JP v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, 2025 CFSRB 19

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JP Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: February 21, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 19 Indexed As: JP v Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

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 two special needs children, SP and IP (“the Children”) as well as another child from a previous relationship, LP. The Respondent’s involvement with this family commenced in 2018 when the Applicant and the Children’s father (“the father”) separated. Since then, the Respondent conducted numerous child protection investigations. There was a file open between February 2023 to August 1, 2024, and an investigation file open between August 23, 2024 to September 11, 2024.

ISSUES

4The following are the issues for hearing as noted in the November 8, 2024 CFSRB Pre-Hearing Report:

1. Did the Respondent, and specifically child protection workers Nicole Dennison and Julia Perkins, provide the Applicant with reasons as to how determinations were made, including the evidence relied upon, and regarding who was ultimately accountable for the decision that the father’s home was a safe environment for the Children in September 2018, despite criminal charges being laid against the father?

2. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in September 2018 for it not interviewing LP about allegations of him witnessing and being subject to abuse by the father?

3. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in September 2018 for its child protection worker, Nicole Dennison, advising her, instead of the father, to leave the family home despite their common law relationship and reasons she was not provided with information on how it was determined that the father had rights to the home that the Applicant did not?

4. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for why child protection was not put in place after she contacted the Military Police and they advised the Respondent that they had concerns about the father in September 2018?

5. In or about March 2022, did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons its child protection workers did not investigate why the Children were urinating in school hallways when they knew the father was picking them up and reasons for it not informing her of these incidents?

6. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant in May 2022 and provide her with reasons for it not investigating and instead closing its file shortly after she provided it with a letter as well as the results of a sensory profile from the Children’s occupational therapist indicating the Children were in a state of “fight or flight” and required interventions to mitigate their emotional distress?

7. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in or around November 2022 for the Children not being interviewed until approximately two weeks after the Child, SP told the school that the father slapped her on her “bum,” and was afraid of further physical repercussions from the father if this was disclosed to him?

8. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for it not taking action in December 2022 after the Children’s family doctor recommended they be removed from the father’s care and required protection?

9. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for worker Celine Oulette being changed to worker Tracy Laichalk?

10. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant in June 2024 and provide her with reasons for her child protection file being closed, despite concerns about the Children’s behaviours?

11. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for it not conducting an investigation after the Applicant informed child protection worker Tracy Laichalk about a meeting with SP’s therapist on August 26, 2024 in which the therapist found a “significant change” in SP’s behaviours?

12. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant from February 2023 to present when she expressed concerns that the Children’s medication is not provided on a regular basis in the father’s home or provide her with reasons for it not providing her with the steps taken to ensure that the medication will be administered regularly?

13. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she expressed concerns that her safe location was provided in a disclosure to the father’s lawyer and advise her of the steps it had taken to ensure this did not happen with the Applicant in the future?

14. Did the Respondent, and specifically child protection worker Tracy Laichalk, provide the Applicant with reasons in November 2023 about if and how the safety plan was adjusted when the Children’s grandparents moved two hours away after an incident of domestic violence in the father’s home involving his current partner, and its reasons for not providing the Applicant with an adjusted safety plan?

15. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for not informing her that the father was prescribed a high dosage of medical marijuana when he has a verified history of substance abuse and the Applicant has safety concerns for the Children?

16. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she asked on numerous occasions to meet with Supervisor Steven Nicholls so she could discuss her file as a whole?

17. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she emailed the Respondent’s Executive Director Jennifer White in September 2024 to discuss her file as a whole and received a response indicating the information she was seeking would be in her disclosure?

RESULT

5During her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant stated that she was satisfied with the Respondent’s responses to Issues 5, 6, and 15 and withdrew these allegations.

6I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address Issue 13 as it relates to matters that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

7I find that Issue 17 could not have arisen as of the date of the Application and was not an identified issue in the Application. I therefore find that this is not an issue properly before me and that no determination by CFSRB is required.

8With respect to the remaining issues, having considered the testimony and the documentary evidence before me, I make the following findings:

a. Issue 1: I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its determination in September 2018 that the Children were safe in the home with the father and his parents.

b. Issue 2: I find that the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that she requested reasons for LP not being interviewed in September 2022. In any event, I find that the Respondent provided reasons to the Applicant for LP not being interviewed in September 2018.

c. Issue 3: I find that the Respondent did not make any determination as to the Applicant’s entitlement to possession of the family home nor did she communicate any such determination to her in September 2018. I find that, in encouraging the Applicant to leave the family home in accordance with her agreement with the father, the Respondent provided her with reasons including minimizing the Children’s exposure to conflict.

d. Issue 4: I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for not putting more intrusive measures in place in September 2018 after the Applicant contacted the Military Police and reported the father had been violent towards her.

e. Issue 7: I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for not interviewing the Children until approximately two weeks after one of the Children made disclosures at school in November 2022.

f. Issue 8: I find the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for not taking action in December 2022 after the Children’s family doctor recommended they be removed from the father’s care and required protection.

g. Issue 9: I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the change of worker from Celine Ouellette to Tracy Laichalk.

h. Issue 10: I find that the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in June 2024 when she asked it to stop meeting with her and with the Children and to close its file. I also find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for closing its file, those reasons being that she had requested it, and she was no longer prepared to speak with the workers or to have the workers speak with the Children.

j. Issue 11: I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant in relation to the referral it received in August 2024 from the Applicant’s therapist and that it provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to discontinue the investigation.

I further find that the Respondent heard the Applicant when she suggested one of the Children’s therapists had found significant changes in SP’s behaviour as demonstrated by its effort to follow up with the Applicant. The Applicant did not respond and there was no report by SP’s therapist. I find the Applicant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for not taking further action on an issue she had not clearly articulated to the Respondent and about which she did not respond when asked for clarification.

k. Issue 12: I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the administration of the Children’s medication by the father as demonstrated by the steps taken by the Respondent to address the issue. The Applicant did not identify any decision made by the Respondent for which reasons may have been required.

l. Issue 14: I find that the Applicant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that she asked the Respondent if there had been a change to the safety plan for the father as a result of his parents’ relocation. When the Applicant did raise the issue in this proceeding, I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons in its correspondence to the Applicant dated December 3, 2024.

m. Issue 16: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she asked to meet with Mr. Nicholls to discuss her file as she alleges. As such, there is no issue to be determined by the CFSRB.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Did the Respondent, and specifically child protection workers Nicole Dennison and Julia Perkins, provide the Applicant with reasons as to how determinations were made, including the evidence relied upon, and regarding who was ultimately accountable for the decision that the father’s home was a safe environment for the Children in September 2018, despite criminal charges being laid against the father?

9The evidence of child protection worker, Julia Perkins, is that the Respondent was contacted by the police on August 13, 2018 through a non-urgent notification. The Applicant and the father had separated, and the Applicant had left the home. The police report indicated that the Applicant, who had alleged intimate partner violence, was concerned for her safety but not the Children’s safety, and that the Children were staying with the father until the Applicant could find a stable residence.

10The evidence of Ms. Perkins is that the Respondent made a determination that, based on the paternal grandparents’ presence in the home, the Children’s continued contact with the Applicant, and the Children being seen in the community through daycare, the Children were not at immediate risk in the father’s care. Ms. Perkins’ evidence is that she attempted to reach the Applicant by phone on August 20, 2018 to discuss this matter and left her a voicemail message. She testified that she has no record of the Applicant contacting her until September 10, 2018. Ms. Perkins met with the Applicant on September 10^th^ and October 25^th^, 2018 in addition to telephone conversations.

11During the meetings with the Applicant, it was Ms. Perkin’s evidence that she advised the Applicant that, given the Applicant and the father were separated and no longer residing in the same household, and they were addressing the issues arising from the separation between themselves as evidenced by an agreement they had reached in writing, the Respondent would be completing its investigation and not moving the file to ongoing services. Ms. Perkins does not recall the Applicant asking her anything further about this decision.

12The Respondent informed the Applicant of the outcome of its investigation and its main supporting reasons by way of a letter dated November 30, 2018. Ms. Perkins has no recollection of the Applicant questioning this decision or that she did not feel she was provided with sufficient reasons for the Respondent’s decision.

13Ms. Perkins’ evidence regarding her discussions with the Applicant and the reasons she provided to the Applicant for her assessment that the Children were safe in the home with the father and his parents was not challenged by the Applicant in cross-examination.

14The Applicant acknowledged having numerous discussions with Ms. Perkins and that both Ms. Perkins and Nicole Dennison, child protection worker, advised her that they did not believe the Children were at risk in the home with the father and his parents. The Applicant’s testimony on this issue was not that she had requested reasons beyond those provided to her but that she was unhappy with the decision itself and its consequences, particularly her inability to return to the family home which she said resulted in her not seeing the Children for a significant period of time.

15I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its determination in September 2018 that the Children were safe in the home with the father and his parents.

Issue 2: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in September 2018 for it not interviewing LP about allegations of him witnessing and being subject to abuse by the father?

16The Applicant testified that she advised both Ms. Perkins and Ms. Dennison that LP had witnessed the father assaulting her yet he was not interviewed during the course of the investigation in September 2018. It was her evidence that she was told the reasons for this is that the Respondent did not have safety concerns regarding LP.

17During cross-examination, the Applicant maintained that she had raised concerns about the Respondent not interviewing LP on three occasions in September 2018, specifically on September 9^th^, 10^th^, and 20^th^, 2018 and that these conversations were documented in her CPIN records. I have reviewed the Applicant’s CPIN record and could find no reference to any communication by the Applicant with the Respondent in September 2018 about LP being interviewed or asking the reasons the child had not been interviewed.

18The evidence of Julia Perkins was that LP was not identified as a child who had allegedly been harmed, and he was no longer residing with the father. As such, there was no automatic consideration of having him interviewed nor were there other factors resulting in a determination that he should be interviewed. Ms. Perkins’ evidence was that she did not recall the Applicant ever questioning the reason why LP had not been interviewed and could find no reference to it when she reviewed the Applicant’s CPIN record.

19Ms. Perkins and Tracy Laichalk, Community-Based Child Protection Worker for the Respondent, testified that LP was subsequently interviewed on March 29, 2023 by Tracy Laichalk after the Applicant brought up interviewing the child as an issue on March 26, 2023.

20I find that the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that she requested reasons for LP not being interviewed in September 2022. I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for LP not being interviewed in September 2018. The Applicant’s own evidence is that she was told by the Respondent that the reason is that it did not have safety concerns about LP.

Issue 3: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in September 2018 for its child protection worker, Nicole Dennison, advising her, instead of the father, to leave the family home despite their common law relationship and reasons she was not provided with information on how it was determined that the father had rights to the home that the Applicant did not?

21Nicole Dennison is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent as a community-based worker. Ms. Dennison was involved with the Applicant’s family as the night duty/after-hours worker on September 9, 2018.

22The evidence of Ms. Dennison is that the Applicant advised her that she left her relationship with the father and the family home three weeks earlier, leaving the Children in the father’s care. At the time of this contact with the Respondent, the Applicant was back in the family home, temporarily. The Applicant expressed frustration that the father wanted her to vacate the family home by noon that day, being September 9, 2018. The legal owner of the family home is the father.

23The Applicant and the father had reached an agreement between themselves with respect to parenting time (“the agreement”). By the agreement, the transition of the Children to the father was to take place at noon on September 9, 2018 at which time the Applicant was to leave the family home.

24The evidence of Ms. Dennison was that she cautioned the Applicant that the Children should not be exposed to parental conflict and encouraged her to follow the agreement. Ms. Dennison’s evidence was that she also unequivocally informed the Applicant that she could not decide who was entitled to occupy the family home and that these issues would have to be resolved in Family Court if the Applicant and the father could not agree.

25Later that day, the father was arrested and charged with assault of the Applicant and released to the family home. The father’s parents were already at the family home and would be remaining to assist the father with the Children.

26Ms. Dennison’s evidence is that she contacted the Applicant by phone after learning of the father’s release back to the family home. During that call, the Applicant advised Ms. Dennison that she was seeking permission from the Respondent to return to the family home to be with the Children. Ms. Dennison’s evidence was that she reiterated to the Applicant that it was not her responsibility to make determinations with respect to possession of the family home. Ms. Dennison testified that she informed the Applicant that occupancy of the family home was not a child protection issue, there was no information that the father posed a risk to the Children, and that issues related to occupancy of the family home would need to be resolved in Family Court. The evidence of Ms. Dennison was that the Applicant refused to accept this answer.

27Ms. Dennison testified that she advised the Applicant the current situation was not an emergency and would be better addressed by consulting with the Applicant’s child protection working on the next business day. The Applicant vacated the residence later that day.

28The Applicant testified that the agreement provided for her to have possession of the family home until October 1, 2018. The agreement provided that, if the father is away for the month of September, the Applicant would reside in the home until October 1^st^ when her housing unit was available.

29It was the Applicant’s evidence that Ms. Dennison kept telling her that she needed to follow the agreement and to vacate the residence, and that she did not believe the Children were at risk with the father in the family home. The Applicant made inconsistent statements during her evidence on this issue. She acknowledged at one point in her evidence that Ms. Dennison told her that she would not determine who could reside in the family home.

30I find that, in encouraging the Applicant to leave the family home in accordance with her agreement with the father, the Respondent provided her with reasons including minimizing the Children’s exposure to conflict.

Issue 4: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for why child protection was not put in place after she contacted the Military Police and they advised the Respondent that they had concerns about the father in September 2018?

31The Applicant testified that she reported the father’s violent behaviour towards her to the OPP and they advised her to report this to the Military Police. The Applicant made the report to the Military Police and shared that she had done this with Ms. Dennison. The Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent on this issue. On the one hand, she testified that Ms. Dennison did not want to hear from the Military Police and said if domestic violence was an issue, she would have heard this from the OPP. However, at another point in her evidence, the Applicant testified that Ms. Dennison had spoken with the Military Police who offered to provide accommodations for the father, but that Ms. Dennison was not prepared to entertain anything other than that the Applicant leave the family home.

32The Applicant’s CPIN records corroborate Ms. Dennison’s evidence that she spoke with the Military Police on September 9, 2018. She informed them about the Applicant’s reported concerns for the Children related to the father suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and his violence towards her. The Applicant had not shared this information with the OPP. The Military Police confirmed with Ms. Dennison that the Applicant had attended at their detachment that day and made serious allegations against the father. Ms. Dennison confirmed to the Military Police that the Respondent did not have safety concern with respect to the Children at this time and, if the father was arrested, the Children could remain with their paternal grandparents until an assessment by the assigned worker could occur.

33Ms. Dennison’s evidence is that she spoke with the Applicant after her call with the Military Police. The Applicant wanted ‘permission’ to return to the family home to be with the Children. It was Ms. Dennison’s evidence that she explained to the Applicant that the Respondent had no information to suggest the Children would not be safe in the care of the father or his parents. Ms. Dennison’s evidence is that the Applicant spoke with her at length about how she should be with the Children and that Ms. Dennison should provide her with permission for this. Ms. Dennison’s evidence is that she reiterated that there were no safety concerns, the situation was not urgent, and the Applicant’s assigned child protection worker would assess the situation further during regular business hours.

34I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about domestic violence and the children’s exposure to the violence, investigated the concerns including conducting an unannounced home visit with the father and speaking with the father’s parents, OPP and Military Police, and had multiple conversations with the Applicant.

35I find that Ms. Dennison provided the Applicant with reasons for not putting more intrusive measures in place, specifically, that its assessment, which included the steps taken as described in the preceding paragraph, had concluded the children were not at risk with the father and his parents pending a further assessment by the assigned child protection worker.

Issue 5: In or about March 2022, did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons its child protection workers did not investigate why the Children were urinating in school hallways when they knew the father was picking them up and reasons for it not informing her of these incidents?

36During her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant stated that she was satisfied with the Respondent’s response and withdrew this allegation.

Issue 6: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant in May 2022 and provide her with reasons for it not investigating and instead closing its file shortly after she provided it with a letter as well as the results of a sensory profile from the Children’s occupational therapist indicating the Children were in a state of “fight or flight” and required interventions to mitigate their emotional distress?

37During her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant stated that she was satisfied with the Respondent’s response and withdrew this allegation.

Issue 7: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons in or around November 2022 for the Children not being interviewed until approximately two weeks after the Child, SP told the school that the father slapped her on her “bum,” and was afraid of further physical repercussions from the father if this was disclosed to him?

38The Respondent received a referral from the Children’s school on November 9, 2022 in relation to behaviours and statements made by SP. The behaviours included SP presenting as highly fearful when told by the school that they had called the father to come pick her up, and statements including that she had been “slapped on the butt” the previous day without identifying who had hit her.

39The child protection investigation of the November 9, 2022 school referral was conducted by Celine Ouellette, a child protection worker with the Respondent.

40It was Ms. Ouellette’s evidence that, upon being assigned the file, she reviewed the file history and created an investigation plan. Ms. Ouellette contacted the father on November 10, 2022 and arranged to conduct a home visit on November 17, 2022. She was unavailable earlier in the week and the father had parent/teacher interviews on November 16^th^, 2022. As her meeting with the Child was outside the mandated seven days, Ms. Ouellette requested and received an Approved Departure from her supervisor.

41It was Ms. Ouellette’s evidence that she kept the Applicant apprised of the steps being taken in the investigation. This included a call by Ms. Ouellette to the Applicant on November 11, 2022 to inform her of the interview of SP that would take place at the father’s residence and that she would also meet with the Child at the Applicant’s residence.

42Ms. Ouellete’s evidence was that she heard the Applicant’s concerns about potential repercussions to SP or that the Child may be pressured to recant when she transitioned to the father prior to the home visit by Ms. Ouellette. Ms. Ouellette testified as to the efforts she took to address this concern with the father and that she kept the Applicant apprised of these efforts.

43Ms. Ouellette did not recall the Applicant questioning the location of her interviews with the Children or the timing of them until April 17, 2024 when the Applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Respondent to inquire about the Respondent’s reasons for conducting interviews of the Children in their homes rather than at the school, and inquiring about the Respondent’s procedure for interviewing children in an investigation. In its response to the Applicant’s counsel, the Respondent advised that how, where and when interviews are conducted varies from case to case and governed by what is easiest for the child so they feel comfortable talking about their worries while ensuring a level of fairness for the parents. In this case, the Respondent noted that school remained a “safe area” for the Children and the Respondent had honoured that by keeping home separate from school.

44In a letter to the Applicant dated February 13, 2023, written at the conclusion of the investigation, Ms. Ouellete stated that she chose not to see the Children at school, given the significant behaviours they were having at school.

45During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that she was provided with the reason the Children were not being seen sooner than they were.

46I find the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for it not interviewing the Children earlier than it did.

Issue 8: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for it not taking action in December 2022 after the Children’s family doctor recommended they be removed from the father’s care and required protection?

47The Applicant testified that the Children’s behaviours had escalated dramatically at home and at school. She provided this information to the Children’s family doctor including recordings she had made of the Children. It was the Applicant’s evidence that the family doctor reviewed the information she provided and felt the Children needed to be protected from physical and emotional harm. The doctor prepared a report dated December 12, 2022. The Applicant testified that she felt not heard by the Respondent with respect to the family doctor’s concerns.

48Ms. Ouellete’s involvement with the Applicant’s family started on November 10, 2022 when she was assigned to conduct a child protection investigation further to the school referral referenced in Issue 7, and she remained involved until the file was transferred to ongoing services on February 23, 2023.

49At the time of the December 12, 2022 report by the Children’s family doctor, the investigation file was open and active. The evidence of Ms. Ouellette was that the Applicant advised her on December 9, 2022 that the family doctor had recommended the Children be withheld from returning to the father, and that she did not intend to transition the Children to their father on December 15, 2022 as required by the existing court order for parenting time.

50Ms. Ouellette spoke with the family doctor who had written the December 12, 2022 report. He confirmed to Ms. Ouellette that had had last seen the Children in August or September 2022 and, since then, had received information from the Applicant including school reports, emails, and recordings indicating the Children’s behaviours were escalating. The family doctor advised Ms. Ouellette he was recommending the Children have one stable and consistent daily environment until appropriate treatment and assessments of their conditions were completed with the hope that the Children’s behaviours would stabilize.

51The Applicant followed through with withholding the Children from the father and brought the matter back before the court by way of an emergency motion that was heard on December 21, 2022.

52It was Ms. Ouellette’s evidence that the Respondent filed an Affidavit for the motion indicating it was not taking a position on the motion and the reasons for this decision. These reasons included the fact that the family doctor’s recommendation was made without him having recent contact with the Children or with the father. Also, it was the Respondent’s view that a direct link could not be made between the alleged harm by the father and the Children’s behaviour particularly having regard to multiple complicating factors that could have each caused or contributed to the behaviours. The Respondent attended the motion and made oral submissions. The Applicant’s motion was dismissed.

53I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant and that it provided the Applicant with its reasons for not acting on the recommendations of the Children’s family doctor including in a sworn affidavit filed for the Applicant’s urgent motion.

Issue 9: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for worker Celine Ouelette being changed to worker Tracy Laichalk?

54The Applicant testified that in February 2023, her family’s file was transferred from Celine Ouellette to Tracy Laichalk. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she was upset by this as she felt the Children needed consistency and they had just built up a good rapport. She asked Ms. Ouellette the reason the file was being transferred.

55It was the Applicant’s evidence that Ms. Ouellette advised her that the reason for the transfer was that it had been requested by the father who felt the 7 Dimension Map prepared by Ms. Ouellette seemed biased in the Applicant’s favour, and that the father was concerned Ms. Ouellette was biased and only focused on concerns regarding him. The 7 Dimension Map is a document that identified everyone’s concerns, presenting strengths, any complicating factors, and ‘next steps’. According to the Applicant’s testimony, Ms. Ouellette told her having a different worker would provide a new perspective on the case.

56The Applicant testified that she was concerned the new worker would be biased against her to ‘compensate’ for the bias she says was alleged by the father in relation to Ms. Ouellette.

57Steven Nicholls is employed by the Respondent as a supervisor. He supervises the Community-Based Protection Team. It was Mr. Nicholls’ evidence that he was involved in this matter during the November 2022 investigation and when the case was assigned to Tracy Laichalk. Mr. Nicholls’ evidence was that at the conclusion of the investigation, when the file was opened to ongoing service, a new worker was assigned to the family based on geographic location. Mr. Nicholl’s evidence was that he was unaware of the Applicant questioning the change of worker or telling the Respondent that she did not understand the reason for it.

58The documentary evidence included the Respondent’s record of the transfer meeting that took place on February 22, 2023. The meeting was attended by Ms.Ouellette, Ms. Laichalk and the Applicant. There is no indication in that recording that the Applicant expressed concerns about the change of workers or asked the reason for it.

59During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that she was told the change of worker would provide a fresh perspective on the issues. The Applicant also acknowledged that she was advised that geography played a role in the worker that was assigned, however, it was her understanding that this was because she had stayed in a different region for eleven days in December for the purposes of implementing a safety plan.

60Mr. Nicholls’ evidence was that, when the matter moved from investigation to ongoing service, a new worker was assigned based on geographic location. The father resided in Petawawa while the Applicant was temporarily living in White Lake. The matter was transferred to Ms. Laichalk, the community-based child protection worker covering the Petawawa area. Mr. Nicholls’ evidence was that transferring to a different worker when a file moves from the investigation phase to ongoing service allows for a fresh perspective.

61I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the change of workers when the file was opened to ongoing service including geographic location and the opportunity for a fresh perspective when the case moved on to ongoing service from the investigation phase.

Issue 10: Did the Respondent, specifically Tracy Laichalk, hear the Applicant in June 2024 and provide her with reasons for her child protection file being closed, despite ongoing concerns about the Children’s behaviours?

62The uncontroverted evidence before me was that the child protection file was closed at the Applicant’s request.

63I have reviewed the Applicant’s CPIN record. During a documented telephone conversation between the Applicant and Ms. Laichalk on June 27, 2024, the Applicant informed Ms. Laichalk that she did not want her to continue meeting with the children nor did she want to continue working with the Respondent. It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that the Applicant informed her that she did not want to have further contact with her unless it was through her lawyer. Ms. Laichalk advised the Applicant that, if she no longer wished to meet with her, they should discuss moving to close the file. As the Applicant expressed concern about the lack of monitoring of the children over the summer, Ms. Laichalk offered to continue meeting with the children in the summer months. It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that the Applicant declined this offer and reiterated that she did not want to continue working with the Respondent.

64During a documented conversation between the Applicant and Ms. Laichalk on July 10, 2024, the Applicant asked again that her file be closed as she did not believe the Respondent’s involvement was helpful.

65The evidence of Ms. Laichalk is that she followed up with the Children’s school regarding their observations of the Children, spoke with the father, and met with the Children. Ms. Laichalk reviewed the file with her supervisor and, together, they were satisfied that any protection concerns were sufficiently mitigated through the services the Children and parents were receiving and their formal and informal support networks.

66It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that for the Respondent to work successfully with families voluntarily, it is necessary that the families meet with their workers monthly and want to be engaged. Communication through counsel and refusal to meet in person are not conducive to clinical support. In such situations, if the concerns do not warrant court involvement, the file will proceed to closure.

67The Respondent sent a closing letter dated July 31, 2024 to the Applicant in which it summarized its involvement, listed the current services in place for the family, made suggestions for the family moving forward, and confirmed the file was closed. The Applicant acknowledged receipt of this letter during her evidence.

68The Applicant testified about her frustration with the Respondent in that, in her view, it had not addressed her concerns about the Children and particularly about the father’s care of the Children. Her evidence was that she believed a continuation of the services that were being provided by the Respondent was not going to accomplish anything. She acknowledged in both her evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination that she had asked the Respondent to close her file and that this is the reason it was closed.

69I find that the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in June 2024 when she asked it to stop meeting with her and with the Children and to close its file. I also find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for closing the file, those reasons being that she had requested it, and she was no longer prepared to speak with the workers or have the workers speak with the Children.

Issue 11: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons for it not conducting an investigation after the Applicant informed child protection worker Tracy Laichalk about a meeting with SP’s therapist on August 26, 2024 in which the therapist found a “significant change” in SP’s behaviours?

70Ms. Laichalk testified that she had no recollection of the Applicant informing her that SP’s therapist had noted a significant change in the Child’s behaviour on August 26, 2024 and had reviewed her casenotes to confirm this. I have also reviewed the Applicant’s CPIN records and there is no such referral. There was a referral on August 22, 2024 by the Applicant’s therapist.

71It was the evidence of Ms. Laichalk that the Applicant’s therapist contacted the Respondent on August 22, 2024 to share concerns that the Applicant had shared with her that day regarding an altercation between the father and his partner. Ms. Laichalk testified that the information appeared to be historic in nature. The description of the alleged incident was very similar to an incident that had been reported to the Respondent the previous year and been investigated at that time.

72Ms. Laichalk testified that she spoke with the Applicant, the referring therapist, the father and the father’s mother. Ms. Laichalk’s evidence was that she consulted with her supervisor and a decision was made that the intrusion of an interview of the Children was not warranted, and that the investigation would be discontinued. Ms. Laichalk informed the Applicant of this by way of voicemail on September 11, 2024. In her evidence, the Applicant acknowledged being advised by the Respondent on September 11, 2024 that it would be closing its file as the allegations reported by her therapist were historical in nature.

73The Applicant emailed Ms. Laichalk on September 12, 2024 requesting additional information about the investigation. She asserted that a therapist had raised concerns about that one of the Children’s behaviour suggested a child in distress. It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that she had no recollection of the Applicant advising her that SP’s therapist had noted a significant change in the Child’s behaviour on August 26, 2024, nor do the CPIN records indicate such a conversation occurred.

74Ms. Laichalk responded on September 16, 2024 with answers to the Applicant’s questions regarding her therapist’s referral including the source of the referral and the information provided, the steps taken during the investigation process, and the reason the decision was made not to interview the children and to discontinue the investigation. As far as the Applicant’s reference to a therapist being concerned that one of the Children was displaying behaviour of a child in distress, Ms. Laichalk asked the Applicant to provide information about this allegation as it was not one she had heard before. Ms. Laichalk did not receive a response from the Applicant.

75In her evidence, the Applicant relied on a note in her CPIN record from August 27. 2024 of a conversation between the Applicant and Ms. Laichalk. Ms. Laichalk advised the Applicant that she was calling to discuss a referral from one of the Applicant’s supports. During the course of that conversation about the referral by the Applicant’s therapist, Ms. Laichalk asked the Applicant if the family was still involved with Katherine at the Phoenix Centre. According to the CPIN record, the Applicant advised Ms. Laichalk that they had a new therapist they had just started seeing yesterday. The Applicant described SP’s behaviour at that session, and provided additional updates on the Children. There was no independent report to the Respondent by the Phoenix Centre or any other therapist.

76I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant in relation to the referral it received in August 2024 from the Applicant’s therapist and that it provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to discontinue the investigation.

77I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant in August 2024 when she suggested one of the Children’s therapists had found significant changes in SP’s behaviour as demonstrated by its effort to follow up with the Applicant. The Applicant did not respond and there was no report by SP’s therapist. I find the Applicant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for not taking further action on an issue she had not clearly articulated to the Respondent and about which she did not respond when asked for clarification.

Issue 12: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant from February 2023 to present when she expressed concerns that the Children’s medication is not provided on a regular basis in the father’s home or provide her with reasons for it not providing her with the steps taken to ensure that the medication will be administered regularly?

78There is no dispute that the Applicant raised concerns with the Respondent about the father’s inconsistent administration of prescribed medication to the Children. The Children have medical conditions that require the consistent daily administration of medications.

79The evidence of Ms. Laichalk is that she responded to the Applicant’s concerns by, among other things:

a. having numerous conversations with the father regarding the importance of administering the medication as prescribed; providing options to assist the father in ensuring the Children had their medication as prescribed; and recommending that he speak with the Applicant to discuss the administration of medication;

b. speaking with the Children about the administration of medication in their respective homes;

c. participating in discussions about medication administration at a meeting with services providers, the Applicant and the father on May 7, 2024. The Children’s doctor who had prescribed the medication was present at this meeting. The importance of consistent medication administration was discussed and resulted in the Children’s new medication being administered at school. Ms. Laichalk noted at the meeting that she had discussed medication administration with the father;

80In her evidence, the Applicant acknowledged that the issue of administration of the Children’s medication was discussed at the May 7, 2024 meeting of the Children’s service providers. She also acknowledged that Ms. Laichalk and the Children’s doctor discussed with the father the importance of proper administration of medication at the meeting.

81During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that her concerns about medication administration were heard as demonstrated by the steps taken to address the concerns. She testified that her issue was that, in her view, medication administration continued to be an issue.

82I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the administration of the Children’s medication by the father as demonstrated by the steps taken by the Respondent to address the issue. The Applicant did not identify any decision made by the Respondent for which reasons may have been required.

Issue 13: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she expressed concerns that her safe location was provided in a disclosure to the father’s lawyer and advise her of the steps it had taken to ensure this did not happen with the Applicant in the future?

83The Applicant testified that she provided the Respondent with an address for herself that she did not want disclosed to the Respondent.

84It was the Respondent’s evidence that the Applicant and the father had previously signed Authorizations for their respective records to be released to their counsel. The Respondent’s disclosure department was not aware that the file contained an address the Applicant did not want disclosed. The disclosure was sent directly to counsel for the Applicant and the father. Shortly thereafter, the Applicant notified the Respondent that the address she wanted kept confidential had been disclosed. The evidence of the Respondent is that it immediately contacted the father’s counsel and confirmed the disclosure had not been accessed. The link with the disclosure was redacted and the disclosure was subsequently resent to counsel.

85The Applicant acknowledged during cross-examination that her concerns about the disclosure of her personal information was quickly addressed by the Respondent. Her complaint was that the Respondent did not tell her what steps it had taken to ensure it did not occur with her in the future.

86Part X of the Act establishes the rules that service providers, including child protection agencies, must follow in relation to the collection, use, disclosure and managing of personal information. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) oversees Ontario’s privacy laws, including Part X of the Act. Concerns that personal information has been improperly shared are addressed by way of a complaint to the Commissioner.

87Whether the Applicant’s personal information was inappropriately shared by the Respondent with a third party is not an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB

88For the reasons set out above, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address this issue as it concerns matters that are within the sole jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Issue 14: Did the Respondent, and specifically child protection worker Tracy Laichalk, provide the Applicant with reasons in November 2023 about if and how the safety plan was adjusted when the Children’s grandparents moved two hours away after an incident of domestic violence in the father’s home involving his current partner?

89The Applicant testified that there was an alleged incident of domestic violence between the father and his partner in the father’s home on November 9, 2024. The Children were not in the home at the time. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she had advised the Respondent in May 2024 that the father’s parents, who had been living in the father’s community, were moving North. The Applicant asked for particulars of the new safety plan given the November 9, 2024 alleged assault.

90The Applicant testified that her requests for information regarding an updated safety plan for the father as a result of his parent’s move to a destination outside the Respondent’s jurisdiction are documented in her CPIN record. I have reviewed the CPIN record and there is no reference to her making such requests.

91It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that she spoke with the Applicant on November 10, 2014, and that the Applicant knew about the incident at the father’s home. Ms. Laichalk testified that she advised the Applicant that she had met with the father and his partner about the incident and that no charges had been laid. Her evidence is that she told the Applicant that there was no information to suggest any child would be unsafe in the father’s care due to the November 9, 2024 incident. It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that she advised the Applicant she could not provide her with any further information about the father and his household due to confidentiality constraints.

92Ms. Laichalk testified about her conversations with the father’s mother and her assessment that the father’s parents could remain significantly involved in safety planning despite the move. As a result, the safety plan was not changed. It was Ms. Laichalk’s evidence that she does not recall the Applicant questioning her as to why the safety plan had not been changed as a result of the grandparents’ move and would have provided her with reasons had she done so.

93During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that Ms. Laichalk had explained to her that she could only provide her with the limited information she had shared with her due to restrictions related to confidentiality, and that she understood the Respondent was operating under confidentiality constraints.

94It was the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant did not ask about any changes to the safety plan following the November 2024 incident until the Pre-Hearing conducted by the CFSRB on November 8, 2024. I have reviewed the Application and confirmed that it did not raise an issue with respect to the impact on the safety plan of the father’s parents’ move. After the issue was raised at the Pre-Hearing, the Respondent followed up by way of a letter to the Applicant dated December 3, 2024 confirming the safety plan had not been changed and providing reasons for this. The December 3, 2024 letter was filed by the Respondent for the hearing.

95This was not an issue raised by the Applicant in her Application and it is therefore not properly before the CFSRB. Despite this, evidence was led on the issue by both parties and I have determined it appropriate for me to exercise my discretion to rule on the issue.

96I find that the Applicant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that she asked the Respondent if there had been a change to the safety plan for the father as a result of his parents’ relocation or for reasons. In any event, the Respondent provided confirmation the safety plan had not been changed and the reasons in correspondence to the Applicant on December 3, 2024.

Issue 15: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for not informing her that the father was prescribed a high dosage of medical marijuana when he has a verified history of substance abuse and the Applicant has safety concerns for the Children?

97During her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant stated that she was satisfied with the Respondent’s response and withdrew this allegation.

Issue 16: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she asked on numerous occasions to meet with Supervisor Steven Nicholls so she could discuss her file as a whole?

98The Applicant testified that she contacted the Respondent on October 23, 2023 requesting a contact email for Steven Nicholls. The executive assistant to the executive director responded to the Applicant on October 23, 2023 by way of email advising that she had forwarded the Applicant’s email to Mr. Nicholls. This email chain was filed as evidence for the hearing.

99Mr. Nicholls testified that he had no recollection of the Applicant contacting him to request a meeting. His evidence is that the Applicant’s counsel contacted him directly on one occasion by way of email on April 17, 2024. As the communication was from counsel, one of the Respondent’s counsel responded. The Applicant’s counsel did not indicate that the Applicant wished a meeting with Mr. Nicholls.

100There is no evidence the Applicant reached out directly to Mr. Nicholls to request a meeting. She had Mr. Nicholls’ email address or could have obtained it through her lawyer.

101During cross-examination of the Applicant, she acknowledged that she did not either email Mr. Nicholls directly or attempt to reach him by phone or leave him a voicemail message. The Applicant also acknowledged instructing her lawyer to write to Mr. Nicholls on her behalf. Further, the Applicant admitted that she had relied on her counsel to communicate with the Respondent in the past as her agent. Finally, the Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent had responded to her communications through her lawyer.

102There is no allegation in the Application that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant in relation to requests to meet with Mr. Nicholl. When the Applicant did raise this as an issue during the course of this proceeding, the Respondent offered to have her meet with its Director of Service to discuss her file as a whole. The Applicant declined this offer.

103I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she asked to meet with Mr. Nicholls on numerous occasions to discuss her file as she alleges. As such, there is no issue to be determined by the CFSRB.

Issue 17: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant when she emailed the Respondent’s Executive Director Jennifer White in September 2024 to discuss her file as a whole and received a response indicating the information she was seeking would be in her disclosure?

104The documentary evidence before me is that on September 12, 2024, the Applicant emailed Jennifer White, the Respondent’s executive director. This is the same day that the Applicant filed her Application with the CFSRB.

105In her September 12, 2024 email, the Applicant requested the intake and investigation number for each intake and investigation for her family and indicated that she was requesting the steps taken and reasons for decisions with each intake and investigation, along with a statement of accountability for the decisions. Nowhere in that email does the Applicant request a meeting with Ms. White.

106On September 16, 2024, the Applicant advised Ms. Laichalk that she would like a meeting with the Respondent’s executive director to discuss her file and asked Ms. Laichalk to forward the executive director’s contact information to her, despite the fact that the Applicant had directly emailed the executive director four days earlier suggesting she already had the contact information.

107On September 17, 2024, Ms. White responded to the Applicant by way of letter and advised her that she was aware of the Applicant’s disclosure request and that she should have her CPIN records the following week. She provided the Applicant with the contact number for the Respondent’s legal team and invited the Applicant to contact the Respondent’s legal team should she have any questions or concerns after receiving her disclosure.

108When asked if she had followed up to advise Ms. White that she wished to meet with her, the Applicant testified that she did not as she had already started this CFSRB proceeding.

109In her Application to the CFSRB, signed the day of her first email to Ms. White, the Applicant did not allege she was not heard by the Respondent in relation to requesting a meeting with Ms. White. There is no evidence that she had requested a meeting at that juncture.

110When the Applicant raised this issue at the November 8, 2024 Pre-Hearing, the Respondent followed up by writing to the Applicant on December 3, 2024 and offering to arrange a meeting for her with its Director of Service and, if that meeting did not satisfy the Applicant, a meeting with Ms. White. The Applicant chose not to proceed with the meeting. The December 3, 2024 letter is evidence in this proceeding.

111The Applicant testified that she decided not to meet with the Director of Service as offered by the Respondent on December 3, 2024 as she had already started this proceeding and did not want her attending a meeting to impact her CFSRB case, with her lack of trust in the Respondent being an additional reason for declining the offer of a meeting.

112I find that this issue could not have arisen as of the date of the Application and is not an issue raised in the Application. I find that this is not an issue properly before the me and that no determination by the CFSRB is required.

CONCLUSION

113Issues 5, 6 and 15 were withdrawn by the Applicant.

114The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address Issue 13.

115There is no determination to be made by the CFSRB with respect to Issue 16.

116Issue 17 was not properly before the CFSRB such that no determination was required.

117With respect to Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14, the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions.

118With respect to Issue 12, the Applicant did not identify any decision made by the Respondent for which reasons may have been required.

119With respect to Issues 8, 10, 11, and 12, the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in relation to the allegations related to these Issues.

ORDER

120The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

121Pursuant 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.