WL & RL v Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 84

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

WL & RL Applicants

-and-

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicators: Alexandra Barthos, Christine Staley, Lise Henrie Date: July 03, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 84 Indexed As: WL & RL v Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.192)

APPEARANCES

WL & RL, Applicants Self-represented

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Belinda Jesudasan, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Applicants, W.L. and R.L., have applied for a review of the decision of the Kawartha Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (the “Respondent”) to remove a four-year-old child, “A”, placed with the Applicants for adoption.

3Procedural matters were heard on March 20, 2025. The hearing on the merits was held by videoconference on May 21, 2025, and May 22, 2025.

ISSUE

4The issue in dispute is whether it is in A’s best interests to rescind the Respondent’s decision to remove A from placement with the Applicants.

RESULT

5It is in A’s best interests to rescind the Respondent’s decision to remove A from the Applicants’ home.

6On May 29, 2025, the CFSRB issued the following Order: “The Respondent’s decision refusing the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child is rescinded and the Respondent is directed to proceed with the Applicants’ adoption application.”

7The reasons for the Order are set out in this Decision.

ANALYSIS

Background and Family Constellation

8The Applicants were married in 1989. They have two adult children together, A.L. and J.L.

9The Applicants and various family members lived in a raised bungalow. The bungalow has three bedrooms upstairs and two bedrooms downstairs. There is one washroom on the main floor and one in the basement. The upstairs washroom is across from the three upstairs bedrooms.

10A large number of people live in the Applicants’ home or on the property. Five people live in the basement: the Applicants’ adult son, J.L., lives in the basement with his two children, P.L. and N.L. Also in the basement are J.L.’s girlfriend and JL’s girlfriend’s child.

11W.L. and R.L. began providing foster care for children within Kawartha Haliburton Children's Aid Society in June 2018, and were foster parents for another Children’s Aid Society prior to this.

12R.L. testified that the Applicants have been fostering children for about 20 years. R.L. testified that they fostered dozens of children during that time. The children ranged in age from newborns to teenagers. Some of the foster children stayed for short periods of time, while others remained with the Applicants for years.

13The child that is the subject of the within adoption refusal application, A, was placed with the Applicants shortly after birth in August 2020. In August 2022, the status of A’s placement with the Applicants changed to that of adoption probation.

14A different child, B, who is currently 15, moved in with the Applicants on June 26, 2018, as a foster placement.

15A different child, C, who is currently 12, moved in with the Applicants approximately one year later, in 2019. C’s adoption by the Applicants was finalized in March 2023.

16B lived with the Applicants from June 2018 until December 2022. As with A and C, the Applicants considered adopting B. However, over time B began displaying serious behavioural issues. B’s behavioual issues included outbursts, refusing to follow house rules, theft, lies, damaging property, slamming doors, and hostility to others in the home. The issues escalated to the point where the Applicants felt that they were unable to manage B’s behavioural challenges. In November 2022, the Applicants requested that the Respondent find another placement for B.

Overview of the Allegations Against R.L.

17On September 26, 2024, almost two years after B had left the Applicants’ care, B’s biological mother, S.R., advised the Respondent that R.L. had been engaging in inappropriate touching with B. S.R. indicated that B requested that S.R. not say anything to anyone. S.R. explained the seriousness of the situation and told B it needed to be reported. S.R. also told B that it was possible that R.L. was doing the same thing to other children in the home.

18On October 1, 2024, the Respondent received a referral from an educational assistant at B’s school, O.Z.

19O.Z. reported that B disclosed sexual abuse by B’s former foster parent, R.L., while B was living in his home. Following the referral from O.Z., the Respondent commenced a child protection investigation. It coded this as “1.3.D.”, concerns about abusive sexual activity by a community caregiver and “5.2.A.”, caregiver inability to protect, on the Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum.

20On October 3, 2024, a child welfare worker employed by the Respondent, Emily MacPherson (“Ms. MacPherson”), contacted Ontario Provincial Police Detective Constable Josh McKenzie (“D/C McKenzie”) to advise him of B’s allegations.

21On October 7, 2024, B was interviewed by D/C McKenzie. B reported that B had been sexually assaulted by R.L. while B lived in the Applicants’ home.

22On October 16, 2024, D/C McKenzie conducted a telephone interview with B’s biological mother, S.R.

23On October 16, 2024, D/C McKenzie conducted a telephone interview with B’s educational assistant, O.Z.

24On October 18, 2024, R.L. was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, with B being the complainant.

25On October 30, 2024, D/C McKenzie conducted a telephone interview with B’s teacher, K.G.

26On December 19, 2024, the Respondent verified child protection concern 1.3.D., finding that abusive sexual activity had occurred between R.L. and B (“the Verification Decision”). The Respondent did not verify child protection concern 5.2.A., caregiver inability to protect, because the Respondent was unable to determine whether W.L. knew about the alleged abuse and failed to act.

27On March 3, 2025, the Respondent advised the Applicants that it would not be proceeding with the adoption of A in light of the criminal charges and due to its finding of abusive sexual activity by R.L. against B. The Respondent also provided notice to the Applicants of its intention to remove A from the Applicants’ home.

The Respondent’s Position

28The Respondent determined that, based on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that inappropriate sexual activity had occurred between B and R.L. although the specific details of the harmful behaviour determined to have occurred have not been articulated.

29The Services Manager for Protection, Shelly Lair (“Ms. Lair”), provided an Affidavit and viva voce evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

30Ms. Lair’s April 17, 2025, Affidavit confirms that the Verification Decision was made due to B’s, “consistent disclosure made to several adults.” These adults were B’s teacher, K.G, B’s educational assistant, O.Z., and B’s mother, S.R.

31The Respondent’s position is that due to its finding that R.L. sexually abused B, and due to R.L.’s outstanding criminal charges, the Applicants are no longer appropriate candidates to adopt A, and A should be removed from the Applicants’ home.

The Applicant’s Position

32The Applicants unequivocally state that nothing sexual happened between R.L. and B. The Applicants believe that the Respondent’s verification of sexual abuse was incorrect.

33W.L. testified that B could be very manipulative and was prone to lying. W.L. testified that she thought B was very upset that C had been adopted, and that A’s adoption was also in progress, while B was not getting adopted.

34B had been asking W.L. questions about A and C’s adoption in the summer of 2024. W.L. confirmed that A was being adopted and C had already been adopted. B’s response was, “Aw but mom I wanted to be adopted too.”

35The Applicants believe that the reason for the allegations is that B had recently reconnected with B’s biological mother, S.R., in the summer of 2024.

36The Applicants are concerned that B’s mother may have negatively influenced B into making a statement against R.L.

37The Applicants are concerned that B is making the same allegations against R.L. that B made against B’s biological father.

38The Applicants submit that they are in the best position to care for A. A has a connection to A’s adoptive siblings and A’s other adoptive family members. It would be devastating for A to leave the only home A has ever known.

A’s Best Interests

39The paramount purpose of the Act at section 1(1) is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. The Preamble of the Act also acknowledges that children are individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard, and that services provided to children and families should be child-centred.

40Section 1(2) of the Act sets out additional purposes of the Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well-being of children. The enumerated factor most relevant to this matter includes subsection 1(2)2 that provides that “[t]he least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.”

41The Divisional Court in Family Youth & Child Services of Muskoka v. DM and CM, 2010 ONSC 6018, established the test that the CFSRB must apply in the review of a section 192 (formerly section 144) application. At paragraphs 20 to 22 it set out as follows:

[20] In this case, the pertinent provision is s. 144(11) of the CFSA, which states: "The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision".

[21] The language of this section expressly requires the Board to make a determination as to what action is in the best interests of the child. If the decision under review is a refusal of an adoption application, the action relates to the entire adoption application process, which involves a number of distinct steps. Although action must be interpreted in the context of the decision under review (adoption application or removal from placement), it gives the Board broad authority to determine what should be done in the child's best interests within the confines of the decision/action under review.

[22] The Board does not have parens patriae jurisdiction to determine best interests in relation to any action. Rather, its determination is confined to the parameters of s. 144. Put simply, the Board must determine whether the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests having regard to the criteria set out in s. 136(2). If the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests, the Board will rescind the Society's refusal decision. If it is not, the children's aid society's decision will be confirmed. [emphasis in original]

42The Panel is mindful of the over-arching considerations set out in the Preamble and Section 1 of the Act. In determining the best interests of the Children, the Panel is specifically required to consider:

(a) the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community; and

(c) any other circumstance of the case that the decision-maker considers relevant, including several enumerated factors.

43In JE and KE v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2020 ONSC 4239 (“JE and KE”), the Divisional Court provided additional guidance to the CFSRB on applying the best interests of the child test. In doing so, the Court directed the CFSRB to consider the totality of the evidence before it, including the following specific guidance:

• The CFSRB has a duty to consider the views and wishes of the child;
• The weight given to the child’s wishes depends on the child’s age and maturity; and
• The CFSRB’s reasoning related to the integration of the Legislature’s intention, and the application of the best interests test should be stated clearly, including commenting on which factors outweighed other factors.

44In the Application before it, the Panel assessed the evidence based on the criteria in the Act and considered the jurisprudence. The Panel’s analysis is set out below according to each subsection of section 179(2).

A’s Views and Wishes: Subsection 179(2)(a)

45A is four years old. A will be turning five in August. A has lived with the Applicants since shortly after A’s birth.

46The Respondent attempted to interview A at school, but A did not wish to speak to the worker. Regardless, the Respondent submits that A’s views and wishes cannot be ascertained given A’s young age.

47Evidence adduced from both parties indicates that A is doing well in the Applicants’ care.

48On a typical day, A wakes up, watches cartoons, eats breakfast, and starts getting ready for junior kindergarten.

49A has experienced separation anxiety when leaving for school. The Applicants would receive calls that A is crying at school. The Applicants were able to support A through this and report that A’s separation anxiety has been greatly reduced.

50A lives in a home with a number of other children ranging in age from 9-13. A considers C to be A’s sister. A is unaware that A is not biologically related to the Applicants.

51A is rambunctious. A enjoys the children’s swing set and trampoline at the Applicants’ home. A and C are described as being inseparable when they return home from school, despite the age gap.

52A and C like to colour and play games on an iPad. C is described as being a good sibling to A, and doing a lot with A. R.L. stated that if A were taken away from C, C would be devastated.

53On a review of the evidence, from a child-centred position, the Panel finds that A’s views and wishes would be to remain with the Applicants. The only home A has ever known has been with the Applicants. A is happy and well-adjusted. A receives love, attention and care from the Applicants. The Panel gives moderate weight to this factor, based on A’s age and developmental stage.

First Nations, Inuk or Métis Child: Subsection 179(2)(b)

54There was no evidence before the Panel that A is First Nations, Inuk or Métis. Accordingly, no weight was given to this factor.

Other Relevant Circumstances: Subsection 179(2)(c)

55Under subsection 179(2)(c) of the Act, the CFSRB must consider any other circumstance that it considers relevant, including several factors enumerated under this subsection.

56The applicability of these discretionary factors to a particular case must be rooted in the assessment of the evidence. See paragraph 48 of JE and KE.

57In this case, another relevant circumstance is the Respondent’s finding that R.L. sexually abused B. The Panel must consider the relevant facts arising from that circumstance, in addition to the evidence adduced in this hearing, in the determination of A’s best interests.

58The Panel has considered the enumerated factors listed under subsection 179(2)(c) of the Act as well as the exceptional, other relevant circumstance in this case, being the Respondent's verification of sexual harm to B.

(iii) The child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and

(iv) The child’s cultural and linguistic heritage

59No evidence was admitted regarding A’s biological heritage. No weight is given to this factor.

(viii) The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case

60A will not be negatively impacted if A remains placed in the home of the Applicants while a court makes a final determination on A’s adoption.

61A is not aware of the criminal charges faced by R.L.

(i) The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs, and

(ii) The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

62The Adoption Supervisor Erin Payne (“Ms. Payne”) provided evidence via Affidavit and viva voce testimony. Ms. Payne described A’s care and adjustment while in the Applicants’ home in her April 16, 2025, Affidavit as follows:

[10] [A’s] needs have been met while living with [the Applicants]. The Society has no concerns about the care [A] has received.

[11] [A] developed while in the care of the [the Applicants]. There are no concerns about A meeting certain developmental milestones.

[12] [A’s] relationship with [the Applicants] seems positive. [A] has resided in their care since just after [A’s] birth … and it is apparent that [A] has an attachment to [the Applicants].

63A’s needs have been met while living with the Applicants. The Respondent has no concerns about the care A has received. We place significant weight on these factors in favour of A remaining with the Applicants.

(v) The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family; and

(vi) The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

64There was no evidence of any ongoing relationships between A and A’s biological family. A’s biological mother’s openness application was dismissed on March 27, 2024.

65Despite the age gap, with A being four and C being 12, the children are described as being extremely close. They spend significant amounts of time together.

66It is apparent that they consider each other to be siblings. C completes school assignments on what it is like to have A as a younger sibling. A has known C for the whole of A’s life.

67At paragraph 13 of Ms. Payne’s Affidavit she states,

Given that the [A] has resided with [the Applicants] since just after A’s birth, it is undeniable that [A] has emotional ties to [the Applicants], specifically [W.L.], who is [A’s] primary caregiver. [A] has relationships with adoptive uncles, adoptive siblings, adoptive aunts, adoptive cousins and other extended family members of [the Applicants].

68A enjoys spending time with the family dog, Max, and the family cat, Fat Boy.

69A has friends in the neighbourhood. A’s friends include a neighbourhood child who attends the same school as A. A participates in dance and swimming.

70Considering these factors from a child-focused perspective, the Panel took direction from PD and DD v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2019 CFSRB 67 at paragraph 78 which set out:

Given the Child's age, level of development and lack of participation in the proceedings, the Panel has looked to objective indicators to shed light on the relationships in her life, the emotional ties they likely represent, and their significance as measured by the length of time over which any relationship has existed and the frequency and regularity of the contact with the Child.

71A calls W.L. “mom” and R.L. “dad”.

72A is described by R.L. as being closely attached to W.L. and as not leaving W.L.’s side.

73A enjoys spending time with the family pets. A attends school and is engaged in swimming and dance.

74There can be no doubt that A is deeply connected to the Applicants, the Applicants’ family members, and A’s community.

75From A’s perspective, a positive and secure connection with the Applicants and the Applicants’ family members has developed. A is connected to A’s neighbourhood, school and extra-curricular communities. The Panel attributes significant weight to this factor.

(vii) The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

76A was placed with the Applicants shortly after A’s birth. A is now four years old, turning five in August. This is the only home A has ever known. The Panel finds that A has a secure attachment to the Applicants.

77Ms. Payne states in her Affidavit:

[14] [A] is 4 years old and it is possible that moving to another home could be disruptive.

78It is undeniable that removing A from the home of the Applicants would be disruptive to A. A already had considerable difficulty when A first began attending school due to separation anxiety issues related to being away from W.L.

79Ms. Payne testified that the Respondent had secured another adoptive family as a prospective match. No other evidence was provided on the prospective family, including whether W.L. or R.L. would continue to remain part of A’s life in the event A was removed from the Applicants’ care.

80W.L. testified that change is difficult for A, and that A does not adapt to it well. There have been days when A could not attend school because A was too worked up at the thought of being away from W.L.

81As of now, A is finally starting to do well in school. A knows how to spell A’s name. A’s learning is described as increasing in leaps and bounds.

82A has had ongoing sleep issues including difficulty sleeping throughout the night. W.L. and A have been co-sleeping for a number of months.

83No evidence was led by the Respondent as to how A would be supported if A was removed from the Applicants’ care.

84The Divisional Court at paragraph 80 in JE and KE notes that the CFSRB should not engage in the use of “reverse reasoning” in its analysis of continuity of care by focusing on whether a child could overcome the trauma of being uprooted from a family, rather than focusing on whether there is sufficient reason to impose this trauma and disruption upon a child in the first place.

85A is securely attached to the Applicants and the Applicants’ family members. A is a cherished part of the Applicants’ family. The Panel finds that placing A in a different family will cause significant upheaval in A’s life. This factor weighs heavily in favour of A remaining with the Applicants.

86The Respondent submits that its verification of sexual harm by a caregiver is a sufficient reason to impose the trauma and disruption to A of placing A with another family. Accordingly, the Panel considers this other relevant circumstance within the context of JE and KE and A’s best interests.

Other relevant circumstance: risk of sexual harm to the child

87The Respondent submits that its Verification Decision requires A’s removal from the Applicants and A’s placement with other prospective adoptive parents.

88Ms. Lair stated that due to the changes in the legislation in 2024 which now require broader sector checks, the Applicants would no longer qualify as potential adoptive parents.

89Having had the benefit of a full hearing, and a significant evidentiary record, the Panel reaches a different conclusion than the Respondent regarding the weight to be given to the allegations made by B against R.L. in the determination of A’s best interest.

90The evidence before the Panel was insufficient to conclude that inappropriate sexual behaviour between R.L. and B occurred. It is significant that the Respondent has not articulated what specific inappropriate behaviour the Respondent found to have occurred.

91In all of the circumstances, the Panel does not find that the potential and speculative risk to A arising from R.L.’s alleged conduct with B outweighs the other best interest considerations that favour A remaining with the Applicants.

92The Panel makes no findings with respect to the criminal allegations against R.L.

The Respondent’s Verification Decision

93The Respondent’s investigation of the child protection concerns was conducted by Ms. MacPherson and supervised by Ms. Lair. Ms. Lair made the Verification Decision with Ms. MacPherson present.

94Ms. Lair had no first-hand knowledge of the police investigation. Ms. Lair was not present for B’s interview and did not review B’s audio/video statement.

95When asked whether Ms. MacPherson would have had any follow-up questions after reviewing the “transcripts” of statements from B, B’s biological mother, B’s educational assistant, and B’s teacher, Ms. Lair testified that one reason for not independently interviewing these individuals was Ms. MacPherson's belief that the police had adequately covered the questions she would have asked.

96However, the Respondent’s contact log from October 8, 2024, which documents correspondence from Ms. MacPherson to B’s worker, S.C., confirms that Ms. MacPherson did have questions:

Ms. MacPherson - Okay just to clarify our facts and make sure we are on the same page:

[B] reported ongoing sexual abuse by [R.L.] including sexual intercourse in family bathroom and sexual touching in living room

Oral sex attempts by R.L., but not done by [W.L.] - this is different from referral information

97The Respondent’s contact log from October 8, 2024, confirms that B said the abuse began around Christmas when B was 12 but that this appeared to conflict with other information B provided that was consistent with the abuse beginning around December 2020 instead, which would have been when B was 11.

98Additionally, in the Respondent’s contact log from October 7, 2024, Ms. MacPherson requested contact information for S.R., and for B’s biological brother, stating she may need to speak with them about B’s allegations.

99When questioned about the allegation that R.L. had sexually assaulted B on a daily basis, Ms. Lair acknowledged, “Yes every day is a lot.”

100Ms. Lair testified that she had questions about B’s allegation of sexual intercourse on the bathroom floor because the bathroom was small. Ms. Lair confirmed this would have been the type of question that would have been asked of B if the Respondent had the opportunity.

101Ms. Lair agreed that it seemed odd that B claimed to have had sex with R.L. for thirty minutes in the bathroom stating, “Yes, 30 minutes is a long time”.

102The Respondent provided unverified police “transcripts,” each accompanied by a disclaimer stating, “The typed version of a handwritten statement/recorded conversation is intended to be used for assistance purposes only. It does not purport to be an exact transcript of the conversation/handwritten statement. Please refer to the actual handwritten statement/audio/video recording for completeness and/or accuracy. An unverified transcript may have been generated through a combination of speech-to-text technology and human edits. As a result, it may contain errors, so please refer to the corresponding evidence.”

103The Panel has concerns regarding the accuracy, and therefore the reliability of the unverified “transcripts”.

104In paragraph 9 of Ms. Lair’s Affidavit, she states, “On October 1, 2024, the Society received a referral from [B’s] teacher, Olivia Stephen. Ms. Stephen reported that [B] disclosed sexual abuse by [B’s] former foster parent, [R.L.], while [B] was living in his home.”

105However, the referral did not come from “Olivia Stephen”. It came from O.Z., B’s educational assistant, and not B’s teacher, who is named K.G. There is no one involved named "Olivia Stephen".

106Ms. Lair also testified that B had a history of making unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault. While she acknowledged that B had previously made allegations against B’s biological father that were not proven, she later contradicted herself by stating that she was unsure whether these allegations were false, citing the passage of time and her lack of involvement with the case.

107Ms. Lair expressed her belief in B's credibility, citing B's ability to describe the clothing worn by both herself and R.L. during the alleged sexual assault in the bathroom. However, this assertion was inaccurate, as B was only able to identify that B was wearing a nightgown and did not specify the clothing worn by R.L.

108In Ms. Lair’s Affidavit, she relates that B told D/C McKenzie that R.L. “touched [B] inappropriately” and that this would happen “every morning”. B said that excluding one assault in the bathroom, the incidents occurred in the living room of the house at approximately 5:00 a.m. B said that these incidents happened from the time B moved in with the Applicants in May 2018 and, “The abuse stopped when [B] moved out of the home” (in December 2022).

109W.L. testified that there were clear house rules that the foster children could not leave their room before 7:00 a.m. W.L. said that when she would hear B’s door open before 7:00 a.m., which occurred every three or four days, she would direct B back to B’s room. W.L. testified that R.L. slept with her. She said that from the time B moved in with them until 2020, R.L, would leave for work at 2:30 a.m. and return home around 2:30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. The timing of the incidents, which are said to have occurred every day, is unlikely. The location of the incidents also appears questionable given the number of people in the home and the lack of privacy.

110W.L. testified that once A was placed with the Applicants in 2019, W.L. would often be up with A throughout the night because of A’s difficulty sleeping.

111The Respondent’s contact log from December 19, 2024, detailing the verification meeting in which the Respondent concluded that there had been inappropriate sexual activity between R.L. and B, states:

The youth provided statements to a teacher, the investigator as well as the police. The reports made were consistent in all three situations. There were some pieces of information that the worker could not corroborate however based on the balance of probability, it is more likely than not, that some inappropriate sexual activity did occur between the foster father and the youth. Police have laid charges.

112The Respondent’s December 19, 2024, contact log inaccurately states that B provided consistent statements to a teacher, the investigator, and the police. In reality, while B disclosed the assault allegations to D/C McKenzie, B did not disclose them to any other investigator, leaving the identity of the “investigator” in question.

113Ms. Lair testified that it was possible one of the reasons B made the disclosure was that B felt well-supported and was in counselling. However, the Respondent’s September 12, 2022, contact log confirms that B was in therapy while residing with the Applicants. This suggests that B was well-supported at that time as well.

114In response to inquiries about the evidence considered by the Respondent in coming to its Verification Decision beyond B’s allegations, Ms. Lair indicated one aspect was that the individuals who came forward did not express doubts about the credibility of B’s statements.

115A review of the “transcripts” reveals that S.R., O.Z. or K.G. were never asked whether they believed B was telling the truth.

116Ms. Lair stated that the verification decision was based on the police interviews of four individuals: S.R., K.G., O.Z. and B.

117However, S.R., K.G., and O.Z. have no first-hand knowledge of the allegations. Their information all originates from B. They were not present when the alleged assaults occurred. The Respondent’s verification decision turns on the hearsay statements of these three individuals whose information came from one source, B.

118Moreover, the statement of S.R. contains several different and inconsistent claims when compared with the statements of K.G., O.Z. and B.

119Ms. Lair explained that she did not include the inconsistencies in the statements within her Affidavit because she “didn’t think to” and believed there were “a lot of consistencies.”

120Ms. Lair testified that the Respondent conducted a joint investigation with the police. It was the police, not the Respondent, who conducted interviews with B, O.Z., K.G., and S.R. When asked why the Respondent did not independently interview B., O.Z., K.G., or S.R., Ms. Lair explained, “The police don’t want us to do anything might negatively influence the investigation. They asked us to take a step back and let them do the interviews.”

121However, permission had been granted by the police, allowing the Respondent to interview B. This is corroborated by the Respondent’s October 30, 2024, contact log, which references a conversation between D/C McKenzie and Ms. MacPherson. In this conversation, Ms. MacPherson stated, “I explained that I am going to re-interview [B]. Josh would like to participate but is off next week. He is okay if I move forward with an interview and provide him with the information. I will update him if the interview is scheduled for his return. A Crown Attorney has not been assigned. Josh did not consult with the Crown prior to charge. His supervisor is aware of the case. Josh noted that [B] has already stated [B] does not wish to go through the court process. [B] will be met with again to go over the process and if [B] continues to decline to participate then it is likely the charges will be withdrawn.”

122Ms. Lair testified that the Respondent was unable to interview B. She stated that the request was denied by B’s worker, as B expressed distress about having to recount B’s story again. Ms. Lair acknowledged that the timing of the allegation—two years after B moved out of the Applicants’ home—was a consideration, but emphasized, “We weren’t allowed to go back and ask these questions.”

123However, the Respondent’s contact log from November 7, 2024, contradicts this assertion. The contact log indicates that B’s worker, S.C., informed Ms. MacPherson, “We just want to understand the clarifying questions with [B] that you are going to be asking or what KHCAS is seeking to clarify, as [B] has disclosed 3 stories which were statements and the police interview.”

124The Respondent’s October 7, 2024, contact log confirms that Ms. MacPherson was present for the interview of B by D/C McKenzie. However, it does not appear that the Respondent was present for the telephone interviews of K.G., O.Z., or S.R.

125Ms. Lair noted that B had recently begun contact with B’s biological mother, S.R., in the months leading up to the allegation. When asked about the relationship between B and B’s mother, Ms. Lair stated that she had not had any knowledge of B’s mother in recent years. She noted that B’s mother, S.R., had not been a reliable source of support for B or B’s siblings, although B expressed a desire to maintain a relationship with B’s mother.

126In the Respondent’s contact log from September 23, 2024, recording the correspondence between B’s worker S.C. and S.R., S.C. sent S.R. an email expressing concern about a tracking application that S.R. had suggested B use to record B’s current foster mother. B’s worker also expressed concern that B was under the impression B would be moving in with B’s biological brother and that B would be moved out of B’s current foster home and into an emergency respite placement.

127On September 25, 2025, S.R. responded to S.C. and confirmed that she had instructed B to record B’s current foster mother. S.R. stated that she believed that B was unhappy in B’s current placement and was “over expressing” things. S.R. told B that S.R. would need to hear or see what was being said as S.R. did not believe that B’s current foster mother was a bad person. S.C. denied that she had been having discussions with B about B moving into emergency respite care or moving in with B’s biological brother.

128The October 30, 2024, “transcript” of the statement of B’s teacher, K.G., noted that B, “had a real change when [B] started talking to biological mom. [B] became a lot, um, a lot more agitated. Um, I would say [B] wasn't as happy as [B] was prior to mom being back in [B’s] life.”

129Ms. Lair stated that there were inconsistencies in the information B’s biological mother provided. B’s biological mother said that in the mornings R.L. came to get B from B’s bedroom. That was different from what everyone else said. She said she thought it started to happen when was B was 12 but was not sure. B’s mother provided more detail than anyone else. B’s mother stated that R.L. would make B stroke his penis and participate in oral sex with him. Although there were elements that were consistent, S.R.’s information was different from that of O.Z., K.G. and B. She said it happened more in the bathroom, which was not what B said to others. She said it happened a lot and it started before [December 2020].

130Ms. Lair testified that S.R. was probably the least reliable source, in terms of the information she provided.

131In the Respondent’s September 26, 2024, contact log B’s biological mother, S.R., told B’s worker, S.C., that S.R. had encouraged B to leave nothing out of B’s statement, as it was possible R.L., “was doing the same thing to other kids in the home.”

132In B’s interview with D/C McKenzie on October 7, 2024, B is asked whether B thinks R.L. should be charged. B confirms that R.L. should be charged because B is, “afraid he would do that to the other kids who's there.”

133The Panel is concerned about the prospect that B’s mother S.R. improperly influenced B by referring to the safety of the other children in the home.

134The Panel is also concerned about B’s mental state, and that B may not understand the allegations B has made.

135Ms. Lair testified that [B] had “global delays”. Ms. Lair was unaware of B’s specific diagnosis.

136In the Respondent’s September 25, 2024, contact log notes B’s worker, S.C., states to B’s mother, “At times, B misinterprets situations which just often mean[s] we have to sit down and clarify what [B] perceived from the situations and talk through it in a way [B] understands it.”

137Ms. Lair indicated that B does not process the same way that other children and youth B’s age do. Things are slower for B and B’s understanding is different.

138B’s teacher, K.G., indicated that although B is 15, B’s understanding is closer to that of a ten-year-old.

139The Psychological Assessment Report dated August 29, 2022, which was prepared by Shannon Mossip Psychology & Associates (the “Psychological Report”), noted concerns with B’s social skills and cognitive awareness.

140The Psychological Report indicated B met the criteria for a moderate intellectual disability, as well as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Unspecified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder.

141The Psychological Report stated that B may have significant attachment concerns resulting in difficulty forming appropriate positive relationships as [B] develops. This may lead to future dysfunction in B’s general well-being and social interactions.

142W.L. testified that B lied regularly and could be manipulative.

143After B’s transfer to a different foster home in 2022, B continued to spend time visiting the Applicants, including for holidays and overnight stays.

144Following B’s allegations and the ensuing criminal charges, B texted W.L. asking if B could come to Thanksgiving dinner. The Panel finds that this request to continue taking part in family events is at odds with B’s allegations against R.L.

145Ms. Lair's testimony revealed a significant lack of knowledge about important aspects of the case.

146Ms. Lair was unfamiliar with the individuals who lived in the Applicants’ home during B's stay and had never visited the Applicants’ residence.

147It does not appear that the Respondent interviewed any of the Applicants’ prior foster children while conducting its investigation.

148When asked whether B had made allegations against anyone else, Ms. Lair stated that she could not recall. She also testified that she had minimal involvement with the family and lacked information since B’s transfer to a different service provider in 2022.

149Ms. Lair was unaware of the number of foster homes B had been placed in or the reasons for the placements, stating that B was a traumatized youth with behavioural issues, which was not uncommon. Ms. Lair did not have knowledge of the specific traumas B had experienced.

150In response to the question of whether Ms. Lair was aware of a propensity for dishonesty on the part of B, her response was that she did not know. Ms. Lair confirmed she had not had any information about B in several years. Ms. Lair agreed she could have asked B’s worker, S.C., or Ms. MacPherson, but did not.

151Ms. Lair testified that Ms. MacPherson had expressed concerns pertaining to the adequacy of the police investigation. She stated that Ms. MacPherson was also concerned that while some aspects of B’s statement to D/C McKenzie were strong, other pieces were a bit inconsistent and caused her to feel unsure.

152Ms. Lair stated that Ms. MacPherson had advised Ms. Lair and another supervisor, Ms. Rodman, about those concerns.

153Ms. Lair appeared to agree with the concerns expressed by Ms. MacPherson.

154Ms. Lair testified that she, “didn’t think it was strongest police investigation for sure.” “There were times when [B] didn’t answer the questions which were being asked.” Ms. Lair stated that she would have, “loved to have more of that information.”

155The Respondent’s October 30, 2024, contact log confirms that Ms. MacPherson advised D/C McKenzie that she had interviewed R.L. and W.L. and “it seems unlikely that the allegations of assault in the bathroom would have happened.”

156When asked whether she could have looked into whether B had a history of dishonesty Ms. Lair’s response was, “That’s the worker’s responsibility.” It is unfortunate that Ms. MacPherson did not provide an Affidavit or viva voce evidence at this hearing.

157Overall, Ms. Lair did not come across as a balanced and credible witness. She lacked direct and fulsome information about the facts and circumstances of the case.

158The Panel preferred the evidence of W.L. and R.L. who came across as earnest and straightforward.

Conclusion

159It is in A's best interest to remain in the home of the Applicants, as they provide a nurturing and stable environment that effectively meets A’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. A has developed positively in the Applicants’ care, demonstrating significant emotional ties and a secure attachment, which are crucial for A’s overall development.

160Considering A's unique background, including A’s history of separation anxiety and difficulty sleeping, the importance of continuity in A's care cannot be overstated.

161The potential risks associated with removing A from A’s environment, including the likelihood of emotional harm and instability, weigh heavily in favour of A remaining placed with the Applicants. The alternative would be for A to start the foster process all over again, which, on balance, is not in A’s best interest.

162With respect to the weight given to the Respondent’s Verification Decision, the Panel finds that pertinent questions were not followed up. Incorrect information, including that B had made a statement to an “investigator” other than D/C McKenzie, was relied on. No independent interviews were conducted. Consistencies were emphasized while inconsistencies were minimized or ignored.

163The Panel is concerned that B’s biological mother improperly influenced B by telling B it was necessary for B to advise the Respondent about the allegations in order to protect the other children in the Applicants’ home.

164Both Ms. Lair and Ms. MacPherson were concerned about aspects of B’s allegations. Despite acknowledging these concerns, the Respondent did not pursue further investigation of the allegations.

165Ms. Lair's testimony revealed a lack of familiarity with B's background and other important facts and circumstances of the case. This lack of knowledge extended to B's history of trauma, past allegations against B’s father of sexual assault, and B’s relationship with B’s biological mother, S.R.

166The reliance on unverified “transcripts” which included disclaimers regarding accuracy raises significant concerns about the reliability of the information used in the decision-making process. The Respondent was not able to provide any contact logs confirming Ms. MacPherson’s presence at D/C McKenzie’s interviews with S.R., O.Z., or K.G., indicating that the Respondent was likely not present for any of these interviews.

167The combination of these factors causes the Panel to give little weight to the Respondent’s Verification Decision.

168The Court will ultimately ensure that A's welfare remains the paramount consideration, but for now, A’s continued residence with the Applicants is essential for A’s ongoing development and emotional security.

ORDER

169The Respondent’s decision to remove the Child placed with the Applicants for adoption is rescinded.

170The Respondent shall take all necessary steps as soon as possible to complete its processes toward the Applicants’ adoption of the Child. This includes the Respondent’s completion of its report of A’s adjustment in the Applicants’ home.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

171Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the contents of the entire file relating to this Application, including this Decision, are subject to a confidentiality order. Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information obtained under the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure or in the course of this Application. Moreover, the information contained in this Decision and in the CFSRB file shall not be released to anyone other than the parties or published in any document, broadcast, or transmitted through any medium without first obtaining an order of the CFSRB or the Court.

172Notwithstanding this confidentiality order, either party may file this Decision with a Court for the purposes of obtaining an adoption order. If either party files this Decision with a Court, that party must take all reasonable steps to protect the further dissemination of this information, including requesting a confidentiality order from the Court.