CS v. The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington, 2025 CFSRB 14

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CS Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: February 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 14 Indexed As: CS v The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CS, Applicant Self-represented

The Children’s Aid Society of the City of Guelph and the County of Wellington, Respondent Arnab Quadry, 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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“the Act”).

2The Applicant is the mother of two children. This Application pertains to her eldest child (“the Child”).

ISSUES

3The Application consists of the following complaints under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act:

1. The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why worker Kelly Peters did not provide context or explain how he knew the Applicant’s personal information when he contacted her by text.
2. The Applicant alleges she was not heard when she expressed concerns that the initial interview by worker Kelly Peters was completed in a hasty fashion and not conducted thoroughly.
3. The Applicant alleges she was not heard when she expressed concerns about a statement by worker Kelly Peters that her ex-partner’s history of sexual abuse involved females, not males, which the Applicant alleges diminishes the potential safety concerns for her son.
4. The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided reasons to her for not filing an application to discontinue the Child’s access with his father, when supervisor Moira Middleton and worker Brittany Malik have expressed concerns with ongoing visitation.
5. The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent when it expressed concerns about its jurisdiction involving the Applicant and the Child. The Respondent indicated in its response to the Applicant’s CFSRB Application that the Applicant does not reside within the Respondent’s territorial jurisdiction at this time, and as such the Respondent lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the Child’s life.

RESULT

4Having reviewed the documents filed by both parties in this matter, I make the following findings:

1. Kelly Peters, child protection worker, heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for not providing context or explaining how he knew the Applicant’s personal information when he contacted her by text;
2. The Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent failed to hear concerns she alleges she expressed about the hastiness or thoroughness of the initial meetings with her conducted by Kelly Peters;
3. The Respondent, including Kelly Peters, heard the Applicant’s concerns about the father’s past history of sexually abuse of a child;
4. The Applicant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that she requested reasons from the Respondent for its decision not to start a child protection proceeding prior to her commencing this CFSRB proceeding;
5. The Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for it not commencing a child protection proceeding after she requested reasons in October 2024; and,
6. I find that Issue 5 is not properly before the CFSRB as it was not an issue raised by the Applicant until after the commencement of this proceeding. In the alternative, I find that there was no “decision” made by the Respondent in relation to its jurisdiction for which reasons were required.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5An oral hearing (by videoconference) of this Application was scheduled for November 21, 2024. At the commencement of the hearing on November 21, 2024, it became apparent that the hearing could not proceed for the reasons that were subsequently set out in the Case Management Direction issued by the CFSRB on November 22, 2024 (“November 22, 2024 CMD”). In the November 22, 2024 CMD, the CFSRB ordered, on consent, that the hearing be converted to a hearing in writing and provided directions with respect to timelines for the delivery of hearing material by the Applicant and the Respondent.

6At the time of the November 21, 2024 hearing, the Applicant advised she was pregnant with a due date of November 29, 2024. The Applicant’s hearing materials were due on November 29, 2024 but not delivered until December 3, 2024. In a written submission dated December 6, 2024, the Respondent took the position that the Application should be dismissed as a consequence of the Applicant having failed to abide by the timeline for her material set out in the November 22, 2024 CMD. The Applicant requested an extension of the filing date for her material.

7The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on December 13, 2024 (“December 13, 2024 CMD”) granting the Applicant’s request for an extension in relation to the material she had filed on December 3, 2024. The December 13, 2024 CMD extended the deadline for the Applicant to file any additional material until December 20, 2024. The Respondent was to file its material and submissions by no later than December 31, 2024 and any further Reply submissions by the Applicant were to be filed by January 8, 2024.

8On December 17, 2024, the Applicant contacted the CFSRB alleging that the CPIN records she had received from the Respondent included unnecessary redactions such that she was unable to see the steps taken and reasons for decisions made by the Respondent. It was the Applicant’s position that she could not present her case to the CFSRB without her full record and she asked the CFSRB to “pause” this proceeding until such time she was provided with her complete record by the Respondent.

9By way of background, a Pre-Hearing Report had been issued by the CFSRB on October 3, 2024 (“October 3, 2024 PHR”) directing the parties to exchange all arguably relevant material. The October 3, 2024 PHR stated that the Respondent had agreed to provide the Applicant with her CPIN notes by October 22, 2024. Based on the material filed by the Applicant, she appears to have been provided with her CPIN records on or about October 15, 2024. The first time the Applicant raised issues with the CPIN disclosure provided to her was almost two months later on December 17, 2024.

10In response to the Applicant’s December 17, 2024 request for a “pause” the CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on December 20, 2024 requiring the parties to follow the timelines set out in the December 13, 2024 CMD, and providing that if it was the Applicant’s position that the disclosure required by the October 3, 2024 PHR had not been provided to her, this could be raised as an issue in the Applicant’s submissions.

11The only material for the hearing filed by the Respondent after the December 13, 2024 CMD was an Affidavit dated December 23, 2024 by Brittany Malik, child protection worker. Ms. Malik’s December 23, 2024 did not address any of the substantive issues in this matter. Instead, she states the Respondent’s position that the Applicant failed to file hearing material on or before December 20, 2024 and, as such, there was no sworn evidence filed by the Applicant and, for that reason, the Application should be dismissed.

12The November 22, 2024 CMD provided that the documents that had been filed to date by the parties, including but not limited to the Application and Response, and any attachments to either document, would form part of the hearing record. The November 22, 2024 CMD did not require that the parties file affidavit evidence.

13In making the findings set out in this Decision, I have relied on the material that was filed by both parties in this matter and on jurisprudence. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to determine the issues before me.

ANALYSIS

Background

14The allegations before me are in relation to the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant’s family since November 1, 2023, namely: in relation to concerns regarding the Child’s exposure to family violence by the Child’s father (“the father”) towards the Applicant, and a prior verification by the Respondent of the father sexually abusing a child.

15On or about April 2024, the father commenced a legal proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O., c.C.12 in relation to the Child (“the C.L.R.A. proceeding”).

Issue 1: Did the Respondent hear the Applicant and provide her with reasons as to why worker Kelly Peters did not provide context or explain how he knew the Applicant’s personal information when he contacted her by text ?

16This issue pertains to the initial contact by Kelly Peters, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent, with the Applicant which was by way of text messages. The Applicant relies on text message exchanges between herself and Mr. Peters between November 6, 2023 and November 16, 2023 in support of this allegation.

17The Applicant submits that when Mr. Peters reached out to her by text, he did not explain who he was or why he wanted to speak to her and said he would only identify himself when they spoke.

18I have reviewed the text messages between the Applicant and Kelly Peters. They confirm the following:

A) Kelly Peters provided the Applicant with his full name in his initial text messages to the Applicant on November 6, 2023 and advised her that he would identify himself further when they spoke;

B) Mr. Peters sought confirmation that he was communicating with the Applicant and not the father and he provided the Applicant with information that may assist her in identifying him as a child protection worker;

C) The Applicant asked the reason Mr. Peters could not provide additional information as to his identity via text. Mr. Peter advised her by text that the reason was confidentiality and that he would provide her with the additional information she was requesting once they spoke and he could confirm her identity over the phone; and,

D) Mr. Peters called the Applicant and left her a voicemail message on November 7, 2023. When the Applicant would not answer the call, Mr. Peters then identified himself as working for the Respondent, advised the Applicant that worries had been expressed about her, the father and the child, and advised he wanted to arrange a time to meet with her.

19I find that Kelly Peters heard the Applicant when she expressed concern about the sufficiency of the identifying information he was providing to her. As evidenced by the text messages, Mr. Kelly provided the Applicant with additional information when she declined to speak with him, including his position with the Respondent and the reported protection concerns about which he wanted to meet with her.

20I find that Mr. Peters provided the Applicant with reasons for not providing her with additional information initially. This is evident in the text messages between Mr. Kelly and the Applicant in which Mr. Kelly advises the Applicant that the reason for him not providing additional information is confidentiality and his need to first confirm her identity.

Issue 2: Was the Applicant heard when she expressed concerns that the initial interview by worker Kelly Peters was completed in a hasty fashion and not conducted thoroughly?

21The initial interview of the Applicant by Mr. Peters was by way of a telephone call on November 9, 2023. It was a telephone meeting as the Applicant insisted on a telephone call with Mr. Peters, before agreeing to schedule an in-person meeting.

22The Applicant alleges that she did not have an opportunity to speak freely as the father and his parents were also on the November 9, 2023 call with Mr. Peters, however, I find on the evidence before me including the text messages submitted by the Applicant that it was the Applicant who insisted the father be on the call. There is no evidence that the father’s parents, who were residing in the same home as the Applicant and the father, were on the call at the request of the Respondent.

23At the conclusion of the November 9, 2023 telephone meeting, an in-person office meeting was scheduled for November 16, 2023. On November 12, 2023, the Applicant informed Mr. Peters that she and the father had decided they preferred a home visit. She also informed Mr. Peters that the father’s parents would also be present. A home visit took place on November 16, 2023.

24The Applicant did not provide any evidence as to the duration of either the November 9, 2023 telephone meeting or the November 16, 2023 home visit nor did she provide any evidence to support that she expressed concerns about the hastiness or thoroughness of these initial meetings with Mr. Peters to the Respondent, including any concerns with Mr. Peters. To the contrary, the text messages submitted by the Applicant include a text from her to Mr. Peters dated November 16, 2023 in which she thanks him for coming to the home that day and references the discussion that took place during that meeting.

25On the facts before me, I cannot find that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant in relation to the concerns she now says she had about her initial meetings with Kelly Peters.

Issue 3: Was the Applicant heard when she expressed concerns about a statement made by worker Kelly Peters that her ex-partner’s history of sexual abuse involved females, not males, which the Applicant alleges diminishes the potential safety concerns for her son, the Child ?

26The Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent when she raised concerns over Kelly Peters statement that the father’s history of sexual abuse involved females, not males. She takes this position that this statement diminished potential safety concerns for the Child. In her submissions to the CFSRB, the Applicant went further and alleged that Mr. Peters stated the Child was not at risk as the father has a history of sexually assaulting young girls and not young boys.

27While it may be that Mr. Peters noted that the child the father had previously been verified as having sexually abused in the past was a female, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that Mr. Peters suggested this meant there was either a reduced risk or no risk to the Child. Also, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence as to when she allegedly raised concerns about the statements to this effect she alleges were made by Mr. Peters.

28Despite the fact that the Applicant did not provide any evidence to support that she raised concerns with the Respondent related to Mr. Peter’s alleged comments about the gender of the child the father had been verified as having sexually abused and that she was not heard by Mr. Peters, I note that the Respondent verified that the Child was at risk of:

a) Emotional harm due to exposure to harm due to exposure to partner violence; and,

b) Sexual harm due to the father’s history of sexually harming a 7 year old child from a previous relationship. This sexual harm of the other child was verified in 2011, and the risk to the Child was verified as the father had failed to take any steps to mitigate this risk.

29I find that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that Kelly Peters made statements to her that the risk of sexual harm to the Child was diminished.

30I find that the Respondent, including Kelly Peters, heard the Applicant’s concerns about the father’s past history of sexual abuse of a child as demonstrated by the numerous discussions between Kelly Peters and other child protection workers about the risk to the Child based on the father’s history of sexual abuse, and Mr. Kelly ultimately verifying that the Child was at risk of sexual harm as a result of that history.

Issue 4: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision not to file an application to discontinue the Child’s access with his father?

31The Applicant expressed concerns about the father having supervised access in accordance with an order made on July 30, 2024 in the C.L.R.A. proceeding, however, the Applicant did not adduce any evidence that she asked the Respondent to commence a child protection proceeding prior to her commencing this CFSRB proceeding on August 26, 2024.

32The Applicant relies on an email that she sent to the Respondent on October 8, 2024 requesting clarification regarding its decision not to commence a legal proceeding under the Act. There is no evidence that the Applicant asked the Respondent to provide to her the reason it had not commenced a child protection proceeding prior to October 8, 2024.

33The uncontroverted evidence of the Respondent is that:

a. On October 8, 2024, Brittany Malik, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent, explained to the Applicant that the Respondent would not be commencing a child protection proceeding as the Applicant and her counsel had already presented the Applicant’s concerns in the context of the C.L.R.A. proceeding which had resulted in the September 10, 2024 supervised access order. Ms. Malik advised the Applicant that the Respondent could not re-litigate an issue that had already been before the court.

b. On October 22, 2024, Brittany Malik attended a collaborative meeting that included the Applicant and various service providers such as Victim Services and Women-in-Crisis workers. The discussion primarily related to safety planning and housing for the Applicant, particularly after she had given birth to her second child. During the course of this meeting, Ms. Malik advised the Applicant that the Respondent was aware of the Applicant’s concerns about the father’s access. She reiterated to the applicant that the Respondent would not be commencing a child protection proceeding as the Applicant and her counsel had already presented all the relevant evidence to the court in the C.L.R.A. proceeding and the Respondent did not have any additional information to provide to the court.

34I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she requested reasons from the Respondent for its decision not to start a child protection proceeding prior to the Applicant’s commencement of this CFSRB proceeding. I also find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not commence a child protection proceeding when she requested reasons in October 2024 including in discussions with the Applicant on October 8, 2024 and October 22, 2024.

Issue 5: Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent when it raised concerns about its jurisdiction to provide services to the Applicant and the Child in its Response to the Application?

35I have reviewed the Application and confirmed that it does not include an allegation by the Applicant that the Respondent had questioned its territorial jurisdiction and ability to continue providing services to her and the Child.

36There is no evidence that the issue of jurisdiction was raised by the Applicant with the Respondent prior to her commencing this CFSRB proceeding. This is further confirmed by the fact that the Applicant’s allegation, as set out in the October 3, 2024 PHR is that “The Respondent indicated in its Response to the Applicant’s CFSRB Application that the Applicant does not reside within the Respondent’s territorial jurisdiction at this time, and as such the Respondent lacks jurisdiction to intervene in the Child’s life” (emphasis added).

37The evidence before me is that the Applicant had been contemplating relocating to Toronto with the Child and brought a motion in the C.L.R.A. proceeding for an order permitting the relocation. Her motion was dismissed. However, had the relocation motion been granted, it would have raised an issue with respect to the Respondent’s jurisdiction. The Applicant’s relocation motion having been dismissed, the Respondent submits the issue is moot and that it is in the process of advocating for the Applicant to secure housing for her within its territorial jurisdiction. The Applicant acknowledged that the issue is moot but argues that the Respondent has jurisdiction yet is not acting to protect the Child. The allegation that the Respondent is not acting to protect the Child is unrelated to territorial jurisdiction.

38I find that the issue as to whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent in relation to territorial jurisdiction was not properly before the CFSRB. It was not raised as an issue by the Applicant until well after she started this CFSRB proceeding. In the alternative, I find that there was no decision made by the Respondent for which reasons were required.

ORDER

39The Application is dismissed.

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.