LD v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2026 CFSRB 53

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LD

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk

Date: April 8, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 53

Indexed as: LD v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LD, Applicant

Self-represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent

JH, Counsel

OVERVIEW

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”).

2This Application was found eligible to proceed under s.120(4)5 of the Act.

3The hearing of this matter was conducted on March 9, 2026 by way of videoconference.

4The Applicant has two children (“the Children”). Her allegations in relation to the Respondent primarily pertain to one of the Children (LD).

ISSUE

5The issue to be determined is whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the following:

1. Its decision to, allegedly, close an investigation file with respect to the Applicant’s children (“the Children”) originally opened in or around February 2025, despite ongoing safety concerns;

2. Its decision to, allegedly, refuse to make a referral for the Children to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in or around February 2025;

3. Its alleged determination that it was not appropriate to require that the parenting time with the Children by their father be supervised; and,

4. Its alleged refusal to provide the Applicant with its records pertaining to the Respondent’s involvement with the Children.

RESULT

6The CFSRB finds that:

1. With respect to Issues #1 and 3, the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the decisions it made; and,

2. With respect to issues #2 and 4, there were no decisions made by the Respondent for which reasons were required.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for its decision to close an investigation file with respect to the Children, originally opened in or around February 2025, despite ongoing safety concerns.

7The Respondent conducted a child protection investigation into concerns expressed by the Applicant with respect to disclosures made to her by LD involving the Children’s father. An investigation was also conducted into allegations the Applicant was exposing the children to adult conflict. The investigation concluded that the concerns in relation to the Applicant were verified. Although the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with the verification decision for the allegations involving LD’s father, it did advise her that it did not believe the Children were unsafe in the father’s care.

8CB was the child protection worker assigned to conduct the child protection investigation. CB filed an affidavit for the hearing and was cross-examined by the Applicant. She was the Respondent’s only witness.

9CB testified that her involvement began on February 18, 2025 and ended on June 23, 2025 at which time the file was transferred to ongoing services. The Respondent closed its file in November 2025.

10The Children were each interviewed three times during the course of the investigation. The interviews were conducted both with and without police. There were multiple contacts between CB and the Applicant including by phone, in-person and in writing.

11It was the Applicant’s evidence that, on June 10, 2025, CB told her there was not enough evidence to conclude that LD was unsafe in the father’s care. The Applicant testified that she asked for particulars as to how the Respondent had reached its conclusions in the investigation and CB would not provide her with further information.

12CB testified that, at the conclusion of the child protection investigation, she advised the Applicant of the steps taken in the investigation and factors considered in reaching the verification decision. It was CB’s evidence that she told the Applicant she was unable to answer all her questions regarding the investigation involving the Children’s father due to privacy limitations. The Applicant did not dispute this evidence in cross-examination or in reply.

13CB testified that she advised the Applicant to contact CB’s supervisor if she wished to discuss the matter including to request further information.The Applicant acknowledged in cross-examination that CB advised her that she should speak with her supervisor if she had additional questions regarding the investigations. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she chose not to contact CB’s supervisor as she felt frustrated, ‘needed to take a break’ and decided to find other ways to support her daughter.

14I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for its decision in relation to its investigation of the allegations pertaining to the Children’s father. CB provided the Applicant with the factors considered in the verification process. CB advised the Applicant that confidentiality constraints limited the scope of the information she could provide, and invited the Applicant to speak with her supervisor regarding her request for additional information. The Applicant chose not to avail herself of the opportunity she was provided to discuss the matter with CB’s supervisor and request additional information.

Issue 2: Its decision to refuse to make a referral for the Children to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer in or around February 2025

15In her witness statement submitted as evidence in the hearing, the Applicant states that, during the first home visit by CB on February 25, 2025, the Applicant asked whether the Office of the Children’s Lawyer could become involved to help ensure her daughter’s voice was heard. According to the Applicant’s witness statement, she was told by CB that this was not a likely option and was instead provided with a list of community support resources. The Applicant’s testimony was different at the hearing as she testified that CB told her a referral to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was done on rare occasions but was not indicated in her matter.

16At the time of the February 25, 2025 home visit, there was no legal proceeding. During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged knowing that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer represented children in court. Her testimony was that she was not aware of the intricacies involved with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and that she just knew she needed someone to give her daughter a voice.

17It was CB’s evidence that she did not tell the Applicant that the Respondent could involve the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or make a recommendation to the court in a family law proceeding for its involvement. CB testified that she advised the Applicant that this would be a recommendation the Respondent could make to the parties if there was a legal proceeding. During the course of the Respondent’s involvement, one of the Children’s parents started a proceeding under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.12 (“CLRA”). CB testified that, after the commencement of the CLRA proceeding, the Respondent suggested requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or obtaining a Voice of the Child report. A court order has since been made in the CLRA proceeding requesting the involvement of the Children’s Lawyer.

18I find there was no decision by the Respondent to refuse the Applicant’s request that it make a referral to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The Respondent had no ability to make such a referral at the time the Applicant requested it. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer does not get involved in child protection investigations where there is no legal proceeding.

Issue 3: Its alleged determination that it was not appropriate to require that the parenting time with the Children by their father be supervised.

19It was the Applicant’s evidence that, during the initial home visit by CB on February 25, 2025, she asked about possible protective supports for LD, including supervision of LD’s time with her father, and was told by CB that this option was unlikely. The Applicant’s testimony at the hearing was different. She testified that CB told her supervised access was “not a thing”. She also testified that, later in the investigation, she made another request for the father’s access to be supervised and that her request was refused.

20CB’s evidence, corroborated by her June 10, 2025 recording, is that she noted the Respondent would not provide supervised access and that it was not warranted by the available information. This evidence was also corroborated by the Applicant’s evidence that the Respondent informed her in June 2025 that it did not believe there was sufficient evidence to conclude LD was unsafe in the father’s care.

21I find that the Respondent advised the Applicant of its reasons for it not requiring the father’s parenting time be supervised, the reason being that it had not concluded that LD was unsafe with her father.

Issue 4: Its alleged refusal to provide the Applicant with its records pertaining to the Respondent’s involvement with the Children.

22The Applicant testified that, since filing this Application, on or about November 6, 2025, she had received redacted versions of the Respondent’s records in relation to its involvement with the Children. Her evidence was that she made an online request for the Respondent’s records on October 23, 2025 and that she received the records on January 26, 2026.

23During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that she had received the Respondent’s records as it pertained to her. She also testified that an order had been made in the CLRA proceeding for disclosure of the Respondent’s record in relation to both parents.

24The Applicant did not lead any evidence that she was dissatisfied with the disclosure she had received or that she had indicated to the Respondent she was not satisfied with the disclosure.

25I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent refused to provide her with its records pertaining its involvement with the Children. The Applicant received the records within a reasonable timeframe and as discussed in this Decision, she knew that the Respondent could not provide her with information regarding its involvement with the other parent.

ORDER

26The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Pursuant 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.