CK v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2026 CFSRB 39

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CK

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: March 17, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 39

Indexed as: CK v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (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.

3A Pre-hearing Report dated October 28, 2025, outlined the issues to be decided at the hearing.

4A one-day hearing via videoconference was scheduled for January 6, 2026. In advance of the hearing, both parties exchanged and submitted the evidence they intended to rely on. The Applicant requested an adjournment to address the Respondent’s concerns after it objected to the admissibility of some of the Applicant’s evidence.

5A Case Management Direction dated January 6, 2026 (amended January 14, 2026), allowed the adjournment and directed that the hearing proceed by way of a written hearing. The Respondent removed its objection to the Applicant’s previously submitted evidence, and instead asked that it be evaluated as to its credibility, relevance and weight by the CFSRB. Each party was directed to file their submissions, including any additional evidence they intended to rely on by February 20, 2026.

6In reviewing this matter, I have relied on the material submitted in preparation of the January 6, 2026 hearing, as well as the submissions and documentation provided pursuant to the Case Management Direction dated January 6, 2026 (amended January 14, 2026).

ISSUES

7The issues to be determined are as follows:

i. Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent with respect to her concerns that:

1. the Respondent allegedly failed to contact her prior to or following the closure of her file in or around December 2024 (the “December 2024 File”), and

2. the Respondent allegedly failed to contact her prior to the closure of her file in July 2025 (the “July 2025 File”).

ii. Was the Applicant provided reasons for why the Respondent closed the December 2024 File and the July 2025 File;

iii. Was the Applicant provided with reason for why there was an alleged delay in the completion of a home assessment of the residence of the child’s father following the opening of the Applicant’s file with the Respondent in or around February 2025; and

iv. Was the Applicant provided with reasons for why there was an alleged delay in interviewing the child following the opening of the Applicant’s file with the Respondent in or around February 2025.

RESULT

8The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did not hear the Applicants concerns or provide reasons for allegedly failing to contact her prior to or following the closure of the December 2024 File; and that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for: why it closed the December 2024 File, why there was an alleged delay in completing a home assessment for the child’s father, and why there was an alleged delay in completing an interview of the child.

ANALYSIS

9The Applicant is the mother of one child. At all relevant times, she resided in Ontario. The child’s biological father resided in Quebec. The child primarily resided in Ontario with the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that she contacted the Respondent on various occasions in response to concerns she had for the child while he was visiting his father in Quebec.

10Because the incidents occurred in Quebec, the Applicant’s concerns were brought to the relevant Society in Quebec, the Direction de la protection de la jeunesse (“DPJ”), as well as the Respondent.

11As evidenced by Child Protection Information Network logs (“CPIN logs”) and letters, both societies acknowledged that they had different rules, procedures, and policies with regard to jurisdiction which made it difficult to determine who had jurisdiction, and who should lead the investigation. Further, both agencies were attempting to work with both Ontario and Quebec police, with the issue of which society had jurisdiction not always clear. Although this Application is specifically related to whether the Respondent heard and provided reasons, not the DPJ, it is important to understand the context.

12The Applicant submitted 12 “transcripts” of telephone conversations she had with workers from both societies, which she submits as evidence for each issue. A general sense of the context that the issues took place in can be inferred from reading all of the transcripts as a whole. However, I find that little weight can be given to the detailed content of many of the transcripts, and I have not relied on them, as they are the Applicant’s own personal transcriptions which she concedes have not been verified by independent third parties, and may not be full verbatim accounts of the conversations. I have given more weight to the content in the transcripts where there are CPIN logs, emails or letters which provide supporting evidence.

13The Respondent confirmed that it had opened three separate files with the Applicant: the December 2024 File, the July 2025 File and a third file from February 2025 – April 2025.

ISSUES

a) Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent with respect to her concern that the Respondent allegedly failed to contact her prior to or following the closure of the December 2024 File, or the July 2025 File and/or did they provide reasons for the file closures

14JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2012, CFSRB 25 para 28 held that there is a link between the right to be heard and the right to reasons because having information helps people understand, participate, and accept decisions. As such, I have reviewed the issues outlined in paragraph 7i and ii together.

15The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to contact her prior to closing both the December 2024 File and the July 2025 File. She submits that this resulted in her not having a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process, provide input and information before a final decision was made. She further argues that she was provided with no reasons why either of these files were closed.

16The Respondent argues that it did in fact hear the Applicant’s concerns. It submits that for the period between November 2024 to July 2025, it spoke to the Applicant at least 15 times. It alleges that case notes and logs show there were over 23 text messages, phone calls, face to face meetings and emails. It submits that the Applicant was very aware of decisions that were being made.

17P.O v Family and Children Services of Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 at paras 13 – 14, the CFSRB states that the purpose of 120 4 (4) and (5):

reflects the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

18I find that, contrary to the assertion of the Respondent, the sheer number of times the parties were in contact does not, in and of itself, prove that there was active listening, that the Applicant was given an opportunity to have input, or given an opportunity to feel that she was taken seriously. This is especially true in situations where, even though many contacts were made, sufficient information was not provided to allow the Applicant to make informed responses.

19Similarly, an assumption cannot be made that just because there were a significant number of communications between the parties, sufficient reasons have been provided. A determination of sufficient reasons must include looking at the level of detail provided and whether the Applicant herself would be able to understand why and how decisions were made (JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, para 13).

20What constitutes sufficient reasons must be examined in the context of the particular situation, as per JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, ibid. In this matter, it is important to note that the Applicant identifies as Metis and has a history of trauma as a child which was well known to the Respondent. In addition, there were jurisdictional challenges and confusion with the Respondent and DJP providing different information to the Applicant about who was taking the lead on the investigation, who had jurisdiction, and who had opened a file. What constitutes sufficient must be assessed with that context to ensure that this specific Applicant in this specific situation, was given enough information to understand why decisions were made.

December 2024 File

21The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with advance notice that her file was at risk of closure or that a decision to close the file was even being contemplated. She submits that she was only informed after the file had been closed and that the matter had been referred to or associated with the DPJ.

22As set out in two unverified transcripts, the Applicant contacted both the Respondent and the DPJ on December 6, 2024 with a concern about her child that occurred in Quebec while he was visiting his father. The Applicant had a discussion with both societies about whether DPJ or the Respondent had jurisdiction. The Respondent has confirmed within its written submission that the issue of jurisdiction was at question. Specifically, it submits that it received confirmation from DPJ on December 6, 2024, that DPJ would assume jurisdiction.

23A CPIN note dated December 16, 2024, summarizes a telephone conversation between the Applicant and a Respondent worker. It notes “I advised that given the incident took place in Quebec and that DPJ has confirmed with us that they will be investigating, the case here has been closed.”

24An unverified transcript of a conversation between the Respondent and the Applicant on February 27, 2025, appears to indicate that the Respondent advised the Applicant that it has now learned that the DPJ closed their file because its policies state that jurisdiction lies where the child resides, not where the alleged incident occurs. CPIN logs confirm a conversation took place on this date between the Applicant and Respondent, but the content of the conversation was not provided.

25Another unverified transcript dated March 17, 2025, between the Applicant and KM Supervisor, DPJ, shows the DPJ explaining to the Applicant that it does not have jurisdiction as the child resides in Ontario. It is explained that the Respondent could send a formal request for collaboration, and then at that point, it could assist. The content of this transcript is supported by a letter prepared in response to the CFSRB hearing, dated December 30, 2025, from CG, Chef de service DPJ. The letter explains that it had advised the Applicant that it did not have jurisdiction to open a file. The DPJ believed that the Respondent had taken charge of the file, and the Respondent could request collaboration so the DPJ could carry out requested verifications.

26On May 10, 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent submitting a formal complaint. Of the concerns the Applicant raised in this email, she includes the fact that she has had no direct response from the Respondent on direct questions she had about why the file was closed without informing her. She requested a formal investigation to be done and this question to be answered. Although there is documentation indicating that a telephone call to discuss was set and took place on May 14, no evidence has been provided to confirm if the answer was provided.

27It is understandable, given the above context, that the Applicant would not have felt heard or taken seriously by the Respondent or DPJ as neither were accepting jurisdiction and instead referred jurisdiction to the other. The Applicant was receiving conflicting and confusing messages from two different societies.

28Further, given the contradictory messages the Applicant received from the DPJ after the Respondent provided reasons on December 16, 2024, these reasons would no longer be sufficient for her to understand the decision to close the file. There was no follow up to clarify the confusion. As such, I find the Respondent failed in its obligation to provide an opportunity to be heard and provide reasons for the closing of the December 2024 File.

July 2025 File

29The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with advance notice that the July 2025 File was at risk of being closed.

30The Respondent submits that the DPJ advised that it would not accept carriage of the file because their policy was to open a file where the child resided. The Respondent agreed to open a file in response to the DPJ decision. It argues that an investigation took place, and the outcome was discussed with the Applicant. She was provided an opportunity to be heard and was given reasons for the closure of the July 2025 File.

31The Applicant points to a telephone call with a Respondent worker on June 12, 2025, where the worker advised that the concerns were not verified and the matter was “closed”, as evidence that a decision to close the file was made without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard about that decision.

32The Respondent asserts that this same phone conversation proves that the Applicant’s concerns were in fact heard. When the Respondent closed the file, the assigned Worker had a phone meeting with the Applicant where the Respondent’s position was explained. The Respondent’s CPIN log dated June 12, 2025, summarizes this conversation. It confirms that the Applicant was advised that an inspection of the child’s father’s home was carried out, that the outcome of the investigation was that the concerns were not verified, and the file would be closed. The Applicant and Respondent discussed next steps.

33Contrary to the concern above, I find that the Respondent did in fact provide an opportunity to be heard about her concern surrounding the July 2025 closure of the file and was provided with reasons in a way that she would have understood why and how a decision was made, regardless of whether she agreed with it or not.

b) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reason for why there was an alleged delay in the completion of a home assessment for the residence of the Child’s Father following the opening of the Applicant’s file with the Respondent in or around February 2025

34The Applicant submits that a home assessment for the residence of the child’s father was not conducted in a timely manner. She argues that she was not provided with written reason for why there was a delay, despite repeated requests.

35The Respondent’s submission does not specifically address this issue beyond stating that the Applicant was aware of all decisions that were made.

36Multiple emails were sent to the Respondent by the Applicant requesting an update on the home assessment, including on May 10 and May 14, 2025.

37According to a CPIN entry dated June 12, 2025, a walk-through of the residence was completed, and the Applicant was advised once this had been done.

38No CPIN logs, emails or letters confirm why there was a delay in doing the home assessment, only that a home assessment was scheduled and eventually completed. Given the issues and questions around jurisdiction, it is possible to infer from all evidence provided that jurisdiction contributed to the delay. However, I find in this context, inferred reasons are insufficient. No actual evidence has been provided to the CFSRB which would show that the Respondent gave explicit reasons for why there was a delay in conducting the home assessment of the child’s father’s home.

39Accordingly, I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for this concern.

c) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for why there was an alleged delay in interviewing the child following the opening of the Applicant’s file with the Respondent in or around February 2025

40The Applicant submits that the child was not interviewed in a timely manner. She argues that she was provided no written reason for why there was a delay.

41The Applicant argues that the file was opened in February 2025, but an interview was not conducted until May 2, 2025. CPIN logs confirm that an interview was in fact conducted on May 2, 2025.

42Again, it is possible to infer that the confusion as to which society had jurisdiction may have contributed to the delay. No actual evidence was provided to show that explicit reasons were provided, and I do not find inference is sufficient. The Respondent failed to provide reasons for this concern.

CONCLUSION

43I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant:

a. an opportunity to be heard for her concern that she was provided no prior notice that the December 2024 File would be closed;

b. reasons for why the decision was made to close the December 2024 File;

c. reasons for why there was a delay in conducting a home assessment on the child’s father’s home; and

d. reasons for why there was a delay in conducting an interview of the child.

44I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant:

a. an opportunity to be heard about her concerns that she was not provided with notice that the July 2025 File was closing; and

b. reasons for why the July 2025 closed.

ORDER

45The Application is upheld in part.

46Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for the following:

1. why the December 2024 File was closed. The reasons must be detailed enough to allow the Applicant an opportunity to understand why the decision was made originally on December 2024, as well as remaining closed after the fact became known that the DPJ had closed its file.

2. why there was a delay in conducting a home assessment on the child’s father’s home.

3. why there was a delay in conducting an interview of the child. Specifically, why did an interview of the child not take place until May 2, 2025.

confidentiality order

47Pursuant 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