JJZ v. The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2026 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JJZ Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: March 02, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 26 Indexed as: JZZ v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (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 “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4, and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant and her son were service recipients of the Respondent between June 2014 and July 2016. The Respondent was also involved with the family from June 13, 2019, to October 23, 2019.

4On August 15, 2025, the CFSRB issued an interim decision outlining four issues to be decided at the hearing.

5On December 8, 2025, the CFSRB issued an interim decision directing that the hearing would proceed in writing. A Case Management Direction of the same date directed the parties to file materials they intended to rely on by January 22, 2026.

6The Applicant did not file a submission for this hearing. The Respondent filed its submission on January 22, 2026, including an affidavit of NC, Child Protection Worker, attaching 20 exhibits. This decision is based on the submission and evidence submitted by the Respondent, the initial Application dated June 18, 2025, an Interim Decision dated August 15, 2025, and an Interim Decision dated December 8, 2025.

ISSUES

7The issue to be determined is whether the Respondent failed to hear and/or provide reasons to the Applicant for the following matters:

a. the Applicant raised multiple concerns related to the care of her son after he was placed in a group home by the Respondent, noting two incidents which she alleges took place on September 18 and October 12, 2015. As set out below, the incidents occurred on August 28, 2015, and October 12, 2015, and will be addressed as “the August Incident” and “the October Incident” respectively;

b. the Applicant alleges that the Respondent’s plan was for her son to remain in its “long-term care” as opposed to “temporary care” and did not communicate its intentions to her;

c. the Applicant alleges that the Respondent retaliated against her after her 2015 CFSRB Application, resulting in her being forbidden from speaking to her son on the phone. She also stated that she was to receive daily emails from workers on her son’s progress, which did not happen; and

d. the Applicant alleges that in 2019, the Respondent contacted her son, who was under the age of 16 at the time, to introduce him to the Children and Family Services of York Region.

RESULT

8I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided reasons for all issues, except with regard to the complaint listed in paragraph 6a. Although the Respondent heard the Applicant regarding the complaint listed in 6a., the respondent did not provide reasons for why it did not inform the applicant of the incident. Therefore the Respondent is directed provide her with reasons within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.

ANALYSIS

A) Did the Respondent fail to hear the Applicant or provide her with reasons for multiple concerns she raised related to the care of her son after he was placed in a group home by the Respondent, including two incidents which took place on August 28, 2015 and October 12, 2015

9The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear her or provide reasons related to care her son received at a group home in 2015. Specifically, The Applicant’s son went missing from the group home on September 18, 2015 (the actual date was August 28, 2015, as verified by the Respondent) and on October 12, 2015, her son was in a physical altercation with another youth which caused him serious injuries. The Applicant alleges that she was not contacted about either of these incidents and was not given reasons for the Respondent’s failure to advise her of them.

10The Respondent acknowledges that both of these incidents happened but disputes the specific facts and context around each. It further argues that it communicated extensively with the Applicant about both of these incidents.

11For the following reasons, I find that the Respondent failed to hear or provide the Applicant with reasons with respect to the August Incident but did meet its obligations under section 120(4)4 and 5 for the October Incident.

The August Incident

12The Respondent submits that it does not have records of the Applicant’s son going missing on or about September 18, 2015. However, it does have records that her son was missing on August 28, 2015, and believes that this is the incident being referred to. With nothing to contradict this from the Applicant, I find that this is likely the relevant date This conclusion is supported by email correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent on September 1 and September 3, 2025. Accepting August 28, 2015, as the accurate date, I find that no reasons were provided for why the Applicant was not told about this incident sooner.

13A Contact Log dated August 28, 2015, at 2:18am, records that the staff at the group home contacted the Emergency After Hours Supervisor (“EAHS”) and notified them that the Applicant’s son had snuck out of the home. The log further states “Police from Div 21 Communications have been called and are going to the home to get a statement. It is suspected that this youngster may be heading home.” It is not known if police had in fact gone to the Applicant’s home for a statement.

14A Contact Log at 5:16am reports that the Applicant’s son returned to the group home around 4:00am.

15There was no evidence presented to show that the Applicant was contacted on August 28, 2015, to advise her that her son had left the group home. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that reasons were provided for why the Respondent failed to contact the Applicant.

16At 10:52pm, September 1, 2015 (4 days later), the Applicant emailed the Respondent very concerned that her son had told her that he was outside between 1am and 4am. The Respondent and Applicant spoke on the phone the next morning to discuss her concerns. A follow up email also acknowledged the concern and provided further details around how her son was able to leave, and the steps taken once it was discovered he was missing.

17On September 3, 2015, a further email from the Applicant explains that staff did not alert her to this incident, and she only found out because her son told her. She specifically questioned why the Respondent workers did not tell her right away.

18There are no further logs or emails which provide any evidence that this question was answered. As such, I am unable to conclude that the Applicant was provided any reasons on why she was not told about the August 28, 2015, Incident sooner.

October Incident

19On October 12, 2015, at 8:45pm, the Applicant’s son was in a physical altercation with another youth at the group home. The altercation resulted in injuries to his teeth and mouth. Staff at the group home contacted the Applicant wherein her son spoke to her in Mandarin and explained what happened.

20A Contact Log at 11:45pm that night indicates that staff at the group home called EAHS to seek advice. The Applicant had called very angry and wanted the police contacted and for her son to be taken to the hospital. Staff and EAHS decided to follow up the next day as the son was safe and no imminent risk was identified.

21Evidenced by Contact Logs, the Respondent did in fact speak with the Applicant by phone the next morning, listened to her concerns surrounding the incident and explained why police were not called. Another update was provided to the Applicant via phone in the afternoon providing further details, answering questions, and providing an update that her son had been taken to the dentist and did not need hospitalization.

22A handwritten note dated October 23, 2015, from a worker who attended a visitation with the Applicant and her son also confirms that conversations between the Applicant and Respondent took place about the October Incident. The Applicant told the worker that she “told them to bring to the hospital if this was a serious incident. I asked the staff to make soft food.”

23On October 17, 2015, the Respondent communicated with the Applicant and confirmed that they would provide her with an incident and dental report.

24A Placement Planning Conference was held on October 27, 2015. The Respondent, Applicant and her son, discussed whether he felt safe remaining in the group home. Further concerns about the October Incident could have been raised at this meeting.

25NC’s evidence as per paragraph 23 of her Affidavit states that on December 3, 2015, she had a conversation about the October Incident again. The Applicant wanted a specific worker to take responsibility for the October Incident and wanted compensation for the scar her son now had. The Applicant was not satisfied with the answers provided by NC and asked to meet with the branch director. NC emailed her supervisor NM and copied the Applicant to request this meeting.

26The Applicant was invited to attend a Plan of Care meeting on December 21, 2015, where she could have voiced concerns again if desired, but declined to attend.

27As evidenced, the Applicant was provided with opportunities to be heard around the October Incident, was provided reasons for how it was managed, had questions around compensation answered, and had kept her up to date on the dental treatment afterwards.

B) Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and/or provide her with reasons for their alleged intention to have her son remain in long term care as opposed to temporary care.

28The Applicant alleges that the Respondent intended to have her son remain in long term care and did not provide her with reasons for this decision.

29The Respondent submits that for the period of time that the Applicant’s son was in care, there was a Protection Application before the Ontario Court of Justice, and its position was before the court. The Respondent argues that after the Applicant’s son was admitted into care, it communicated with the Applicant several times what expectations she needed to meet before it would support varying the court order.

30As per the Affidavit of NC, and supported by documentary evidence, the following communication took place:

i. Aug 27, 2015, and Sept 2, 2015, the Respondent met with the Applicant and explained the amount of time her son spent in care was dependant on the applicant acknowledging and addressing specific concerns.

ii. November 13, 2015, the Applicant met with NC and an Access Worker who reviewed concerns and in specific detail what needed to happen in order for the Applicant’s son to be returned to her care.

iii. November 24, 2015, the Respondent sent the Applicant a letter which outlined what the Applicant needed to address in order for it to recommend that her son return to her care.

iv. December 22, 2015, NC, and the Access Worker discussed a reintegration plan with the Applicant.

31Given the evidence of multiple communications, I find that the Respondent has heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for its decision for this complaint.

C) Did the Respondent hear or provide reasons relating to the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent retaliated against her after her 2015 CFSRB Application, resulting in her being forbidden from speaking to her son on the phone or receiving daily emails from workers on her son’s progress.

32The Respondent confirms that it was agreed amongst the parties that the Respondent would provide daily updates on her son’s progress via email. It also agrees that regular phone calls between the Applicant and her son were scheduled. However, it argues that daily emails did in fact occur. It also submits that scheduled phone calls between the Applicant and her son did take place, but not if her son specifically decided to not speak to her. It was explained to the Applicant that her son would not be forced to speak with her on the phone.

33The evidence of NC as stated in paragraphs 38 – 39 of her Affidavit, is that upon review of the Respondent’s records, daily updates had occurred as agreed and there was no direction provided to cease these updates. No evidence has been provided by the Applicant which would contradict this or that the Applicant complained that she was not receiving these updates.

34During a home visit between the Applicant and NC on November 13, 2015, the frequency of phone calls with her son, and the son’s decision on whether to speak to the Applicant or not was discussed. NC and the Applicant spoke about a plan going forward to assist with the scheduled phone calls.

35On December 3, 2015, Contact Logs show that the Applicant’s son had refused to speak with the Applicant when she called. The Applicant spoke to staff at the group home as well as EAHS about this issue. Staff at the group home and EAHS explained that the son can make the decision as to whether to speak with her or not. Notes in the log confirm that this situation and explanation to the Applicant had happened many times in the past.

36In reviewing the evidence before me, the Applicant was provided multiple opportunities to have her concerns heard and reasons were provided around the frequency of phone calls with her son.

37Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and/ or provide reasons for the allegation that in 2019, it contacted her son, who was under the age of sixteen, to introduce him to the Children and Family Service for York Region.

38At the time of the opening of its file for the Applicant’s son on June 13, 2019, the son was 15 years old and living independently from the Applicant. The Respondent provided the son with a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement as he expressed interest in receiving supports past the age of sixteen.

39On or about September 5, 2019, a referral to the York Region Children’s Aid Society was completed as the son was going to be moving to Markham. At the time of this referral, the Applicant’s son was 16 years old and was represented by a Children’s lawyer.

40The York Region Children’s Aid Society provided voluntary youth services from this date. The Respondent closed its file on October 25, 2019.

41As per the Affidavit of NC, and supported by documentary evidence, multiple attempts were made to communicate with the Applicant prior to the referral made on September 5, 2019:

i. July 23, 2019, a Respondent worker left a voice mail to speak about a plan for her son moving forward.

ii. August 13 and 19, 2019, NC spoke with the Applicant’s support person where the Applicant’s concerns, wishes and goals for her son were relayed and the Respondent told the support person that she could meet with the Applicant any time she would like, including with support people.

iii. August 19, 2019, a Respondent worker spoke with the Applicant and a support person. The Applicant asked why she had not been contacted by a Society until now. The Respondent worker spoke to the Applicant about the son’s plan to attend school and that it would first need the son’s consent to discuss further plans and goals he had spoken to the Respondent about. They also discussed setting up another meeting.

iv. August 30, 2019, the Respondent worker received a voice mail from the Applicant’s support person advising that the Applicant would like to continue to correspond through a support person.

v. September 4, 2019, Respondent worker spoke to the Applicant’s support person explaining that the son would be entering into a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement and that he was comfortable sharing this information with the Applicant. The Respondent worker also provided information around financial supports that the son would be receiving and that moving forward her work would be directly with the son only under the Voluntary Youth Services Agreement, but that she could answer the Applicant’s questions as they came up.

42Given the communications between the Respondent and the Applicant prior to the referral, I find that the Respondent heard and provided reasons to the Applicant for this complaint.

CONCLUSION

43The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard, and with reasons for the complaints listed in paragraphs 6b - d. The Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for the complaint listed in paragraph 6a.

ORDER

44The Application is upheld in part. The complaint listed in paragraph 6a is upheld, the remaining complaints listed in paragraph 6 are dismissed.

45Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with written reasons for why it did not tell her about the August 28, 2015, incident prior to her son telling her on September 1, 2015.

confidentiality order

46Pursuant 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.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley Member