SL v. The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2025 CFSRB 24

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SL Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: February 28, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 24 Indexed As: SL v The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Leisander, Representative for SL, Applicant

Rylee Melchiorre, Representative for The Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, Respondent

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 subsections 120(4)1, 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant is the mother of one child, GLK (“the Child”). The Respondent conducted two child protection investigations, the first between December 8, 2023 and January 10, 2024, and the second between June 20, 2024 and July 15, 2024.

ISSUES

4The following are the issues for hearing as noted in the CFSRB Pre-Hearing Report dated October 1, 2024:

1. Did the Respondent fail to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint through the Internal Complaints Review Panel process?

2. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard when she expressed concerns for the safety of the Child while in the care of his father (“JK”) and JK’s family?

3. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for it deciding not to verify child protection concerns related to the safety of GLK while in the care of JK and JK’s family?

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

5In its submissions for hearing, the Respondent took the position that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as the issues to be addressed are before the Ontario Court of Justice (“OCJ”) in the context of a Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (“CLRA”) proceeding.

6The time for the Respondent to have raised this issue was at one of the two pre-hearings held by the CFSRB and, in any event, prior to the preparation of hearing material. Issues of jurisdiction should be raised at the outset of a proceeding, not at a hearing. Notwithstanding my concerns about the timing of this objection to jurisdiction, I have considered it as the CFSRB cannot proceed with a matter unless authorized to do so by the Act.

7In support of its jurisdictional objection, the Respondent filed the following documents filed in the CLRA proceeding: a Notice of Motion by the Applicant requesting an order for questioning of Susie Marrelli, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent, with an Affidavit in Support of Motion by the Applicant; an Affidavit by Ms. Marrelli; a Notice of Motion by the Applicant requesting, among other things, disclosure of the Respondent’s record with an Affidavit in Support of Motion by the Applicant. The Respondent also filed two Endorsements by Isbester J, in relation to the aforementioned motions.

8The Respondent submits that the issues raised in the Application and the Applicant’s evidence for the hearing are substantially the same as the issues being addressed and the evidence being relied upon in the CLRA proceeding, specifically, that the Child’s best interests are not being addressed by the Respondent. According to the May 15, 2024 Endorsement of Isbester J., the position taken by the Respondent in the motion for questioning of a child protection worker was that sections 119 and 120 of the Act provide an avenue for the Applicant to take when she is dissatisfied with an investigation and its results. This all suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the mandate and jurisdiction of the CFSRB. The CFSRB does not make determinations as to the quality of child protection investigations or the correctness of its results.

9Section 120(8)(a) of the Act states:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under ts section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) Is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

10In the Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society.

11In its reasoning, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that issues of substantive child protection, custody and the granting of access are not decided by the CFSRB and fall within the Court’s mandate. Conversely, the Court will rarely examine whether a children’s aid society took into account the views and wishes of a parent or provided them with reasons for decisions that relate to the services provided by the children’s aid society that might be linked to the steps taken by it with respect to an issue that is ultimately before the Court.

12There is no child protection proceeding in relation to the Child. The proceeding before the OCJ is a private CLRA proceeding to which the Respondent is not a party. It is for the OCJ to determine the parenting issues based on what is in the Child’s best interests. The role of the CFSRB in this case is to determine whether the Respondent met its statutory obligations in relation to the issues set out in Paragraph 4 of this Decision.

13The material filed by the Applicant in support of the motions in the CLRA proceeding included some of the same allegations she makes in her Application to the CFSRB. The OCJ considered this information in the context of a determination of the need for the information to assess what parenting plan will be in the Child’s best interests. The OCJ is not concerned with whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or whether it provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions. Those are issues to be determined by the CFSRB.

14For the reasons stated above, I find that the issues before the CFSRB are separate and different from the issues before the OCJ. The issues for hearing are within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

RESULT

15With respect to the substantive issues, I have considered the documentary evidence before me and make the following findings:

a. Issue 1: I find that the Respondent:

i. Did not provide the Applicant with a determination of eligibility for an ICRP within 7 days in breach of O.Reg 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (“the Regulation”).

ii. Did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not proceeding with the ICRP request in breach of the Regulation.

b. Issue 2: I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard in relation to her concerns about the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and JK’s family.

c. Issue 3: I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision not to verify child protection concerns related to the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and JK’s family.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Did the Respondent fail to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint through the Internal Complaints Review Panel process;

16The Applicant maintains that the Respondent did not provide her with any written, verbal or electronic information in relation to its complaint procedure during or at the conclusion of its first file opening in January 2024. The Applicant acknowledges that the Respondent provided her with a CAS Service-Related Complaints Resolution Process pamphlet (the “pamphlet”) at the time it closed her file in July 2024.

17The Applicant filed a Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) on August 7, 2024 in relation to the Respondent’s services. She submits that her request was denied without explanation.

18Section 119 (1) and (2) of the Act provide as follows:

(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 120(2).

19The Regulation outlines the required times for a children’s aid society to proceed with an internal complaint. It requires that the society shall determine eligibility within 7 days of receiving a complaint, and a meeting of the ICRP shall be held within 14 days after the date after the written notice to the complainant that the complaint is eligible for review, or at a later time as may be requested by the complainant. If a complaint is not eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant of its decision within 7 days and the reasons for it in writing.

20On August 14, 2024, the Respondent informed the Applicant, by way of letter, that, “…the agency will not be moving forward with your request for an Internal Complaint Review Panel at this time”. The Respondent stated that upon reviewing the file information and following the Respondent’s formal complaint process, the next step would be to connect the Applicant with the investigating worker and reporting manager to further discuss her concerns in greater detail.

21The position taken by the Respondent on eligibility is not clear from its August 14, 2024 letter. What was communicated is that it had decided it “will not be moving forward” with the ICRP request ‘at this time’. I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with notice of its eligibility determination within 7 days as required by Reg 156/18. If the intent of the August 14, 2024 letter was to inform the Applicant her complaint was not eligible for an ICRP, I find that Respondent did not provide the Applicant with sufficient reasons for her to understand the reason the Respondent was not proceeding with her ICRP request.

22The complaint procedure pamphlet states that, if the complaint is eligible for review, the Respondent will contact the complainant to offer an explanation or a meeting with the people involved and, among other things, make it possible for the complainant to discuss the problem with those concerned, if you would like this (emphasis added). Rather than a meeting being a matter of choice for the Applicant, the Respondent effectively directed that meeting with the reporting manager was a necessary next step in the process.

23Ms. Lettieri scheduled a meeting with the Applicant for August 22, 2024 to discuss the issues in her complaint. At the Applicant’s request, the meeting was rescheduled to August 27, 2024. The August 27, 2024 meeting was attended by the Applicant, her father, Ms. Lettieri and Tannis Boire, Manager of the Administration of Privacy. It is Ms. Lettieri’s evidence that she advised the Applicant that the Respondent was not refusing to proceed with her ICRP complaint, however, it first wanted to exhaust all complaint processes in an effort to respond to their service complaints and provide any additional information and clarification that could potentially resolve their concerns. At the conclusion of the meeting the Applicant, through her father, expressed her intention to move forward with her complaint although she did not specify in what forum.

24Ms. Lettieri offered the Applicant the opportunity to speak with and/or meet with a Director to further review her concerns. The Applicant declined.

25The Applicant filed this Application with the CFSRB on August 19, 2024. This was after the letter from the Respondent informing the Applicant it would not be moving forward with her request for an IPRC but before her meeting with Ms. Lettieri.

26The status of the Applicant’s ICRP request is not clear.

27The effect of Subsection 120(1) and (2) of the Act is that where a person first makes a complaint to a society and that person submits the complaint to the CFSRB before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed, the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.

28The Respondent’s pamphlet provides that if the subject matter of the complaint or issues raised in the complaint also form the basis of a complaint to the CFSRB, the ICRP shall be discontinued.

29Based on the evidence before me, the Respondent has not advised the Applicant that it terminated or stayed the ICRP request, or that it considers there to be a complaint to review given its August 14, 2024 letter to the Applicant.

30Sections 119(10) and 120(7) of the Act together set out the orders that the CFSRB may make upon a review of allegations under section 120(4) that a society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant and failed to comply with the complaint review procedure relating to the review of complaints. This includes ordering the Respondent to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.

31I have not seen anything to suggest the Applicant is requesting an order requiring the Respondent to proceed with and ICRP. In her Reply submissions, the Applicant questions what an ICRP would accomplish but to retraumatize and revictimize her. Given the Applicant’s position, there is no remedy the CFSRB can order in relation to the Respondent’s breach of the Regulation.

Issue 2: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard when she expressed concerns for the safety of the Child while in the care of his father (“JK”) and JK’s family?

32Susie Marrelli is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent and holds the position of Intake Investigation Worker. She conducted the first investigation between December 8, 2023 and January 10, 2024 (“the first investigation”). The referral was made by police and was not in relation to the Applicant. The evidence of Ms. Marrelli is that there were no concerns regarding the Applicant’s care of the Child.

33The principle basis for the Applicant’s allegations that she was not provided with an opportunity to be heard during the first investigation are her allegations that Ms. Marrelli did not respond to her in a timely manner; completed her investigation in just one week; pressured her to agree to office visits rather than home visits; never asked about serious family violence that the Applicant had reported; did not want to see the videos, sound recordings, pictures or texts in the Applicant’s possession; did not ask for consent for police records;, and generally that she minimized the Applicant’s experiences and did not take her concerns seriously.

34The evidence of Ms. Marrelli is that she contacted the Applicant by phone on the day of the referral, December 8, 2023. Ms. Marrelli met with the Applicant at the Respondent’s office on December 13, 2023 and she also conducted a home visit on that date. The Society’s records confirm that Ms. Marrelli’s December 13, 2023 home visit was 1.5 hours in length. Ms. Marrelli conducted another home visit with the Applicant on January 2, 2024. These facts are not disputed by the Applicant except the Applicant maintains the January 2, 2024 meeting was an office meeting. The Respondent’s records indicate the January 2, 2024 meeting was a home visit. Ms. Marrelli’s evidence is that she did not request releases for police records as she already had the Ontario Provincial Police reports.

35It is Ms. Marrelli’s evidence that the Applicant did not provide her with any of the evidence attached to the Applicant’s submissions but could have done so. The Applicant maintains that she had numerous videos, recordings, pictures, texts etc that Ms. Marrelli did not want to see. There is no evidence that the Applicant was denied the ability to provide whatever information she wished to Ms. Marrelli. In any event, the evidence is that the Applicant subsequently provided the aforementioned material to the Respondent through Ms. Morison.

36Ms. Marrelli is an identified Violence Against Women lead for the Respondent and experienced in providing service to victims of intimate partner violence. It is her evidence that she conducted safety planning with the Applicant in relation to the intimate partner violence issues to ensure the safety of the Applicant and the Child. Ms. Marrelli also referred the Applicant to a service for victims of intimate partner violence.

37The Applicant’s allegation that the investigation was completed within one week of the referral is not supported by the evidence. The child protection investigation began on December 8, 2023 and it ended on January 10, 2024 at which time the file was closed.

38Given the history of intimate partner violence, Ms. Marrelli offered to move the file to ongoing service which offer was declined by the Applicant. This is acknowledged by the Applicant.

39In an affidavit filed in the CLRA proceeding in support of her motion for an order for questioning of Ms. Marrelli, the Applicant acknowledges opportunities to be heard by Ms. Marrelli. In this regard, the Applicant acknowledges speaking to Ms. Marrelli about her concerns regarding JK’s parents and their home, and that she informed Ms. Marrelli of many incidents at the home, among other things.

40Tina Morrison, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent in the position of Intake Investigating Worker, conducted the second investigation between June 20, 2024 and July 15, 2024 (“the second investigation”). The referent for this investigation was the Applicant’s father whose primary concerns were that JK was not permitting the Child to breastfeed and JKs rough handling of the Child during access resulting in bruising that resembled finger marks.

41The primary basis for the Applicant’s position that she was not provided an opportunity to be heard is that Ms. Morrison did not listen to the recordings the Applicant provided to her.

42The evidence of Ms. Morrison is that she contacted the Applicant on June 20, 2024, the day of the referral and that she arranged to see the Applicant and the Child that same day. It is Ms. Morrison’s uncontroverted evidence that the Applicant spoke with her about her concerns around JK’s visits with the Child. Ms. Morrison also met with the Applicant twice on July 4, 2024, once at the Respondent’s office, and a second time at the Applicant’s home. Ms. Morrison took photographs of the bruise on the Child’s leg and spoke with the nurse practitioner involved with the family.

43Ms. Morrison received a USB stick and a printout of papers from the Applicant’s father on July 2, 2024. The papers were a summary prepared by the Applicant’s father of concerns he had recorded during GLK’s visits with JK over a period of several months. It is Ms. Morrison’s evidence that she read the printed-out information and that she advised the Applicant’s father she could not listen to the recordings on the USB stick until it was cleared by the Respondent’s IT department. The USB stick contained approximately 40 hours of audio recordings. Ms. Morrison’s evidence is that she listened to some of the recordings.

44I find that the Applicant was provided with opportunities to be heard and that she was heard by the Respondent, including by Ms. Marrelli in relation to the first investigation and by Ms. Morrison in relation to the second investigation. In both instances, the evidence is of multiple meetings by both Ms. Marrelli and Ms. Morrison with the Applicant, in addition to other contacts, during which the Applicant was able to impart and did impart information to the Respondent workers, including her concerns about the Child being at risk in the care of JK and his parents. The investigation also included communication with relevant third parties, a referral to supportive services for the Applicant, safety planning, and a review of pertinent documents, even if not the totality of the recordings provided by the Applicant.

Issue 3: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for it deciding not to verify child protection concerns related to the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and JK’s family?

45Regarding the first investigation, the Applicant submits that she was provided with “absolutely no reasons” for the verification decision.

46I have reviewed the sworn evidence of Ms. Marrelli and the record of her January 2, 2024 meeting with the Applicant. There is no evidence that she discussed her verification decision with the Applicant or reasons for the decision at the time of the verification or when the file was closed.

47On January 10, 2024, Ms. Marrelli provided the Applicant with a closing letter advising her that the child protection concerns had not been verified. The closing letter included Ms. Marrelli’s contact information and an invitation to contact her if the Applicant had questions regarding file closure. It is Ms. Marrelli’s evidence that she was not contacted by the Applicant after the January 10, 2024 letter and was not aware that she had questions about the verification or wanted reasons for the verification decisions.

48In April 2024, in the context of the CLRA proceeding, the Applicant brought a motion for an order that she be permitted to question Ms. Marrelli. Ms. Marrelli filed an Affidavit in that proceeding dated April 30, 2024. In her Affidavit, Ms. Marrelli provided numerous reasons for the file being closed in January 2024.

49In an Affidavit sworn by Ms. Marrelli for this hearing, she states that the concerns about risk of physical harm related to partner violence were not verified as the Applicant and JK had separated and were residing with their respective parents. Also, at the time JK was not exercising access to the Child and the Applicant was seeking that any access occur through the Supervised Access Program. An additional factor were the no-contact prohibitions in the criminal conditions on JK. Regarding the concerns of ‘Limited Caregiving Skills – Risk that the Child is Likely to be Harmed’ It is Ms. Marrelli’s evidence that these concerns were not verified as there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations.

50On May 15, 2024, an order was made in the context of the CLRA proceeding requiring the Respondent to disclose its records in relation to the December 8, 2023 referrals and the subsequent investigation. While this order was made in relation to the determination of parenting issues not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB, it resulted in information being made available to the Applicant as to the reasons for the verification decision. This information includes the record of the verification meeting which also forms part of the evidence submitted by the Respondent for this hearing.

51On August 27, 2025, Ms. Lettieri and Ms. Boire met with the Applicant and her father at which time Ms. Lettieri answered questions from the Applicant and discussed the reasons it arrived at its verification decisions in both investigations.

52The second child protection investigation by the Respondent was further to a referral on June 20, 2024 by the Applicant’s father who reported concerns that JK was not permitting the Child to breastfeed during this visits, and rough handling of GLK resulting in the Child screaming and sustaining a bruise that resembled a finger mark on his leg.

53The investigation was conducted by Ms. Morrison. It is Ms. Morrison’s evidence that she met with the Applicant twice on July 4, 2024 and that, during these meetings, she provided reasons why she could not assist them with issues related to custody and access, as well as reasons for not verifying the bruise on the Child’s leg as being a finger mark or that it was caused by JK during one of his visits.

54On July 15, 2024, Ms. Morrison provided the Applicant with a letter summarizing the allegations that were investigated. Ms. Morrison advised of the outcome of the completion of the Ontario Family Risk Assessment and that, based on the information collected as part of the investigation, the allegations were not verified. Ms. Morrison provided the Applicant with the pamphlet and invited her to contact her if she had any further questions regarding the investigation.

55I find that Ms. Morrison provided the Applicant with reasons for not verifying the reported child protection concerns and for the file being closed.

56Based on my review of all the evidence, I find that that Ms. Marrelli did not provide the Applicant with reasons for the decision to not verify the child protection concerns at the conclusion of the first investigation. Regarding the decision to close the file, the Applicant acknowledged that she declined Ms. Marrelli’s offer to open the file to ongoing service.

57As detailed above, after the file was closed in January 2024, the Applicant received the following:

a. A copy of the Respondent’s record in relation to the investigation that commenced on December 8, 2023;

b. A meeting on August 27, 2024 with Ms. Lettieri, the manager who had supervised both the December 2023 investigation and the June 2024 investigation to discuss the reasons for the decisions made by the Respondent and to answer questions from the Applicant.

58I find that, as of the date of this hearing, the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for not verifying protection concerns related to the safety of the Child when he is in the care of JK and JK’s family. As such, I find that no order is required by the CFSRB on this issue.

CONCLUSION

59For the reasons set out above, I find:

1. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to determine the issues in this Application;

2. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with a determination of eligibility for an ICRP within 7 days in breach of the Regulation;

3. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not proceeding with the ICRP request in breach of the Regulation;

4. The Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard in relation to her concerns about the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and JK’s family; and,

5. The Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision not to verify child protection concerns related to the safety of the Child while in the care of JK and Jk’s family.

ORDER

60The Respondent breached Sections 57 and 58 of O.Reg 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister for which no order is made.

61The Application is otherwise dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

62Pursuant 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.