CM v. The Children's Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington, 2025 CFSRB 66

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CM Applicant

-and-

The Children's Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: May 26, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 66 Indexed As: CM v The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington (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 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/Mediation Report dated February 18, 2025.

4A second Pre-Hearing Report dated March 4, 2025, confirmed the issues, and directed the Applicant:

a. to complete and send the CFSRB an Accommodation Request by March 5, 2025;

b. to provide the Respondent with any arguably relevant material to the confirmed issues that may be in his possession by March 10, 2025; and

c. to confirm in writing to the CFSRB why he believes that there are redactions in the Respondent’s disclosure to him that contain information that is arguably relevant to the issues.

5A Case Management Direction dated March 20, 2025, confirmed:

a. the Applicant did not return a completed Accommodation Request to the CFSRB;

b. the Applicant provided the Respondent with relevant material that was in his possession on March 12, 2025, as per an approved extension; and

c. the Applicant did not provide the CFSRB with written confirmation regarding his concerns about redaction.

6The Case Management Direction also directed that the hearing would be held in writing and set deadlines for the parties to file material and submissions. The Applicant was to provide his written submissions by April 7, 2025, and the Respondent was to provide its written submissions by April 21, 2025. The Applicant’s Reply was to be submitted by April 28, 2025, if desired. A decision would be made based on the materials and submissions in the file.

7Neither the Applicant nor Respondent filed submissions for the hearing. This review is based solely on the limited information provided in the Application, Response, and found within the Pre-Hearing Reports and Case Directions noted above.

ISSUES

8The issues to be determined are:

a. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding his concerns that an affidavit submitted by the Respondent in June 2023 to the Family Court allegedly omitted critical information;

b. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for why it did not open an investigation regarding three separate incidents of allegedly concerning behaviour by the Child’s mother; and

c. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and reasons for its decision to not investigate an allegedly unsafe environment at the Child’s mother’s home as reported by a third party.

RESULT

9I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or with reasons for decisions it made.

ANALYSIS

10The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for decisions made as they relate to concerning behaviour and unsafe environments allegedly created by the Child’s mother.

11The Respondent argues that the Application should be dismissed because it is pre-mature, the Applicant has not complied with the requirements under the Act to initiate an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP). Specifically, the Respondent contends that an ICRP is important in this instance as the Applicant’s complaints span a lengthy time period and that they contain numerous instances that may be appropriate for resolution through an ICRP.

12The Respondent also argues that the Application should be dismissed because the Applicant is requesting the CFSRB to provide remedies it is unable to provide.

13The Respondent’s Response did not address the complaints by the Applicant in his Application or whether he was provided an opportunity to be heard or provided reasons.

14Section 120(1) of the Act states that a person may decide not to make the complaint to the society and may make the complaint directly to the Board, specifically contemplating a right for a person to not proceed first to an ICRP.

15Section 120(7) of the Act sets out the orders that the CFSRB can make upon a review. In this matter, if the CFSRB finds for the Applicant, it is limited to ordering the Respondent provide a response to the Application, or to provide reasons for a decision.

16It is not uncommon for an application to the CFSRB to initially request remedies that are beyond the CFSRB’s jurisdiction but be refined and focused during the pre-hearing process. In reading the two Pre-Hearing Reports and the Case Direction, it is clear that the Applicant was advised as to the orders the CFSRB could make.

17This review will proceed based on the CFSRB eligibility findings, while considering the remedies available under the Act.

The Applicant’s concerns were not heard regarding the affidavit submitted by the Respondent to the Family Court in June 2023

18The Applicant submits that he was not heard about his concerns that an affidavit that the Respondent submitted to the Family Court in June 2023 allegedly omitted critical information, including, delays in medication, unsupervised care, and safety concerns. The Applicant alleges that this led to court decisions which failed to prioritize the Child’s safety and well-being.

19The Respondent has not provided any information which addresses this concern.

20Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I find that it did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard.

The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for why it did not open an investigation regarding incidents of allegedly concerning behaviour by the Child’s mother

21The Applicant argues that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for why it did not open an investigation regarding three separate incidents of concerning behaviour by the Child’s mother, or if it did open an investigation, it did not provide him with reasons for decisions resulting from it. The incidents are:

a. the Applicant alleges that the Respondent attempted to attend the Child’s mother’s residence to make an unannounced inspection in April 2023, which the Child’s mother refused and avoided;

b. the Applicant alleges that during a visit with the Child at a hospital in 2019, hospital staff reported that the Child’s mother exhibited erratic and agitated behaviour;

c. the Applicant alleges that the Child’s mother failed to take the Child’s medication with her following a court ordered removal from the Applicant’s home and that she failed to respond to the Applicant’s phone calls to advise her that he still had it.

22The Respondent has provided no information or documentation about the Applicant’s concern around any of these incidents. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons.

The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or reasons for its decision to not investigate the Child’s mother based on a third party’s report to the Child’s school about the Child’s mother’s behaviour

23The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns or provide him with reasons for its decision to not investigate the Child’s mother’s behaviour after a neighbour advised the Child’s school that they heard loud screaming and conflict at the Child’s mother’s home.

24The Respondent has provided no information or documentation on any of these incidents. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons.

CONCLUSION

25I have only the Applicant’s allegations upon which to base my findings. There is no evidence to contradict these allegations in the materials before me. Therefore, I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or with reasons for its decisions.

ORDER

26The Application is upheld.

27Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with:

a. a response to his concern that the affidavit submitted by the Respondent in June 2023 to the Family Court omitted allegedly critical information;

b. written reasons for why it did not open an investigation based on the Child’s mother’s behaviour during the three specific incidents above; and

c. written reasons for why it did not open an investigation based on a third party’s report to the Child’s school about the Child’s mother’s behaviour.

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.