CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
K and JH Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: May 04, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 66 Indexed as: K and JH v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
K and JH, Applicants Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Kate Skinner, 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”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Application consists of the following complaints:
a. The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for decisions that affect their interests, specifically:
i. Why a former Respondent family service worker allegedly “broke” a six-month contract that was allegedly made with the Applicants in or around September 2024;
ii. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to conduct a police check on the partner of the Children’s mother prior to allowing the mother to take the Children to her partner’s home in September 2024;
iii. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly spoke to the partner of the Children’s mother and allegedly convinced the partner to ask the Children and their mother to leave his home in September, 2024
iv. Why the Respondent allegedly cancelled access visits between the Children and the Applicants following one of the Applicants allegedly running into a Respondent family service worker with a scooter at an access visit in December, 2024;
v. Why a specified Respondent family service worker has failed to supervise any access visits for the Applicants with the Children;
vi. Why T. has allegedly missed six access visits with the Applicants without proper explanation;
vii. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to provide the Applicants the opportunity to speak to a worker during a plan of care meeting for the Children in or around Winter 2024;
viii. Why the Respondent is not agreeable to changing the Respondent family service worker currently supervising the Applicants’ visits with the Children;
ix. Why T.’s LEGO that the Applicants purchased for him for Christmas were allegedly thrown away;
x. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly locked T. in a room when he had a “melt down” during the Applicants’ access time and did not facilitate access;
xi. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to take x-rays (or, if x-rays were taken, failed to advise the Applicants of the results of any x-rays) of T.’s allegedly injured knees;
xii. Why the Children appear to not have showered for days;
xiii. Why the Respondent allegedly accused the Applicants of taking nude videos of the Children;
xiv. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly made up lies about the Applicants and provided negative reports about visits;
xv. Why the Respondent allegedly indicated to the Applicants that the Respondent was unconcerned by behaviour suggesting that T. may be depressed;
xvi. Why the Respondent has repeatedly asked one of the Applicants for her medical records; and
xvii. Why Respondent’s counsel allegedly indicated to new counsel contacted, but apparently not retained, by the Applicants that the Respondent had no case against the Applicants in relation to the child protection proceeding.
4The CFSRB held a Pre-Hearing videoconference at 11:00 a.m. on April 16, 2026, to lay out the logistics for a hearing for this Application. The Applicants did not present themselves for the hearing and, when contacted by the CFSRB, the Applicants did not indicate that they would attend the pre-hearing.
5In its Pre-Hearing Report dated April 16, 2026 (“April PHR”), the CFSRB indicated that the Applicants were required to contact the CFSRB by May 1, 2026, to indicate if they wished to continue with their Application. Further, the April PHR indicated that if the Applicants failed to contact the CFSRB by May 1, 2026, the Application would be deemed abandoned and the CFSRB would close the file.
ISSUE
6The issue is:
- Should the Application be dismissed as abandoned?
RESULT
7The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
ANALYSIS
The Applicants failed to attend the April 16, 2026 Pre-Hearing
8A Pre-Hearing was scheduled via the Zoom application on April 16, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The Notice of Pre-Hearing was sent by mail to the Applicants and a Case Processing Officer contacted the Applicants by phone to inform them of the date of the Pre-Hearing and to make arrangements for the Applicants to attend the Tribunals Ontario offices to participate in the videoconference pre-hearing.
9The Applicants did not attend the Tribunals Ontario offices to participate in the videoconference pre-hearing. Further, when they were contacted by the Case Processing Officer by phone, they did not indicate that they would be attending the pre-hearing and they hung up the phone.
The Applicants did not contact the CFSRB to indicate that they wished to continue their Application
10The April PHR directed the Applicants to contact the CFSRB by May 1, 2026, to indicate whether they wished to continue with their Application. The Applicants failed to do so.
11I find that the Application has been abandoned and must be dismissed
ORDER
12The Application is dismissed as abandoned.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
13Pursuant 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.
Michelaine Lahaie
Michelaine Lahaie Vice-Chair