CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
BS
Applicant
-and-
Children and Family Services for York Region
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Indexed As: BS v Children and Family Services for York Region (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
BS, Applicant
Self-represented
Children and Family Services for York Region, Respondent
Alison Moonsie Mohan, 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.
3Three separate issues were identified for the hearing during a Pre-hearing on July 30, 2025.
4The CFSRB held a full-day oral hearing by videoconference on September 10, 2025.
5The material and submissions relied upon by the Applicant included email communications, and CPIN logs. The Respondent submitted CPIN logs as well as oral evidence from Denis Munroe, Supervisor of an Ongoing Family Services Team with the Respondent.
ISSUES
6The issue is whether the Applicant was provided sufficient reasons for the following:
i. why the Respondent did not inform the Applicant of a serious incident involving his son and why this incident was not investigated
ii. why the Applicant was investigated when harm was alleged, and the mother was not; and
iii. why the Respondent’s worker recommended a communication strategy between parents that was contrary to a condition that stipulated that the Applicant have no contact with the mother?
RESULT
7The CFSRB finds that the Applicant has not been provided with sufficient reasons on the concerns listed in paragraph 6 ii and 6 iii. Reasons follow below.
ANALYSIS
Was the Applicant provided with sufficient reasons?
8The Applicant argues that he was not provided reasons for concerns and decisions listed in paragraph 6.
9In 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.
10In reviewing this matter and whether the reasons provided, if any, were sufficient enough in detail and timeliness in this specific situation, I considered the fact that there were possible serious criminal implications for the Applicant based on the decisions made by the Respondent. As such, I find that the level of detail and information, as well as the timeliness of reasons was heightened for the Applicant to fully understand the implications to his separate criminal proceedings.
Issue i) Was the Applicant provided sufficient reasons for why the Respondent did not inform him of a serious incident involving his son and why this incident was not investigated?
11The Applicant argues that he was not provided reasons for why he was not told about an incident that took place between his son and the mother or why this incident was not investigated.
12The Respondent argues that it provided the Applicant with reasons during a conversation between a Respondent worker and the Applicant.
13According to a Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) log dated May 31, 2024, KH, a Respondent worker, met with the child’s mother. During this private meeting, the mother told KH that the son stabbed her with a pair of craft scissors after she refused to give him some apple juice. The Applicant submits that given the serious nature of this incident; he should have been told. However, he was not alerted to this incident until he read about it in the disclosure package provided to him in June 2025, and in response he called the Respondent on June 12, 2025, to inquire about the circumstances.
14The Respondent conceded that the Applicant was not advised about the circumstances giving rise to this incident andexplained why he was not told and why it was not investigated when he inquired about it. DM, Supervisor of an Ongoing Family Services Team with the Respondent, testified that she spoke with the Applicant on June 25, 2025, about this concern. She explained that the Respondent’s mandate was to protect children and that it would not launch an investigation regarding allegations of a young child causing harm to an adult, as opposed to allegations of the harm of a child. She acknowledged that the Applicant felt that this was a serious incident and that if there is a serious incident, he should have been notified of it. This is confirmed in a CPIN log dated June 25, 2025.
15DS further acknowledged that she knew that the Applicant was concerned about this incident, but in the Respondent’s view, it did not meet the threshold for launching an investigation.
16Although the Applicant may not be satisfied with the reasons he received from the Respondent, he has in fact been provided with reasons for why he was not told about the incident and why it was not investigated.
Issue ii) Was the Applicant provided reasons as to why he was investigated when harm was alleged, and the mother was not?
17The Applicant alleges that he was investigated by the Respondent when a harm was alleged to his child, but the mother was not. He submits that this showed the Respondent’s bias against him, and he was never provided reasons for why there was an allegedly unbalanced investigation done.
18The Respondent argued that it is only the Applicant’s perception that there was an investigation, as no investigation was launched. Both parents had made allegations against the other about the care provided to the children. In these instances, including the one at issue here, KH would meet with and ask questions of both parents and the children in order to assess the situation and determine whether an investigation was needed. None of the reported concerns warranted a formal investigation. The Respondent submits that this was explained to the Applicant.
19According to a CPIN log dated June 4, 2024, the mother reported that one son made an inappropriate, sexually suggestive comment and action towards the other son while at the mother’s home (the “Incident”). KH interviewed the mother on June 5, 2024, and the children on June 10, 2024.
20KH also met privately with the Applicant on June 10, 2024. The CPIN log of the same date states, “I explain my recent visit and [child’s] comments…..[the Applicant] doesn’t have much of a response – he’s pretty flat about it but agrees it’s out of the ordinary. I ask him to speak to the boys about their privacy and keeping hands to themselves…”. There are no further contact logs about the Incident.
21KH was not a witness at the hearing. When asked why KH did not ask the same questions of the mother since the incident happened at her home, DM, relying on reports with KH and the CPIN logs, could only answer that she believed that KH followed proper protocol in this situation. She believed that KH explained to the Applicant that questions were being asked of him because of a statement made by the child, but probably did not tell him what questions were also being asked of the mother.
22The Applicant agreed that there was a conversation with KH on June 10 where it was explained that one son had made an inappropriate comment. However, he explained that KH did not explain what exactly happened, and did not tell him what was being done to find out or whether anyone else was being questioned.
23The Applicant submits that, upon being provided disclosure, he found that the questions being asked of him were not also asked of the mother, and the explanation given by KH on June 10, did not convey the seriousness or intrusiveness of the questioning being put to the children. He submits that KH conducted direct and invasive questioning of the children, specific to him and not the children’s mother. He believes that he was being investigated for alleged harm. Specifically, KH asked the children if the Applicant had ever touched them inappropriately, what the Applicant wears to bed, if the children had ever seen him naked and whether the Applicant made them feel scared or uncomfortable.
24The CPIN log dated June 10, 2024, wherein KH interviewed the children, indicates that the majority of the questioning focused on the Applicant’s behaviour towards the children or what they were exposed to while with the Applicant. There are few questions to the children on what was happening when they are in the care of the mother. Further, the only question posed to the mother when she was interviewed and reported in the CPIN log was whether she knew if the Applicant watched pornography.
25Given that the Applicant was facing criminal proceedings as a result of the children’s mother’s allegations of sexual assault against the Applicant (of which he was acquitted), and that KH was aware of these circumstances, the implications of the line of questioning and having an understanding of how the incident was being assessed and information gathered, would have been very important for the Applicant to understand.
26In the absence of more detailed notes from KH, we can only rely on the Applicant’s recollection of the conversation of the June 10, 2024, meeting. Given the potential implications of the line of questioning for the Applicant, having enough detail to understand how the incident was being assessed and information gathered, would have been very important for the Applicant to receive in a timely fashion.
27Although the Respondent submitted that there was not a formal investigation launched, I find that the Applicant is seeking reasons for why the information gathering was conducted in the way that it was. Specifically, why were the questions posed of the children primarily focused on the Applicant’s potential role, why were similar questions not posed to the children about the mother, and why was the mother not asked similar questions as were asked of the Applicant.
28I find that the Applicant was not provided sufficient reasons for why the questions posed to the children and the mother appeared to be focused mainly on his behaviour and not the mother’s.
Issue iii) Was the Applicant provided reasons for why the worker recommended a communication strategy between the parents that was contrary to a condition that stipulated that the Applicant have no contact with the mother?
29The Applicant submits that KH recommended the Applicant and mother use a communication book to communicate with each other, even though KH was aware that there was a no contact order in place which restricted all communications between the Applicant and the mother.
30The CPIN notes indicate that in an effort to minimize conflict during access exchanges, KH recommended on May 17, 2024, that the Applicant and the mother use a communication book that could move back and forth between visits.
31The notes also indicate that KH warned the Applicant that unless it specifically relates to an issue with access, do not send friendly or unfriendly emails. “The no contact order is in force.”
32It appears that both the Applicant and the mother agreed and used this method in May 2024.
33On August 28, 2024, York Regional Police reported to the Respondent’s intake team that the mother accused the Applicant of writing something threatening in the book, and it was being investigated by the police.
34Although it appears from information provided that any charges related to this incident were subsequently withdrawn, it must be noted that this incident took place in the context of the Applicant managing proceedings in criminal court and this was yet another incident that could have affected his criminal proceedings.
35The Applicant argues that the Respondent should not have recommended this method of communication, or at the very least have been more specific about the potential risks of doing this, and he has not been provided with reasons for why this recommendation was made. He argues that he did not question the recommendation as he trusted that a social worker would not recommend something that could get him in trouble or be against the law. He also submits that he was very conscious of trying to do everything that the Respondent asked of him to make sure that it knew he was trying and would abide by their rules and recommendations.
36The Respondent submits that a communication book is a common recommendation. It further argued that the Applicant had a lawyer at the time and could have asked for legal advice. DM testified that, from a review of KH’s CPIN logs, it was her opinion that KH was diligent about reminding the parents not to breach the no contact order and that KH did not believe that the use of the communication book was a breach of the order.
37No evidence was offered to show that any of this was explained to the Applicant by KH or DM once the communications were found to potentially be an issue.
38The Respondent’s reasoning as stated in paragraph 36 was unreasonable. It is unreasonable to suggest the Applicant get legal advice every time a social worker tells them to do something. In these circumstances KH knew or ought to have known about the no contact order and challenges it presented in these circumstances. Also, a parent should not fear acting on directives of a Children’s Aid Society~~.~~
39Given the lack of evidence showing that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons or an explanation for why KH made the recommendation she did, I find that the Respondent did not provide sufficient reasons for this concern.
ORDER
40The Application is upheld in part.
41Within 30 days, the Respondent will provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for
a. Why the Applicant was investigated when harm was alleged, and the mother was not. For clarity, the Respondent will provide detailed reasons for why the questions to both the children and the mother surrounding “the Incident,” were focused on the Applicant and not equally applied to the mother.
b. Why the Respondent did not provide reasons as to why it recommended a communication strategy that was contrary to a no contact provision, as well as why adequate reasons were not provided at the time it was brought forward by the York police, becoming a potential issue for the Applicant.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
42Pursuant 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, October 08, 2025.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member