JG v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 35

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JG Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: March 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 35 Indexed As: JG v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the "Act"). The Applicant is the father of a young child (the "Child").

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the "CFSRB") found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant’s complaints were identified in a Pre-Hearing Report dated January 13, 2025. A Case Management Direction on February 13, 2025, confirmed the hearing would be held in writing and directed the parties to file their written submissions by March 7, 2024.

4The Respondent provided its submissions on February 28, 2025, which included an Affidavit of the Respondent Worker, Kim Gilham, and a copy of its original Response dated December 16, 2024 ("Written Submissions"). The Written Submissions concede that the Respondent did not previously provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or with reasons for its decisions as alleged by the Applicant. It submits instead that the Written Submissions contain reasons for its decisions, and if not sufficient, it is willing to provide further reasons.

5The Applicant provided a Witness Statement as well as various supporting documents, including, email communications, CPIN reports, and court documents on March 3, 2025.

ISSUES

6The issue to be determined is whether the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard or with reasons for its decisions for the following:

a) why the Respondent discontinued the investigation it initiated in December 2023 following a protection referral regarding his Child and the Applicant’s brother;

b) why the Respondent determined it should have not opened the Applicant’s referral on November 9, 2023 as a new investigation;

c) why a decision was made not to interview the Child as part of the investigation after the Child’s mother had not consented to the Child being interviewed, but the Applicant had consented; and

d) why the disclosure of his file took nine months and was not provided with reasonable and timely updates on why he was not receiving it.

RESULT

7I find that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide reasons for its decision in issue b).

8I find that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide reasons for its decisions in issues a) and c) prior to the Application. However, in its Response to the Application and Written Submissions, the Respondent has now provided sufficient reasons in response to these issues. As such, the CFSRB has no further effective remedy to provide for these complaints under subsection 120(7) of the Act

9I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review complaint d) as the response of the Respondent to the Applicant’s request for disclosure is within the sole jurisdiction of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario under Part X of the Act.

ANALYSIS

10The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions made surrounding a child protection referral and investigation concerning the Child, as well as a request for documents.

11The Respondent concedes that it did not previously provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decisions as alleged by the Applicant. The Respondent submits that it has provided reasons within the Written Submissions provided and has further confirmed its willingness to provide further reasons if the CFSRB finds the reasons given are inadequate.

12Section 120(7) of the Act sets out the orders that the CFSRB can make upon a review. In this matter, the CFSRB is limited to ordering the Respondent to provide reasons for a decision under section 120(7)(d) if it finds that reasons provided in the Written Submissions are not sufficient.

13In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at paragraph 13, the CFSRB held that:

… what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

A) The Respondent has provided sufficient reasons for why it made the decision to discontinue the investigation it initiated.

14The Applicant submits that he made a child protection referral to the Respondent on November 9, 2023, expressing concerns about his son and potential exposure to an unsafe environment. An investigation was initiated on December 18, 2023, and conducted by Ms. Gilham. The Respondent made a decision to close the file on February 13, 2024. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard or provided with reasons for this decision.

15The Respondent has conceded that it did not provide reasons prior to the Application on why it discontinued the investigation it initiated. It submits that is has now provided reasons in the Written Submissions.

16The Affidavit of Ms. Gilham outlines the process and factors involved in conducting the investigation and in the ultimate decision as well as specific responses from some of those she interviewed. Paragraph 9 of her Affidavit summarizes: "During the time the investigation was open to me, I received [the Respondent’s] past involvement, with the Applicant and all the court records the Applicant had sent me. I also spoke with [the Child’s] mother, SF; [the Child’s] therapist, and the Applicant, and had multiple supervisory consultations. During the information gathering, it became clear that there was no information to suggest that the paternal uncle, RG, had ever acted out inappropriately…."

17I find that the reasons provided in the Written Submissions provide sufficient explanation regarding factors that were taken into account in making the decision. As such, the CFSRB has no further effective remedy available to it.

B) The Respondent has not been provided sufficient reasons for why it determined it should not have opened the Applicant’s referral as a new investigation.

18After the Applicant made a child protection referral on November 9, 2023, the Respondent opened a formal investigation, but prior to completing the full investigation, informed the Applicant that it should not have opened the referral as a new investigation. The Applicant complains that he was not heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent made this determination.

19The Respondent confirmed its position in the Written Submissions that it should not have opened the Applicant’s referral as a new investigation and concedes that it did not hear the Applicant’s concerns or provide reasons for this statement. As above, the Respondent submits that it has now provided sufficient reasons within the Written Submissions for this determination.

20According to the Respondent’s Affidavit evidence, it appears that the first Respondent intake worker who received the Applicant’s information on November 9, 2023, tentatively decided that the new information provided by the Applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for a formal investigation. The first intake worker proceeded to consult with their supervisor, a telephone intake worker, and a telephone intake supervisor. After these consultations, the initial determination was upheld. Specifically, the Respondent found that certain behaviour of the mother’s partner, if true, was concerning, however there was no information regarding the mother’s new partner to indicate that he had acted inappropriately with the Child. Ms. Gilham stated, "In other words, it falls below the intervention line for the respondent to take further steps."

21Ms. Gilham assumed carriage of the file on December 18, 2023, in her capacity as intake worker for the purpose of completing a child protection investigation. There is no indication or information provided on why the matter was referred to Ms. Gilham if it had already been determined that it was not eligible. In fact, Ms. Gilham’s evidence is that upon receiving the referral, she was unclear why there had been a change in the previous finding that the information did not meet eligibility criteria.

22There is a lack of clarity on what transpired between the time of the Applicant’s initial referral and the time that Ms. Gilham received the file to investigate. It may be, as the Respondent has submitted, that the file should never had been opened in the first place, and that it was a mistake. However, the Applicant has not been provided with clear reasons for the apparent discrepancy.

23I find that the Applicant has been provided some reasons, but those reasons are not sufficient to allow him to understand the factors were considered when deciding that his referral should not have been opened as an investigation in the first place.

C) The Respondent has provided sufficient reasons on why the decision was made to not interview the Applicant’s Child as part of the investigation.

24The Applicant alleges that he was not provided reasons why the Child was not interviewed as part of the investigation.

25The Respondent concedes that prior to the Application it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not interviewing the Child. However, it submits that reasons have now been provided within the Written Submissions.

26Ms. Gilham’s Affidavit evidence states that she spoke with the Child’s mother, and asked if she could interview the Child. The mother requested that the Child, given his young age, not be interviewed. The mother requested that Ms. Gilham instead first reach out and interview the Child’s therapist, which Ms. Gilham did. Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit provides great detail on the discussion and opinion of the Child’s therapist related to interviewing the Child. Based on this discussion, as well as interviews with the Child’s mother and the Applicant, Ms. Gilham stated that she had enough information to determine that there was no new information that would suggest that the Child was unsafe.

27I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons prior to the Application, however, the reasons submitted in the Written Submission are sufficient.

D) The CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review why the request for documents was delayed and whether reasons were provided for this delay.

28The Applicant submitted a request for the provision of documents related to his Child on April 17, 2024. When he received no response, he followed up with the Respondent on August 16 and again on November 7, 2024. On November 7, 2024, the Respondent’s worker informed the Respondent that he would require consents from third parties to obtain the information he sought.

29The Applicant complains that the Respondent delayed over nine months in providing documents and did not provide updates on why he was not receiving the documents. He further seeks reasons for why certain documents are redacted or excluded after disclosure was provided.

30The Respondent does not deny the provision of documents requested was delayed. The Respondent has submitted that it is aware of the timeline set for providing documents, and "does its best to comply with them; however, it is not always possible to do so based on the resources it has". It further states that "it continues to try and utilize the resources it has in a way that ensures it meets its mandate of protecting children while also ensuring it meets its obligations under Part X of the CYFSA."

31The information being requested is personal information. Part X of the Act establishes the rules that services providers must follow in relation to the collection, use, disclosure and managing of personal information. This includes how a service provider ought to respond to a request for access to records of personal information under section 314 of the Act. As of January 1, 2020, the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner rather than the CFSRB has jurisdiction over such issues.

32For this reason, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review this complaint.

CONCLUSION

33I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns or provide reasons for complaint b).

34I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns or provide reasons for complaints a) and c) prior to the Applicant commencing the Application. However, in its Response and Written Submissions, the Respondent has provided sufficient reasons for its decisions related to those complaints. As such, the CFSRB has no further effective remedy to provide.

35As the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review complaint d), it is unnecessary to review whether the Applicant was heard and provided reasons for this complaint.

36The Application is upheld in part.

ORDER

37The Application is upheld in part.

38Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for its determination that it should have not opened the Applicant’s referral on November 9, 2023, as a new investigation.

39The remainder of this Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

40Pursuant 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.