CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
BF Applicant
-and-
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: May 16, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 61 Indexed As: BF v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
BF, Applicant Self-represented
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent Jeffrey Hustins, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2The Applicant is the mother of four children. The Application raises issues with respect to three of the children. Two of the children, R.C. and S.C. are in the custody of their father and the child, C. is in Extended Society Care.
3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.
4In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the issues raised by the Applicant appear to be similar to the issues raised in a previous application filed by the Applicant (CA24-0049). That application was adjudicated with a final decision issued on October 10, 2024. The Respondent has submitted that the current Application should be dismissed.
5The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on April 9, 2025, directing the following:
- On or before April 14, 2025, the Applicant shall provide further details regarding her complaints in the new Application. Specifically, if the Applicant is alleging that the Respondent has made decisions that affect her interests since October 10, 2024, and not provided reasons for these decisions to the Applicant, the Applicant is to set them out, including the dates and details of those decisions. The Applicant shall provide this information to the CFSRB, copying the Respondent.
- On or before April 24, 2025, the Respondent shall provide an updated Response to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant.
- If the Applicant does not provide submissions as set out [above], the CFSRB may make a decision on the materials before it.
6The Applicant provided submissions on April 13, 2025, setting out the following issues:
Issue 1: The Respondent’s worker RL submitted a letter to family court dated September 27, 2023, regarding the children thriving in their father’s care. The Applicant’s concerns regarding the children’s care were not heard in the preparation of this letter.
Issue 2: The Respondent’s worker EL failed to hear the Applicant and to provide reasons for decisions regarding the Respondent’s conclusion that the Applicant was exposing the children to adult conflict and the risk of sex trafficking. The Respondent also failed to hear the Applicant and to provide reasons for decisions regarding the Applicant’s concerns that C was being sex trafficked in foster care.
Issue 3: The Applicant’s contact with her children was stopped after September 18, 2024, and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision in this regard.
Issue 4: The Respondent failed to facilitate and to assist with court-ordered parenting time and did not provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision in this regard.
Issue 5: The Respondent closed the file without providing the Applicant with reasons for their decision.
Issue 6: The Respondent threatened the Applicant with police involvement when she reported protection concerns and did not respond to those concerns.
7The Respondent provided submissions on April 14, 2025, as follows:
Issue 1: This issue was dealt with during the previous CFSRB proceeding.
Issue 2: Child protection worker EL met with Ms. Fortin on September 20, 2024, to review the Applicant’s concerns. EL followed up this meeting with a letter to the Applicant.
Issue 3: The Respondent did not have an open file at the time noted. The Respondent was not involved in any decisions regarding access.
Issue 4: The Respondent did not have an open file but recommended the use of Kinark Supervised Access Centre.
Issue 5: The Respondent is unclear which investigation/file the Applicant is complaining about. The only investigation where the Applicant was not advised of the outcome was for an investigation where she was not a party receiving services.
Issue 6: The Applicant has engaged in harassing and threatening behaviour towards the Respondent’s staff. As a result, the Respondent consulted with Police Services and followed their recommendations. The Respondent did provide the Applicant with a way of reporting concerns.
ISSUES
8Are the six issues raised by the Applicant the same as the issues raised in a previous application filed by the Applicant (CA24-0049) and decided on October 10, 2024, or are they new issues that have yet to be considered?
RESULT
9Having reviewed the materials and written submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent I find that:
- Issue 1 is the same as issues raised in the previous application and decided on October 10, 2024.
- Issues 2 through 6 are new and/or different issues than those previously raised and decided on October 10, 2024.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
10In the October 10, 2024, decision, the CFSRB addressed the following issues:
A. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard with respect to her numerous allegations of neglect and harm to her children, R.C. and S.C. while they were in the court-ordered custody of their father?
B. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for decision that it made in relation to complaints made by the Applicant in regard to R.C. and S.C.?
11The CFSRB found in its’ October 10, 2024, decision that the Respondent provided the Applicant with many opportunities to be heard with respect to her numerous allegations of neglect and harm to R.C. and S.C. while they were in the court ordered custody of their father. The CFSRB also found in its October 10, 2024, decision that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions it made in relation to complaints made by her with respect to R.C. and S.C. and explained to her the reasons it was precluded from providing her with other information.
12Based on my review of the material and written submissions of the parties, I find that Issue 1 is the same issue raised in a previous application filed by the Applicant (CA24-0049) and decided on October 10, 2024.
Issue 2
13A further issue addressed in the October 10, 2024; hearing was whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions in response to the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent had mishandled the child C’s participation in a criminal trial in which C was the victim. The CFSRB found in the October 10, 2024, decision that it did not have jurisdiction to review the allegation pertaining to C., because C. was in Extended Society Care in 2024, and no services were being provided to the Applicant at the time. Also, it was decided that C. was over 18, and their consent to release personal information was required.
14In the current Application, Issue 2 alleges that the Respondent’s worker EL failed to hear the Applicant and to provide reasons for decisions regarding the Respondent’s conclusion that the Applicant was exposing the children to adult conflict and the risk of sex trafficking. The Applicant is also alleging that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant and to provide reasons for decisions regarding the Applicant’s concerns that C was being sex trafficked in foster care. This is a new and different issue. This request is not about mishandling C’s participation in a criminal trial, or the extended society care but about the EL’s failure to give reasons for decisions made at the time to Applicant.
Issue 3
15The Applicant alleges her contact with her children was stopped after September 18, 2024, and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision in this regard.
16The Respondent submits that during the time noted, it did not have an open Investigation or Ongoing file and that the matter was before Family Court, and the Respondent was not involved. While this may be so, the purpose of the CMD was to better understand if the Applicant’s complaints have already been addressed in the previous court file.
17The issue of access was not previously addressed as an issue in Application CA24-0049 or decided on in the decision of October 10, 2024. It is a new and different issue.
Issue 4
18The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to facilitate and to assist with court-ordered parenting time and did not provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision in this regard.
19The Respondent submits that they do not provide supervised access for individuals without an open file and that they recommended the use of Kinark Supervised Access Centre, where the father made arrangements for access to occur.
20The issue of access/parenting time was not previously addressed as an issue in Application CA24-0049 or decided on in the decision of October 10, 2024. It is a new and different issue.
Issue 5
21The Applicant alleges the Respondent closed the file without providing the Applicant with reasons for their decision.
22The issue of file closure was not previously addressed as an issue in Application CA24-0049 or decided on in the decision of October 10, 2024. It is a new and different issue.
Issue 6
23The Applicant alleges the Respondent threatened the Applicant with police involvement when she reported protection concerns and did not respond to those concerns. The Respondent provided an explanation in Response to the allegation in its submissions.
24This issue, as framed by the Applicant, was not previously raised nor dealt with in the decision of October 10, 2024. The reasons for police involvement and whether the Respondent provided reasons for their decisions in this regard is a new and different issue.
ORDER
25Issue 1 is dismissed.
26Issues 2 – 6 will proceed to a hearing.
NEXT STEPS
27The parties will receive a Notice of Pre-hearing providing a date, time, and log in details. At the pre-hearing the parties will be offered an opportunity to mediate.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
28Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated, May 16, 2025.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon Member