CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AK
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tracy Foster
Indexed as: AK v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
AK, Applicant
Self-Represented
Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
JB, Legal 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 (“Act”).
2At the February 18, 2026 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is comprised of five terms. The second term (Term 2) has four parts. The fourth term (Term 4) has two parts and the fifth term (Term 5) has two parts. The Agreement includes an implementation date of March 18, 2026 and a non-compliance date of March 25, 2026.
3As set out in the Agreement, the Respondent sent the Applicant two letters. The letter dated February 24, 2026 (“February 24th Letter”) was in response to Term 1 and the letter dated March 4, 2026 (“March 4th Letter”) was in response to Term 2.
4On March 25, 2026, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB (“March 25th Email”), copying the Respondent, with allegations that the Respondent did not comply with Terms 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement.
5On March 26, 2026, the CFSRB emailed the Parties a letter acknowledging the Applicant’s non-compliance allegations. The letter indicated that the Respondent may respond to the allegations by April 2, 2026. The Respondent’s April 9th, 2026 response to the CFSRB’s acknowledgement letter was delayed in part because of an incorrect email address.
6Based on the written submissions provided by the Respondent and the Applicant I find that I can decide the issue of non-compliance without a further videoconference.
ISSUE
7Has the Respondent complied with Terms 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement?
RESULT
8I find that the Respondent has complied with Terms 1, 2 and 5a of the Agreement. I find that the Respondent did not comply with Term 4 or Term 5b of the Agreement.
ANALYSIS
Term 1
9Term 1 of the Agreement is:
By February 27, 2026, the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant and her ex-partner outlining [its] current support of the Applicant’s unsupervised access of the Child (“MK”).
10The Respondent provided the required letter to the Applicant on February 24, 2026. The letter states that the Respondent has “noted recent improvement in your emotional regulation since December 2025,” and “Considering your more stable emotional regulation since December 2025, the Society does not currently have concerns that would justify supervised access.” The letter also states, “the Society is aware that your emotional state can change quite abruptly, so there remains a responsibility to assess the need for supervision prior to each access period with [the Child].” The letter also provides guidelines for the Applicant’s ex-partner and his current partner to also assess the Applicant’s behaviour when determining what is safe for the Child in considering whether supervised access is required.
11In the Applicant’s March 25th Email, she acknowledges that the Respondent complied with the timing of the letter. However, she claims that the Respondent did not provide a copy of the letter to her ex-partner and she had to do that herself. The Applicant also takes issue with the content of the letter, indicating it does not clearly communicate a defined position and contains “contradictory statements and conditional statements.” She asserts that the letter contains “vague and subjective indicators” which are not aligned with any child protection standards. In an email sent to the CFSRB on April 8, 2026, the Applicant states that her ex-partner confirmed he did not receive a copy of the February 24th Letter and that it was the Applicant who had provided him with a copy.
12In its April 9th Letter, the Respondent takes the position that it clearly communicated its position on unsupervised access to the Applicant. The Respondent did not comment on whether it provided a copy of the February 24th Letter to the Applicant’s ex-partner as outlined in Term 1. However, the February 24th Letter states, “As per the direction of the CFSRB, [the Applicant’s ex-partner] will also receive a copy of this letter.”
13While the Applicant may disagree with the content of the Respondent’s April 9th Letter, the CFSRB is satisfied the Respondent substantively met the requirement of the Term as set out in the Agreement. In the letter, the Respondent sets out its current position, but notes that given their past concerns, this could change. The Respondent provided examples of behaviours that may trigger reassessment. This addition to the letter is part of their current position.
14Given the Applicant’s submission that her ex-partner did not receive a copy of the April 9th Letter from the Respondent and she had to provide it to him, I find that the Respondent did not comply with the delivery requirement. However, the Applicant remedied this by providing a copy to her ex-partner so there is no further order to be made. I find that the Respondent has substantively complied with Term 1.
Term 2
15Term 2 of the Agreement is:
By March 5, 2026, the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining reasons for the following:
a) What is the Respondent’s current involvement with the Applicant: why is her file still open, and what milestones or goals would need to be met for the file to be closed.
b) Why did the Respondent allegedly contact the Applicant’s father without her consent and without advising her to discuss supervised access of MK.
c) The Applicant has raised multiple concerns regarding MK’s unaddressed dental and vision care since 2024. Why has the Respondent allegedly not addressed these concerns?
d) The Applicant has raised concerns regarding MK’s involvement with “Sprunky” cartoons, and online activities including various games that may include adult themes (gore, horror and drug elements) as well as access to chatrooms with adult males. The Applicant is concerned with MK’s device access and management. Why has the Respondent allegedly not addressed these concerns?
16The Applicant alleged that the Society did not provide clear reasons for any of the of the parts of Term 2 (a through d). The Respondent submitted that for each of the parts, it provided clear and adequate reasons to the Applicant. I will review the Applicant’s specific allegations below.
2a) What is the Respondent’s current involvement with the Applicant: why is her file still open, and what milestones or goals would need to be met for the file to be closed.
17In the March 4th Letter, the Respondent provided a brief summary/chronology of its involvement with the Applicant from June 2023 to present. The Respondent states, “For the protection file to close, the Society would need to see that the original protection concerns regarding Ashley’s mental health instability have been mitigated such that [the Child] would not be at risk of harm.” The Respondent then states two ways in which this could be achieved: 1) the Court could order that the Child remains in her father’s care with her father having discretion over access by the Applicant; or 2) by the Applicant addressing her mental health so that she is able to demonstrate stability over an extended period of time. The Respondent describes how it would assess the Applicant’s mental health stability. The Respondent states that its observations indicate that mental health stability has not been achieved consistently over time.
18The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide clear, measurable, or objective criteria in its answer.
19I find that the Respondent has answered the question and provided clear and measurable criteria. Thus, the Respondent has complied with Term 2a). The Respondent summarized their involvement with the Applicant, explained why the file is still open, and what would need to happen for the Respondent to close its file. Although it has not provided a specific timetable, it has explained that the Applicant must demonstrate stability over an “extended period of time.” An assessment such as this does not necessarily follow a linear path and the Respondent further explains that it must assess not only the Applicant’s current stability, but also her ability to maintain stability. This is not a question that can be answered empirically.
2b) Why did the Respondent allegedly contact the Applicant’s father without her consent and without advising her to discuss supervised access of [the Child].
20In the March 4th Letter, the Respondent describes the chronology of events leading to the Respondent Supervisor contacting the Applicant’s father. The Applicant called the Respondent and spoke to the covering Supervisor. The Applicant told the covering Supervisor that her father agreed to supervise her visit and that she made a police report about the Child’s father. Supervisor KB then spoke with the Applicant to inform her he wanted to speak with her father about the access plan because the Applicant was reporting two separate things. The Applicant provided KB her father’s phone number and agreed to KB speaking with her father. KB spoke with the Child’s father to receive an update on what the Applicant’s father had agreed to. KB then phoned the Applicant’s father to clarify what he had committed to.
21The Applicant alleges that the response introduces unrelated information (the police report), provides a narrative of events rather than clear rationale and does not explain the authority or decision-making process in contacting a third party.
22I find that the Respondent provided a clear response to Term 2b). The Respondent provided context for how the call came about and relayed that KB spoke with the Applicant in advance of discussing the access plan with her father. The Applicant provided KB with her father’s phone number and consent to speak with him.
2c) The Applicant has raised multiple concerns regarding [the Child’s] unaddressed dental and vision care since 2024. Why has the Respondent allegedly not addressed these concerns?
23In the March 4th Letter, the Respondent indicates that the Applicant expressed concerns about the Child’s dental and vision conditions. The Respondent states it shared the Applicant’s concerns with the Child’s father and his partner. The Respondent notes that it has discussed different parenting styles with the Applicant in terms of her concerns, and advised her that her concerns do not meet the threshold for child protection. The Respondent further describes following up with the Child’s dentist who indicated there were no concerns that had not been addressed in terms of her dental health. The Respondent provides an account of its communications with the Child’s optometrist who reported that the Child will continue to require regular eye measurements, but the optometrist has no concerns with the child’s care and follow up. Additionally, the Respondent describes contacting the Child’s school principal with regards to her progress and the Child’s physician with regards to her general health care. The principal and the physician reported no concerns.
24The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not demonstrate that these concerns were independently assessed or investigated in a meaningful way.
25I find that the Respondent provided a detailed description of how it reviewed the Applicant’s concerns, addressed her concerns with the Child’s father and his partner, and followed up with the involved healthcare professionals despite the Applicant’s concerns not meeting the threshold for childcare protection. I find that the Respondent took the Applicant’s concerns seriously and provided a detailed explanation in its letter. Therefore, the Respondent complied with Term 2c).
2d) The Applicant has raised concerns regarding [the Child’s] involvement with “[Sprunki]” cartoons, and online activities including various games that may include adult themes (gore, horror and drug elements) as well as access to chatrooms with adult males. The Applicant is concerned with [the Child’s] device access and management. Why has the Respondent allegedly not addressed these concerns?
26In the March 4th Letter, the Respondent describes discussing online access to an inappropriate cartoon after the Applicant reported concerns. The Child’s father noted he had seen child-friendly episodes of the cartoon, but sometimes on YouTube another video that may not be age-appropriate may play. The Child’s father agreed to supervise the Child’s tablet usage more closely. The Respondent indicates that the Child’s father also confirmed that the Child’s only online friends are friends from school. The Respondent states that the Applicant was told that it asked the Child’s father to monitor the Child’s online use more closely, create playlists, adjust parental controls, monitor content and review the friends to ensure they are the Child’s school friends. The Respondent notes that the Applicant was asked to do the same when the Child is in her home.
27The Applicant alleges that the Respondent relied on the father’s explanation without explaining how it was verified, does not address documented concerns regarding unsupervised online interactions, provides inaccurate timelines and fails to explain how it assessed the risk.
28The March 4th letter outlines the steps taken by the Respondent to bring the concerns to the attention of the Child’s father, provided direction to the father regarding the Child’s online activities and he agreed to do this. The Respondent clearly explained how it addressed the Applicant’s concerns. I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1d).
Term 4
29Term 4 of the Agreement is:
By March 18, 2026, the Respondent shall arrange and conduct a meeting, either in-person or by video conference, with the Applicant. Attendees from the Respondent shall include KB, Child Protection Supervisor (or designate) and CB, Child Protection Worker. The meeting shall include:
a) The Respondent will set up process to document and provide timely written follow up to the Applicant on key decisions it makes affecting her interests:
When it has concerns about the Applicant’s mental health
Recommendations the Respondent provides around access, where it is mandated by court
Meetings with follow ups with the Applicant’s mental health supports
b) The Respondent shall explain its current position regarding parenting time for the mother and what the Respondent would need to see in order to recommend changes. The Respondent shall provide a recap of the explanation in writing to the Applicant.
30In her March 25th Email, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not arrange and conduct a meeting as outlined in the term. She states that on March 23, 2026, she contacted Respondent Supervisor KB and was advised that the meeting had not been scheduled due, allegedly, to a previously cancelled home visit. The Applicant states that the Respondent proposed a meeting date of April 3, 2026, but rather than move forward with the meeting she determined that it was appropriate to first raise her concerns regarding non-compliance of the Terms with the CFSRB.
31In its April 9th Letter, the Respondent asserts that it arranged to meet with the Applicant on March 11, 2026. The Respondent agreed to a worker change, and one was assigned. The Applicant refused to meet with the assigned Worker because they report to the same Supervisor, KB. A third Worker has been assigned who reports to a different Supervisor. The Respondent states that the new Worker and Supervisor are willing to meet with the Applicant to devise a communication plan.
32It is apparent that the meeting as per the Agreement did not take place, and therefore there was also no follow up explanation in writing. It is unclear from the submissions what exactly took place leading to the meeting not happening.
33With the information provided, I cannot find the Respondent complied with Term 4. However, the Respondent indicates that the Worker and Supervisor are willing to meet with the Applicant at her request. Given this, there are no further Orders to be provided on this Term.
Term 5
34Term 5 of the Agreement is:
By March 18, 2026, the Respondent shall arrange and conduct a video conference meeting with the Applicant. Attendees from the Respondent shall include [KB], Child Protection Supervisor (or designate) and a representative of the Privacy Office:
a) The representative of the Privacy Office shall facilitate the Applicant’s retrieval of her disclosure documents from May 2025 and October 2025.
b) The meeting shall include a discussion, with a follow up in writing, explaining the disclosure process, when things are redacted versus when they are not redacted, and how to request disclosure on a regular basis.
35In her March 25th Email, the Applicant alleges that a meeting with the Privacy Office took place by videoconference; however, she was not provided with a written explanation regarding the disclosure process, redaction and how to request ongoing disclosure.
36In its April 9th Letter, the Respondent agreed that the meeting with the Privacy Office took place. It provided a contact log from the meeting. The contact log is abbreviated and does not provide the information that was requested to be in writing.
37I find that the Respondent did not comply with Term 5b) of the Agreement.
ORDER
38In regard to Term 5b, by May 15, 2026, the Respondent shall send a letter of direction to the Applicant, explaining the disclosure process, when things are redacted versus when they are not redacted, and how the Applicant can request disclosure on a regular basis, as a follow up to the meeting that occurred earlier with the Privacy Office.
39The Application is closed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
40Pursuant 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.
Tracy Foster
Tracy Foster
Member