CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AB
Applicant
-and-
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sonya Vellenga
Indexed As: AB v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
AB, Applicant
Self-represented
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, Respondent
Representative
BACKGROUND
1A pre-hearing in this matter was held on May 21, 2025.
2At the pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and signed a Participation Agreement. I reviewed the Participation Agreement with the parties in the video conference and it was verbally agreed to by all parties.
3The parties agreed to review the Settlement Agreement dated August 14, 2024, which resolved the Applicant’s previous Application with the CFSRB, bearing file number CA24-0116. The parties reviewed the Respondent’s response to the nine questions posed in the Settlement Agreement dated August 14, 2024 and the reasons provided for their response . In the Pre-Hearing/Mediation process held on May 21, 2025, the parties agreed to import some of the questions that the Applicant alleged were unanswered from the August 2024 Settlement Agreement into a new Settlement Agreement dated May 21, 2025.
4The Applicant advised that she believed she was under duress when she signed the previous Settlement Agreement dated August 14, 2024. Accordingly, I checked in with the Applicant at regular intervals during the May 21, 2025, pre-hearing and asked her if she was participating feely and voluntarily in the process. The Applicant confirmed that she did not feel she was under duress at each stage of the process including the agreement to the Settlement Agreement, which resulted from the May 21, 2025, pre-hearing.
5After the pre-hearing of May 2025, the Applicant requested several changes to the Settlement Agreement. These changes were proposed to the Respondent, and all parties received a copy of the Amended Settlement Agreement on June 4, 2025. The Respondent wrote to the CFSRB on June 05, 2025, to advise that it had no objection to the proposed amendments.
6The Amended Settlement Agreement had an implementation date of June 30, 2025 and a deadline for compliance of July 07, 2025.
7On July 07, 2025, the Applicant wrote to the CFSRB alleging that there has been non-compliance with one or more terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement.
8On July 09, 2025, the CFSRB sent an Acknowledgement of Non-Compliance letter to both parties with the following instructions: “The Society may respond, in writing, to the allegations of non-compliance by July 16, 2025”.
9On July 09. 2025, the Respondent replied with a 72-page submission and the following summary: “Based on the steps taken and correspondence sent to the Applicant as required, the Society has met its obligations to the Applicant as outlined in the Amended Settlement Agreement.”
10On July 10, 2025, the Applicant sent an email with information regarding the alleged non-compliance with specific terms in the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement.
DECISION IN WRITING
11Pursuant to Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, I have determined that there is enough information before me in the written submissions to make a determination on the allegation of non-compliance in writing. This will allow for an efficient and expeditious resolution of this issue.
12For this decision, I have reviewed the following material provided to the CFSRB:
i. The Pre-Hearing/Mediation report dated June 5, 2025, which included the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement.
ii. The nine-page Respondent reply dated April 29, 2025, in response to the Application filed by the Applicant on April 16, 2025. The Respondent included the September 30, 2024, response they provided previously to the CFSRB Settlement Agreement of August 14, 2024, bearing file number CA24-0116
iii. The June 27, 2025, Respondent reply to the questions posed in the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement.
iv. The 72-page submission from the Respondent, dated July 09, 2025, which was filed in response to the allegations of non-compliance. This submission included affidavits filed by the Respondent previously in child welfare court and letters sent to the Applicant during the period associated with the complaints raised by the Applicant.
v. Several emails from the Applicant alleging non-compliance.
vi. The July 10, 2025, email from the Applicant which identified in more detail, her allegations of non-compliance with several questions.
ISSUE
13The issue is: Did the Respondent comply with the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement?
RESULT
14The CFSRB finds that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement apart from providing reasons for two questions set out below.
ANALYSIS
15On July 10, 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the parties and expanded on the allegations of noncompliance on specifically identified items and the responses provided by the Respondent that she had “issues” with. My analysis focused on these six items identified by the Applicant.
16Question #3 from the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement focused on the decision of the Respondent to leave the children in the care of “an individual with a head/brain injury”. The question is as follows: “The Applicant would like the Respondent to identify why they left the children in the care of an individual with a head/brain injury and would like to identify when they learned of this injury and how they considered this injury in their decision to leave the children in the care of the father given his need for extensive daily essential nursing care (bathing, changing, bathroom routine, eating, administration of medication). The Applicant would like to know whether the society made the injury or his daily need for care aware to the Family Court. (anytime during the process from 2016 up until 2022) Furthermore the Applicant notes that the society does not mention the fathers brain injury in their brief history with the family and is looking for clarification as to why this information is not included in the society’s history with the family”.
17The Applicant alleges that the reasons provided by the society ‘were not answered’ and made ‘no sense’. I find that the Respondent did provide reasons in the material filed with the CFSRB. Specifically, reasons were provided in the April 29, 2025, response letter, in the June 27, 2025, response letter and in the September 30, 2024, response letter. In addition, the affidavits provided in the Respondent’s submission to CFSRB outline the protection concerns that were presented to the child welfare courts from the period of May 2009 through to July 2021. The Applicant may not agree with the information filed by the Respondent; however, I do find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for this decision regarding the protection response to the Applicant’s allegations about the father. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent sufficiently complied with this item in the Amended Settlement Agreement.
18Question #5 from the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement focused on the Applicant’s concerns about her role as the children’s primary caregiver being “terminated” by the Society and that the Society was incorrect in its statements regarding her access to the children at the bus stop. In an email, the Applicant provided a copy of an “Undertaking” which identified her conditions in the criminal matter and in her opinion did not prohibit the Applicant from “retrieving the children from school or school bus”. While the Applicant does not agree with the Response, I do find that the Respondent provided extensive history and information to demonstrate that the court process at that time did speak to the question of primary care and access for the Applicant. I relied on the Respondent’s responses noted above and the following materials provided by the Respondent: The Affidavit of August 29, 2019, the Status Review filed in 2019, and the Affidavit of June 21, 2021. I reference this statement made by the Respondent in the response letter of June 27, 2025: “In September 2016 as noted above, (the father) made a decision not to return to children to (the Applicant’s) care and subsequently initiated a court process seeking custody of the children with access to (the Applicant)”. I believe the Respondent is clarifying for the Applicant that the matter of custody and access was first initiated by the father of the children and that the Respondent supported his application. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent sufficiently complied with this item in the Amended Settlement Agreement.
19Question #6 from the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement focused on the question of how the Applicant’s mental health played a factor in the decision-making process. Specifically, the Applicant “is looking for more fulsome details (mental health and evidence of poor mental health, other, in contrary to Dr. (M) medical note in 2019)”. I find the Respondent did provide reasons in their June 27, 2025, response letter and did outline how this information was provided to the Applicant historically. For example, the Respondent provided a letter dated April 13, 2021, which outlined the concerns the Society had with the Applicant’s mental health. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent sufficiently complied with this item in the Amended Settlement Agreement.
20Question #7 from the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement focused on the Applicant’s request for reasons as to why the Society “prohibited the Applicant from retrieving her children”. I note that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to weigh in on matters decided by the court with respect to care, custody and supervision. It is my understanding that the family court had already issued an order that addresses these matters. (Affidavit dated June 21, 2021). While the Respondent did provide an answer to the Applicant, I do understand how the Applicant finds the answers to her questions “contradictory”. Despite this seemingly nuanced response, the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision regarding “retrieving the children”. I refer the Applicant to this statement from the June 27, 2025 response letter: “When court orders have been in place which have dictated the placement of the children, the Society has prohibited [the Applicant] from retrieving them in accordance with said orders”. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent sufficiently complied with this item in the Amended Settlement Agreement.
21Question #8 from the May 21, 2025, Amended Settlement Agreement focused on the question of access. The Applicant alleges that the dates referenced by the Society in relation to her period in Alberta are incorrect. The CFSRB cannot decide as to who is correct with respect to these dates. The Respondent did identify that the “mother wanted very much to see and be with the children (and that) the father and his family made it somewhat impossible for access to occur”. The Respondent did provide information for the period of 2016-present day in their response letters and affidavits filed with the CFSRB. With regards to present day access, I refer the Applicant to this statement in the June 27, 2025, response letter: “the paternal aunt and uncle received custody of both children and [the Applicant] had an order for access”. As I understand the material, there is currently a family court order that dictates care, custody, and access. Therefore, I do not have jurisdiction to deal with matters of access that have already been addressed by the court. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent sufficiently complied with this item in the Amended Settlement Agreement.
22In the response to the allegations of non-compliance, I could not find information in the material filed that the Respondent provided an answer for the following:
a. Item #1: “The Applicant acknowledges that she has complained on many occasions to the Respondent about the historical and present-day care of the 2 children identified in the Application. The Applicant acknowledges that she did not file a formal complaint after the August 14, 2024, Pre-Hearing Mediation process. The Respondent will provide direction as to how a formal complaint is lodged and what the Applicant can expect from this process. The Respondent will provide direction as to how the Applicant can communicate with the Respondent in the future including historical concerns and present-day protection concerns.”
b. Item #9: I could not find material that indicated that the concern related to the Applicant’s alleged exposure to pornography has been answered: “The Applicant identifies that her son has been exposed to pornography and is living in an unstable environment and she would like to know why her son remains in the care of the aunt.” The Respondent did note that that they do “not identify her son’s current home environment as unstable” however, they do not identify reasons as to why they do not find the environment as unstable and do not fully answer the Applicant’s concern for her son’s well being.
ORDER
23The Respondent is to provide its answers to the items set out in paragraph 22 (Item #1 and Item #9) of the order by 5 p.m. on Friday, August 01, 2025.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
24Pursuant 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, July 21, 2025.
Sonya Vellenga
Sonya Vellenga
Member