caregiver between 2015 and 2022.

6The Respondent’s records over the period of its involvement with the Applicant as a child reflect the Applicant’s name as JD which is not his legal name. The testimony of the Applicant was that the Respondent did not properly verify his identity when he was a child.

7The Applicant testified that a child protection worker employed by the Respondent, GP, became aware of the Applicant’s legal name in 1997. Despite this, the Respondent continued to use the name JD for him in court and government records. According to the Applicant’s evidence, he did not know his legal name until 2021.

8The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide him with reasons for failing to verify his identity when he was a child and that it failed to correct its records once it learned of the error. He testified that this error has prejudiced him including in his dealings with the police and in criminal proceedings, the court in child protection proceedings, and has impeded his ability to access educational and health records, and resulted in a denial of benefits.

9The Respondent denies the Applicant’s allegations. It filed various documents including excerpts of its records regarding its involvement with the Applicant as a child and correspondence it exchanged with the Applicant. The records indicate that the Applicant’s mother identified him as JD in her dealings with the Respondent, collaterals involved with the Applicant knew the Applicant’s name to be JD, and the Applicant referred to himself as JD. The Applicant signed the voluntary Temporary Care Agreements as JD and referred to himself by this name.

10MC is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent. She was previously the child protection worker assigned to the Applicant in relation to the Applicant’s child between the end of January 2015 and the end of March 2019. It was MC’s evidence that the Applicant frequently raised the issue of the Respondent’s records reflecting his name as JD during their communications. During the course of these discussions, the Applicant asked for his tax information as JD. It was MC’s evidence that she explained the Respondent was not responsible for taxes and encouraged him to contact Revenue Canada.

11It was MC’s evidence that the Applicant frequently raised the Respondent not obtaining a birth certificate for him when he was a child and made numerous requests for his birth certificate as JD. The evidence of MC was that she encouraged the Applicant to contact the Respondent’s intake department and request disclosure. The Applicant would respond that he did not want disclosure, he wanted the birth certificate for JD. MC’s evidence was that she advised the Applicant that the Respondent had not changed his name and that the error appeared to have originated with the hospital where he was born.

12MC discussed the Respondent’s ongoing requests for his birth certificate with KM, the Disclosure Worker at the time, and KM responded that she would contact the Applicant to follow up.

13KM is a child protection supervisor employed by the Respondent and held the position of Disclosure Worker between approximately October 2018 and June 2022. Her evidence was that that the Applicant requested a copy of his birth certificate with the name JD in October 2018. The Respondent opened a personal information case to process the Applicant’s request for records and the case was assigned to her to complete the disclosure.

14KM testified that, on November 14, 2018 she advised the Applicant that she had reviewed his childhood records and that the Respondent did not have any of his personal identification. Her evidence was that she advised the Applicant that the Respondent only knew him as JD which would have been the name provided to the Respondent by his primary caregiver at the time of its involvement.

15The testimony of KM was that, on November 21, 2018, she advised the Applicant that a summary of its involvement with him was ready for him to pick up. At the time, Part X of the Act had not been enacted and it was the Respondent’s practice to provide individuals seeking access to their records with a file summary rather than a copy of its record.

16KM next had involvement with the Applicant in the Fall of 2021 at which time he requested all information pertaining to the child, JD, including the birth and name change certificate. KM’s evidence was that the Applicant was provided with a copy of his child in care record and the mixed family protection record regarding his involvement with the Respondent as a child/youth on April 11, 2022.

17KM testified that, between the Fall of 2021 and April 2022, she had several contacts with the Applicant. It was her evidence that, during the course of these communications, she advised the Applicant that she did not believe his records would contain the information he was seeking as, when the Respondent became involved with him as a child, the Applicant was known to the Respondent as JD. She asked him how his mother had explained this to him and was advised by the Applicant that his mother told him there had been a ‘mix up’ at the hospital when he was born and that he had been registered with his legal name by the hospital. The Applicant told KM that he did not know how he had come to be known as JD.

18MG is a Manager of Service employed by the Respondent. Her evidence was that, as the supervisor on site on April 20, 2022, she met with the Applicant who had attended at the Respondent’s office, and they discussed his questions and concerns. MG’s evidence was that, in response to the Applicant’s questions about his medical and educational history when he was a child in care, she showed him how to access the link to his records that had been provided to him and that he was content with this.

19The Applicant contacted KM in June 2025 to advise that he could not access the link to his records she had provided him in April 2022. KM did not hold the position of Disclosure Worker at this juncture, and she forwarded the Applicant’s email to PP, the Supervisor of Legal, Disclosure and Privacy for the Respondent. PP testified that she forwarded the Applicant’s email to the current Disclosure Worker, and that she was aware that the Disclosure Worker provided the Applicant with the link to the records that had been previously disclosed to him by KM on June 23, 2025.

20PP testified that, based on further communications between the Applicant and Respondent staff, it was her understanding that the Applicant was trying to understand the decisions made by the Respondent and the steps it had taken to determine his identity obtain his identity documents during his involvement as a child. The Applicant expressed concern that the records provided to him had been almost entirely redacted.

21It was PP’s evidence that she reviewed the records that had been provided to the Applicant and confirmed that he was entitled to access to much of the information that had been redacted. Most of the redacted information pertained to the Applicant’s involvement in the criminal justice system as a youth. As the redacted information was about the Applicant, a decision was made to leave this information in the record provided to the Applicant. PP’s evidence was that the Applicant was provided with his records on July 31, 2025.

22The documents submitted by the Respondent included a letter sent to the Applicant by PP on July 31, 2025 which was intended to address his concerns. This included the reasons for the redactions in the records provided to him in April 2022. The letter also reviewed the Respondent’s protection concerns related to the Applicant’s children and confirmed that those concerns were unrelated to issues with his identity. PP also reviewed attempts made by the Respondent at the time of its involvement with him as a child to verify his identity.

23The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated August 28, 2025 confirming the periods the Applicant was in its care, that his name reflected in the Respondent’s records during those periods was JD, confirming that the Applicant had since advised the Respondent of his legal name, and that the Respondent has made a notation in its records to reflect this information.

24PP addressed the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent had breached policy #CH-0204-03 by failing to obtain government issued identification for him when he was a child in its care in her evidence. It was PP’s evidence that CH-0204-03 is not a policy but rather a guideline contained in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Children in Care Guidelines. A copy of CH-0204-03 was admitted into evidence. It provides that at the time of a child’s admission to care, various documents, such as a “Birth Certificate (or, if copy unavailable, information on date and place of birth)” should be obtained.

25The Respondent’s record with respect to the Applicant when he was a child details its efforts to verify the Applicant’s identity and obtain identification for him when he was a child admitted to its care. In addition to the records themselves, the Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated September 5, 2025 detailing its efforts in this regard. The records and the letter indicate that the Applicant’s mother advised her child protection worker at the time, GP, that she did not have a birth certificate for the Applicant, and that the Applicant had been given his legal name, ‘accidentally’, by the hospital. There were numerous efforts by GP to assist the Applicant’s mother in obtaining a legal name change for the Applicant. She was provided with the forms and information required in order for her to complete the process.

26The allegations by the Applicant in relation to Issue 1 date back to 2018. Since that time, the Respondent has had numerous communications, verbal and written with various employees of the Respondent. There were many discussions and email exchanges by the Respondent with the Applicant, including by MC, KM, MG and PP. During these discussions and email exchanges, the Applicant relayed his questions and concerns and the Respondent attempted to provide answers to those questions, address the concerns, and provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that were made to establish his identity as a child. In addition to discussions with the Respondent, the Applicant was provided with a copy of his records along with additional, previously redacted documents from that record, as well as particulars of the Respondent’s efforts to obtain his birth certificate and to assist the Applicant’s mother in obtaining a name change from JD to the Applicant’s legal name.

27For the reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with many opportunities to be heard regarding his Issue 1 concerns and that it provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions that it made in relation to the determination of his identity as a child in its care, including with respect to obtaining government issued identification for him.

Issue 2: The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the inappropriateness of Respondent worker, MC, accusing him of changing his name

28The Applicant testified that MC filed an affidavit in the child protection proceeding regarding his child in which she accused him of changing his name. The document for hearing submitted by the Applicant did not include the affidavit in question.

29MC swore an affidavit for the hearing which was made an exhibit and she was made available for cross-examination by the Applicant.

30It was MC’s evidence that she never accused the Applicant of having changed his name from JD to hide his identity or criminal history, nor did she ever indicate to the Applicant or in court documents that this was a protection concern. MC’s evidence was that she simply indicated in court documents that the Applicant had been known by the name JD when he was involved with the Respondent as a child. The Respondent filed the first two pages of an affidavit by MC in the child protection proceeding dated April 17, 2015. One of the paragraphs in that affidavit states, “The mother has identified [the Applicant] (also known as JD) … as the father of the child..”.

31I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that MC accused him of changing his name in court documents or otherwise.

ORDER

32The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

33Pursuant 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 8, 2025

Donna A. Wowk

Vice-Chair