CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
EM Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: October 14, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 142 Indexed As: EM v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
EM, Applicant Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent Mark Hecht, 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”).
BACKGROUND
2The Applicant filed this Application on March 27, 2025. Pursuant to the Pre-Hearing Report (“PHR”) dated July 17, 2025, all but two issues were resolved in a pre-hearing mediation. The parties consented to the remaining issues being resolved by written hearing.
3The Applicant and Respondent submitted their hearing materials in accordance with the schedule outlined in the PHR. The Applicant filed reply submissions on September 8, 2025, however, the attachments referenced in the email were not attached. The Applicant emailed the missing attachments on September 26, 2025, after the CFSRB reached out to her, completing the evidence necessary to proceed with the written hearing.
ISSUE
4The issues are:
Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns that one or more of her workers displayed bias and was aligned with her ex-partner, the children’s father? (s.120(4)4 of the Act)
Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with the Applicant’s Internal Complaint Review Procedure (“ICRP”) complaint in August 2022? (s.120(4)1 of the Act)
o Did the Respondent respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the required timeframe? (s.120(4)2 of the Act)
o Did the Respondent fail to comply with the complaint review procedure or with other procedural requirements? (s.120(4)3 of the Act)
RESULT
5The CFSRB finds based on the evidence before it, that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that its workers displayed a bias against her.
6The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did not refuse to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint; nor did it fail to comply within the required timeframe. However, the CFSRB finds that the Respondent did not comply with all procedural requirements of the Act, by not sending the Applicant a written decision on eligibility within seven days of receiving her complaint.
ANALYSIS
The limits of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction
7The CFSRB’s jurisdiction is limited to what is set out in the Act. The Applicant has provided extensive submissions with thorough legal arguments. The vast majority of these arguments and the relief sought are outside the CFSRB’s limited jurisdiction. The Applicant seeks systemic and institutional reform, compensation, corrective orders, declaratory relief, and points to grave concerns about how she was treated by the Respondent. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider these issues nor grant the remedies requested.
8The CFSRB may only address matters as set out in s.120(4) of the Act, and upon reviewing a complaint, may only order the remedies set out in section 120(7) of the Act.
Issue #1
Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns that one or more of her workers was biased against her and aligned with her ex-partner?
9Sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) of the Act required the Respondent to hear the Applicant’s concerns about the services she was receiving. For the following reasons, I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about worker bias.
10The CFSRB considered what it means “to be heard” in its decision P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 (“P.O.”). In that decision, the CFSRB set out at para. 15:
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.
11The Respondent set out in its submissions dated September 8, 2025:
With respect to the allegation that the Respondent did not hear her concerns that one of (sic) more of her Workers displayed bias and was aligned with her ex-partner, the Children’s Father, the record shows that the Applicant had raised this on several occasions with her assigned Child Protection Worker and Supervisor. The Respondent and its agents listened to her concerns and explained its position. For example, the record shows the Applicant had raised this issue in summer 2022 with her Worker who, after consulting with her Supervisor, suggested a meeting occur with all Parties. This meeting took place on September 9, 2022. I, as Counsel for the Society, was present. The Applicant and her Legal Counsel at the time, discussed their concerns that the Society was too aligned with the Father. This was addressed.
12The Respondent’s submission directs the reader to the contact logs included as “Exhibit A”. The contact log from the September 9, 2022 meeting however, has one line addressing the Applicant’s concern “(Applicant’s first name); I’ve been criticized for making unsubstantiated claims but (Respondent’s first name) has not.”
13I note that the Respondent’s submissions indicate only that the Respondent “listened to her concerns and explained its position.” The contact log from the meeting of September 9, 2022 does not substantiate that a discussion happened after the Applicant expressed her concern about a double standard being applied to her and her ex-partner.
14The Applicant submitted at “Tab A-Contact Logs Proving Bias Dismissal” included with her Reply, that the Respondent’s note “explained the Society’s position” revealed an institutional defensive position and not a tone of investigative, or neutral inquiry. The Applicant further submitted that the Respondent’s wording, “this was addressed” implies “acknowledgement without action” and that no meaningful consideration of her concerns was undertaken.
15Further, I reviewed The ICRP concluding letter of April 9, 2025, and it did not address the Applicant’s concern regarding her perception of bias.
16I cannot conclude from the evidence before me that the Respondent engaged in the active listening, discussions, or taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns as described in P.O. above. It is clear from the Applicant’s submissions, that she did not feel her concerns were taken seriously or dealt with thoroughly.
17The Applicant submits that the lack of remedial action undertaken by the Respondent is evidence of its dismissal of her allegation. To be clear, the Respondent is not required to take the steps the Applicant suggested to comply with section 15(2) of the Act. But the Respondent is required to actively listen and engage in a discussion with the Applicant about her concerns regarding the service she received. I cannot conclude that this kind of listening and hearing took place from the evidence that was before me.
Issue #2
Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with the Applicant’s ICRP complaint in August 2022? (s.120(4)1 of the Act)?
Did the Respondent respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the required time? (s.120(4)2 of the Act)?
Did the Respondent fail to comply with the complaint review procedure or with other procedural requirements? (s.120(4)3 of the Act)?
18The Applicant attended an ICRP meeting on April 8, 2025. An ICRP Decision letter dated April 8, 2025, provided by the Respondent, addressed the Applicant’s concerns about the 2022 complaint. The letter sets out that the Applicant’s written complaint was made on August 18, 2022, and that a Service Manager contacted the Applicant and spoke with her by phone after reviewing the complaint. No date is provided for when the phone call took place. The Applicant confirmed by phone that she wished to proceed with her complaint. The Respondent then sent a letter dated September 12, 2022. The Applicant acknowledges the letter of September 12, 2022, but submits that she did not receive a written letter determining eligibility within seven days of her written complaint. The Respondent did not suggest such a letter was sent. Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 156/18 (59), the Respondent is required to notify the complainant in writing of the eligibility of the complaint within seven days. As such, I find the Respondent did not comply with the procedural requirements set out by regulation.
19The letter of September 12, 2022, proposed an ICRP meeting date of October 13, 2022, and requested a response from the Applicant by October 5, 2022. The Respondent submitted that it did not hear from the Applicant by October 5 and sent a follow up email on that date. When it did not hear back from the Applicant, the Panel members were released, and the file was closed. The Applicant submits that she emailed the following day, on October 6, and that it was procedurally unfair to be inflexible. I note however that the Respondent submits that it explained that the Applicant could reapply to move forward. While I understand the Applicant’s frustration with learning the file was closed when she was only one day late to confirm, the Applicant could have reapplied, and in any event, the Respondent’s letter of September 12 demonstrates it was proceeding with the Applicant’s complaint in a timely manner. I find that aside from the failure to send a written confirmation of eligibility within seven days of receiving the Applicant’s complaint, the Respondent otherwise complied with the ICRP process.
CONCLUSION
20Pursuant to subsection 120(7)(d) of the Act, after reviewing the complaint, the CFSRB may order the Respondent to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant.
21While I found the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with written notice of the eligibility of her complaint in August 2022, no order is required.
ORDER
22Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is ordered to provide written reasons to the Applicant demonstrating that it heard the Applicant’s concern regarding the bias she perceived, and how it considered the Applicant’s concern in its decision-making process.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
23Pursuant 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 14, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand Vice-Chair