WE v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 125

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

WE Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: September 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 125 Indexed As: WE v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

WE, Applicant Self-represented

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Rachel Buhler, 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 sections 120(4)4, and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3Eight separate complaints were identified during a Pre-hearing on May 27, 2025, and are summarized below in paragraph 7.

4An Internal Complaints Review Panel meeting (“ICRP meeting”) was held between the Applicant and the Respondent on June 20, 2025.

5The CFSRB held a full-day oral hearing by videoconference on August 13, 2025.

6The material and submissions relied upon by the Applicant included email communications, letters, court documents and an ICRP report dated June 20, 2025 (“ICRP Report”). The Respondent submitted emails as well as oral evidence by the following workers: NM, Child Protection Supervisor, and AK, Child Protection Worker.

ISSUE

7The issues are:

a. Were the Applicant’s concerns on the following matters heard:

i. that his requests to the Respondent for accommodation for his disability were not being met;

ii. that the Respondent’s kinship worker was strongly allied with his ex-partner’s family, with whom his children reside, and that this alliance was resulting in a negative perception of the Applicant and poor communication to the Applicant regarding the children’s progress;

iii. regarding mental health issues for himself and the children, specifically:

1. that there has been a lack of communication between himself and the children’s medical and clinical supports and treatment providers, including the importance of these supports being made fully aware of the potential traumatic impact on the children of seeing the Applicant removed from the home in handcuffs for mental health reasons based on false allegations by his ex-partner;

2. the Applicant’s history of generational trauma as a child who was placed for adoption;

3. that neither he nor his treating psychiatrist have been heard regarding his current mental stability and that the Respondent persists in focusing on the Applicant’s mental health despite receiving documentation from his psychiatrist of his stability, and he has not been heard or credited by the Respondent regarding his history of ten years of positive parenting of the children with no child protection issues; and

iv. the amount of time the children have spent out of school while in care;

b. Was the Applicant heard and provided reasons for the following concerns and decisions:

i. that he felt silenced by the Respondent’s unilateral termination of a complaints process in a March 19, 2025, letter and that this closing of the complaint resulted in the Applicant not being fully provided with answers or reasons for his concerns outlined in his March 11, 2025, email to the Respondent; and

ii. that the Respondent has not fully involved the Applicant in treatment planning and decision making regarding the children, and particularly the children’s mental health treatment.

RESULT

8The CFSRB finds that the Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard on all concerns list in paragraph 7a and has been heard and provided reasons for the concerns listed in paragraph 7b.

ANALYSIS

Has the Applicant had his concerns as outlined in paragraph 7a heard?

9The Applicant alleges that his concerns were not heard on matters that affected his interests as listed in paragraph 7a.

10The Applicant submits that he has repeatedly tried to voice his concerns to the Respondent but feels that his concerns are disregarded, belittled, or reframed to benefit the Respondent. He feels that his concerns have not been given weight because of an alleged bias of workers, his communication style resulting from his disability, and systemic failures. However, in his closing, the Applicant acknowledged that communication between the parties has improved since the filing of this Application and this improvement is ongoing.

11The Respondent conceded that there were delays in correspondence and in the provision of replies and answers in the past but now argues that the Applicant has been provided multiple opportunities over the years to have his concerns heard. It submits that the Applicant’s real issue is about the Respondent’s decisions themselves.

12The Applicant and the Respondent’s witnesses testified to the fact that in addition to the many emails, letters and the ICRP report before me, there were many more communications exchanged, as well as various video calls. The evidence provided also made clear that there continues to be communication between the parties on some of the above issues.

13Subsection 15(2) of the Act states that service providers shall ensure that parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

14In P.O. v. Family and Children Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 at para. 15, the CFSRB found that the opportunity 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.”

15An application deemed eligible under section 120(4)4 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only whether an Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices, whether decisions were correct, what factors/concerns were considered when decisions were made, or how decisions were arrived at.

16After reviewing all the evidence and hearing from all witnesses, I find that the Respondent’s delay in communicating with the Applicant, the Applicant’s need for accommodation and his past trauma have all contributed to an environment which has caused the Applicant to mistrust and feel frustrated by communications from the Respondent. However, I found both Respondent witnesses compelling. It was clear that they have both made attempts to listen and understand the concerns of the Applicant and continue to do so. I find that the Applicant’s real issue is the correctness of the decisions being made and the rationale or justification for them. The issue of whether the decisions were correct or responded to the concerns he brought forward is beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

17Reasons for each concern are provided below.

i) were the Applicant’s concerns that his requests for accommodation not being met heard?

18The Applicant submits that the Respondent did not hear his concern that his requests for accommodations for his disability were not being met. The Respondent disagrees.

19Both Respondent witnesses testified that they were aware that the Applicant was requesting accommodations but were unsure exactly what the disability was or what the accommodation being requested was.

20An email from the Applicant to the Respondent in response to a request to clarify what accommodations are needed on April 24, 2025, shows that the Respondent attempted to understand. The Applicant’s response to this email satisfies the Board the Applicant attempted to constructively explain what an accommodation for his disability could look like.

21The Applicant submitted a further email on April 30, 2025, which read:

I want to clearly state my accommodation needs, as requested. These are not preferences; they are necessary supports rooted in neurodivergence and trauma history:

• Communication must be clear, direct, and unambiguous.

• Visit scheduling should be confirmed well in advance to reduce uncertainty.

22Under cross-examination, the Applicant agreed that AK and NM asked for clarification in response to his request, but he maintained that despite these attempts, the Respondent failed to accommodate him because communications still did not feel clear or transparent.

23Both Respondent witnesses testified that they had spoken multiple times to the Applicant where he shared with them his disability and that he required all communications to be clear and transparent. They also both stated that the Applicant was very good about letting them know when communication was not clear, and they would try again to ensure that what was being communicated to the Applicant was clearly understood. AK, the Child Protection Worker testified that this continues to be the practice.

24When AK was asked during cross-examination if he had ever tried to understand the Applicant’s disability and needs, he replied in the affirmative. He described a video call with the Applicant where the Applicant had an opportunity to explain how his disability impacts his reactions, facial expressions, and communication style and that he required clear, unambiguous communication.

25Given the above, I find that the Respondent has provided multiple opportunities and continues to provide opportunities for the Applicant to express his concerns and needs surrounding requests for accommodations.

ii) Were the Applicant’s concerns about the Kinship worker and the resulting negative perception and communication heard?

26The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not heard his concerns about the perceived bias the kinship worker showed towards the children’s mother’s family. He further argues that this bias is resulting in a negative perception of him and poor communication to the Applicant about the children’s progress.

27The Respondent submits that it has provided opportunities for the Applicant to express these concerns to multiple Respondent workers and having heard his concerns the Respondent has attempted to address these concerns on multiple occasions.

28The Applicant submitted as evidence a document created on March 24, 2024, by LG, Respondent worker (the “March 24, 2024, Letter”), which provided a summary of the Applicant’s concerns, including concerns about the kinship worker. LG was assigned to the Applicant’s file for a time and created this document as a transition document to assist the next workers assigned to the Applicant’s file after she left her role. The Applicant confirmed the document accurately reflected many of his concerns. Both Respondent witnesses confirmed that they read this document when they took carriage of the Applicant’s file and argued this is evidence of just one of the many opportunities the Applicant had to share his concerns and have them relayed to all workers involved in his file.

29During his testimony, the Applicant stated that he had repeatedly told all of the Respondent workers about these concerns. This was confirmed by both Respondent witnesses.

30AK provided further testimony in cross-examination that during a discussion with the Applicant he told him that he spoke to the kinship worker about the Applicant’s concerns and explained to him that it was the Applicant’s perspective and that he is entitled to it, but there was no actual evidence to corroborate it.

31Finally, the Applicant specifically brought this concern to the ICRP meeting, and it is documented in the ICRP Report.

32I find that the Applicant has had his concern heard about the kinship worker by multiple Respondent workers and attempts have been made to have discussions about it. I find that this is a case more about whether the Applicant feels his concerns have been actioned, rather than heard.

iii) Have the Applicant’s concerns regarding mental health issues for himself and the children been heard?

33The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not heard his concerns about mental health issues for himself and the children. He specifically argues that they have not heard him about: a lack of communication between himself and the children’s medical and clinical supports, the importance of these supports being made aware of traumatic events, his own history of generational trauma, what he and his treating psychiatrist have said about his current mental stability and the lack of credit given to him for his ten prior years of positive parenting.

34The Applicant testified that he has spoken to the Respondent workers many times about these issues, and has also provided potential solutions, but feels his concerns and proposed solutions are always dismissed.

35The Respondent submits that they have provided multiple opportunities for the Applicant to express his concerns and are in fact very aware and sensitive to them. They submit that the real issue is that the Applicant believed that his concerns were not acted upon.

36In reviewing the evidence, including the oral testimony of all witnesses, I agree with the Respondent and have relied on the following evidence as proof that the Applicant’s concerns have been heard, specifically:

a. Lack of communication between the Applicant and the children’s medical supports: all witnesses testified that these concerns were discussed and well known. AK testified that he has taken the Applicant’s concerns to the kin workers and has provided any feedback or answers they provided back to the Applicant. In addition, AK has provided the Applicant with the name of doctors and care providers, as well as the medications and treatments the children are currently undergoing so the Applicant can follow up directly with the third-party providers.

b. Generational trauma: The Applicant and NM both confirmed that they had had conversations about this concern. In response to being questioned on whether she had ever spoken to the Applicant about his intergenerational trauma and if it was taken into account, NM noted that she “had the privilege of knowing his story in an intimate way...I took into account the totality of his story.”

c. Letters from him and his psychiatrist/credit for past parenting: The Applicant and NM confirmed that letters and opinions by the Applicant’s mental health care team have been exchanged. NM acknowledged the Applicant’s continued effort and progress, as well as the many resources he is using. Both the Applicant and MN confirmed that they have had discussions about both of these aspects. Finally, the ICRP report outlines the positive parenting history the Applicant shared with the Respondent, that he feels that not enough credit is given to fathers and an acknowledgement was made by the ICRP board of stigma attached to gender and police charges.

37I find that there have been multiple opportunities for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard and various steps taken to address those concerns. The Applicant’s real issue is that he does not feel that this information is given sufficient weight when decisions are being made and his concerns are not being actioned in a way that is satisfactory to him.

iv) Has the Applicant’s concern regarding the amount of time the children have spent out of school while in care been heard?

38The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not heard his concern regarding the amount of time the children have spent out of school while in care.

39Both Respondent witnesses confirmed that the children’s absence from school has been one of the primary issues dealt with in this matter. AK confirmed that this continues to be an issue that is discussed with the Applicant, as recently as the day prior to the hearing wherein updates on schooling were provided. The Applicant confirmed that this discussion took place.

40Given this, I find that the Applicant has had an opportunity to have this concern heard.

Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for the concerns in paragraph 7b?

41The Applicant argues that he was not heard or provided reasons for concerns and decisions listed in paragraph 7b.

42In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:

… what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness, and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

43I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard and reasons for both concerns raised in paragraph 7b were provided.

i) Was the Applicant heard and provided reasons for why he has not been fully involved in treatment planning and decision making for the children?

44The Applicant submits that he was not heard or provided with reasons for why he was not fully involved in treatment planning and decision making regarding the children, nor had he been provided meaningful reasons for the alleged lack of involvement.

45This concern is listed in the March 24, 2024, Letter. The Applicant also testified that he had raised these concerns regarding treatment with the Respondent and has even provided them with various suggestions and thoughts on treatment options.

46NM testified that she was very aware that the Applicant felt that he was not involved in treatment planning and decision making regarding the children’s mental health. She shared these concerns with the service providers and explained to the Applicant that it was difficult to have him fully involved as he had not seen the children in a number of years.

47AK testified that he has had conversations with the Applicant about these concerns and some of the interactions that have led to this. As found in the ICRP report, AK stated that the Applicant could now share and inquire directly with the service providers. As a result, AK, has provided contact names for service providers and a list of the medications the children have been prescribed. He has encouraged the Applicant to follow up with service providers himself.

ii) Was the Applicant’s concern heard that he felt silenced by the termination of the complaints process and that it resulted in him not being provided with reasons for his concerns outlined in the March 11, 2025, email?

48The Applicant alleges that he has not been heard regarding how he feels silenced by the Respondent’s termination of the complaints process and that this has resulted in him not being provided with answers or reasons for his concerns outlined in a March 11, 2025, email.

49The Respondent submits that this concern has been heard and as of the date of the hearing, the Applicant has been provided with answers to the concerns and questions outlined in the March 11, 2025 email.

50A significant portion of the ICRP report is dedicated to the closure of the complaints process. In fact, a prepared response regarding the closing of the complaint and why she closed it, was prepared and read out loud by NM at the ICRP Meeting. The ICRP Report notes that the Applicant thanked NM for the statement, but still felt that she could have done more work on the complaints process.

51The author of the ICRP report also made clear that the Applicant was told that the Respondent felt that the internal complaints process was no longer effective, was “going in a circle” and encouraged him to pursue a complaint through the CFSRB. The findings set out in the ICRP report include that the Applicant disagreed with this explanation.

52As for being provided reasons for his concerns outlined in his March 11, 2025, email, the Respondent submitted an email dated July 18, 2025, which provided detailed reasons for each concern listed. Although this response came after the Application was filed with the CFSRB, the ICRP and the pre-hearing, by the time of this hearing, reasons had been provided. Accordingly, there is no further remedy that can be provided by the CFSRB.

53Based on the above, I find that the Applicant was provided opportunities to have his concerns raised and reasons were provided for each concern listed in paragraph 7b.

ORDER

54The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

55Pursuant 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.

Dated, September 10, 2025.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley Member