MS v. Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 161

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MS Applicant

-and-

Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: November 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 161 Indexed As: MS v Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MS, Applicant ) Stephania Sikora, Counsel Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services, ) Robin Saari, Counsel Respondent )

INTRODUCTION

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 father of one child, CS (“the Child”) and identifies using the pronouns she and her. The Respondent has a history of involvement with the Applicant dating back to August 2023.

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under s. 120(4)4 of the Act.

4The Respondent disputed the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine the issues in the Application on the grounds that the issues either had been determined or were before the Ontario Court of Justice by way of a child protection proceeding. After considering written submissions by the parties with respect to its jurisdiction, the CFSRB issued an Interim Decision dated May 23, 2025, delineating those issues over which it had jurisdiction.

5A hearing was conducted by way of videoconference on August 13, 2025. The parties subsequently submitted written closing submissions.

ISSUES

6In an Interim Decision dated May 23, 2025, the CFSRB confirmed that the following allegations by the Applicant would be the issues for hearing:

1. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her requests for guidance and supportive services and that the Respondent demonstrated bias in favour of the Child’s mother (“CS”) in its provision of services and support to the Applicant, due to the mother’s Indigenous heritage.

2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her when she requested a new worker, via text and during an in-person meeting with Supervisor AR in the Spring 2024, nor did it hear this request when it was made through her lawyer in December 2023. The Applicant further alleges that the Respondent did not engage her in meaningful discussions about her request for a new worker nor did it respond to her counsel’s written request made in December 2023.

3. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her when she requested advice and specific information on programming to help her work towards gaining more access to the Child.

4. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her when she requested flexibility on timing or dates when scheduling appointments and video access to the Child, despite the Applicant advising the Respondent about time challenges. For example, video access visits with the Child are scheduled immediately following the Applicant’s counseling appointments and she sometimes has difficulty attending in time with only a 5-minute window before the video access is disconnected.

5. The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her need for accommodations for her disabilities, which include Cellulitis, Septicemia, and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. The Applicant alleges the Respondent unreasonably denied her requests for accommodation.

RESULT

7Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented at the hearing, I find the following:

a. The Respondent heard the Applicant in relation to her concerns with respect to Issues 1, 3, 4, and 5 above; and

b. The Respondent failed to hear the Applicant in relation to her concerns with respect to Issue 2 above.

ANALYSIS

8As noted above, the CFSRB found this Application was eligible to proceed under s. 120(4)4 of the Act. Section 120(4)4 provides that the CFSRB may review allegations that a children’s aid society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2) of the Act.

9Subsections 15(2) and (3) of the Act provides as follows:

“(2) Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their 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”.

“(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a child or young person or parent of a child or young person if there is good cause for not giving that person an opportunity to be heard or represented as described in that subsection”.

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her requests for guidance and supportive services and that the Respondent demonstrated bias in favour of the Child’s mother in its provision of services and support to the Applicant, due to the mother’s Indigenous heritage.

10The testimony of the Applicant was that she became concerned the Respondent was biased against her from the time of the first home visit by DL, the primary child protection worker assigned to her file. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she raised her concerns about bias with the Respondent on numerous occasions.

11The documentary evidence submitted by the Applicant included several affidavits in which the Applicant made allegations of bias by the Respondent, albeit without particulars. The Respondent does not dispute that the allegation of bias was made by the Applicant. It denies the allegations.

12In support of her allegation of bias, the Applicant submits that she required guidance with respect to the services that she needed, and that she did not receive any such guidance from the Respondent, yet it did provide services to CS.

13The Respondent’s evidence was that it made service recommendations to the Applicant, including services through the North Bay Indigenous Friendship Centre (“Friendship Centre”). The evidence led by the Respondent was that it did not make service recommendations for CS and the Child, and that CS arranged her own supports and services.

14During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked to provide particulars of incidents she said constituted bias by the Respondent against her in favour of CS. In response, the Applicant relayed an incident whereby she said the Child did not receive treatment for a dental abscess in a timely manner. It was the Applicant’s evidence that she made a dental appointment for the Child while he was in the Applicant’s care and that the Respondent “gave” the dental appointment to CS. The evidence of the Respondent was that the Child was placed with CS in January 2024. According to the Respondent, CS took the Child to the dentist after he was placed with her, and then received a referral to a specialist in relation to the abscess. The Respondent submits that CS accompanied the Child to the dental appointments because he was in her care and custody at the time.

15Aside from the dental appointment issue described in the preceding paragraph, the Applicant could not provide particulars of any other incidents she believed demonstrated bias against her by the Respondent.

16I find that the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent was biased against her and favoured CS over her in its provision of services and support to the Applicant due to CS’s Indigenous heritage. I am not satisfied that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s requests for guidance and supportive services.

Issue 2: The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her when she requested a new worker, via text and during an in-person meeting with Supervisor AR in Spring 2024, nor did it hear this request when it was made through her lawyer in December 2023. The Applicant further alleges that the Respondent did not engage her in meaningful discussions about her request for a new worker nor did it respond to her counsel’s written request made in December 2023.

17The Applicant’s testimony was that she had requested a change of primary worker seven times. It was evident from the documentary evidence that the Applicant made multiple requests for a change of worker during and after January 2024.

18The Respondent’s evidence was that the reason for the Applicant’s request for a change of worker was her view that DL had been inappropriate during a home visit she attended with the Band representative during which time the Band representative made derogatory comments in relation to the Applicant’s trans status. According to the Respondent, the Applicant subsequently acknowledged that DL had not said anything inappropriate during the meeting, and that there were subsequent effective communications and meetings between the Applicant and DL on numerous occasions. On that basis, the Respondent submits that the request for a change in worker had effectively been withdrawn.

19The Applicant’s evidence was that she never withdrew her request for a change in primary worker. It was her evidence that the request for a change in worker was not based on any one incident but was because, in addition to her concerns about the home visit by DL and the Band representative, as set out in the preceding paragraph, the Applicant felt she was not being heard by DL who was dismissive of her concerns, and did not provide her with any help in securing services for herself.

20On January 11, 2024, counsel for the Respondent sent email correspondence to counsel for the Applicant stating that, “The agency is not able to make a change in workers”. There was no evidence that an explanation was provided to the Applicant for the Respondent’s decision to decline her request for a change in primary worker.

21The CFSRB described the purpose of s. 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the predecessor legislation (now s. 120(4)4 and 5) in PO v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 at paragraphs 13 and 14, as follows:

The obligations under s. 68.1(4)4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

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.

22The Applicant made multiple requests for a change in primary worker. There is no evidence that she withdrew this request nor is there evidence that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for denying her request. The fact that there were positive interactions between the Applicant and DL does not mean the Applicant withdrew her request for a different primary worker.

23I find that the Applicant has established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not hear her when she expressed concerns about her working relationship with DL and requested a change in primary worker.

Issue 3: The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her when she requested advice and specific information on programming to help her work towards gaining more access to the Child.

24The Applicant’s evidence is that DL did not discuss services with her during their meetings and that very few of the meetings were productive.

25The evidence of DL was that she made numerous efforts to meet with the Applicant and to engage her in service planning. During the meetings that took place with the Applicant, she consistently discussed the Respondent’s protection concerns and its service expectations. DL testified that she did not make a counseling referral as the Applicant was already attending counseling and receiving financial assistance from her parents for this. DL testified that she suggested the Applicant avail herself of services through the Friendship Centre and also encouraged her to attend an addictions assessment and anger management counseling.

26The documentary evidence before me included recordings by DL. These recordings confirm the efforts made by DL to meet with the Applicant and that there were several discussions between DL and the Applicant regarding service recommendations, and requests for updates regarding the services in which the Applicant was involved. The evidence of DL is that she also contacted service providers directly to receive updates on the Applicant’s progress with services. The records do not reflect any requests by the Applicant for DL’s advice with respect to services or assistance with obtaining services nor did the Applicant lead evidence on this issue beyond her allegations.

27I find that the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not hear her in relation to providing advice in relation to services.

Issue 4: The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her when she requested flexibility on timing or dates when scheduling appointments and video access to CS, despite the Applicant advising the Respondent about time challenges. For example, video access visits with CS are scheduled immediately following the Applicant’s counseling appointments and she sometimes has difficulty attending in time with only a 5-minute window before the video access is disconnected.

28The Applicant had court-ordered in-person visits with the Child on alternate weekends. The Respondent supplemented this with virtual visits. The evidence of the Respondent is that the virtual visits were initially arranged to take place twice weekly. The frequency was reduced to once weekly as a result of the inconsistency of the Applicant’s attendance and the negative impact on the Child when the Applicant did not attend the virtual visits.

29The evidence of the Respondent is that the virtual visits were scheduled for a duration of half an hour on a consistent day of the week at a consistent time. The Applicant was required to confirm the visit at a prescribed time on the day of the visit. If the Applicant was more than five minutes late for the virtual visit, the visit was cancelled.

30The Applicant testified that she asked the Respondent for a longer grace period, noting that she suffered from Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, struggled with timekeeping and was habitually late. The Applicant’s evidence was that she could not call DL directly to confirm the visits and had to go through others at the Respondent’s office.

31The evidence before me was that the virtual visit schedule was set up in consultation with the Applicant who did not object to the schedule. Further the Applicant did not request the day or time of the virtual visits be changed to accommodate her medical or other appointments.

32It was DL’s evidence that the Applicant struggled with attending the virtual visits and that many were missed, including those the Applicant had confirmed she would be attending. DL testified that she made efforts to help the Applicant with this, including suggesting that she set an alarm to help her be on time for the virtual visits and providing her with a hard copy of the virtual visit schedule as well as an email copy. For each virtual visit, the schedule listed the name of the person the Applicant was required to call to confirm she would be attending.

33I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns in relation to the virtual visits and responded reasonably to those concerns.

Issue 5: The Applicant alleges she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her need for accommodations for her disabilities, which include Cellulitis, Septicemia, and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. The Applicant alleges the Respondent unreasonably denied her requests for accommodation.

34The Applicant submits that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding her need for accommodations for disabilities which include Cellulitis, Septicemia, and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that she had not been formally diagnosed with ADHD.

35The Applicant testified that she had several hospitalizations over the past year but for conditions other than the ones listed in her closing submissions, including one that caused chronic leg pain which she testified sometimes affected her mobility.

36During her examination in chief, the Applicant could not recall what accommodations she had requested for her disabilities other than those identified under Issue 4 in relation to the virtual visits. During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that she did not communicate to the Respondent requests for accommodations in relation to her physical wellbeing.

37DL testified that she did not receive specific accommodation requests based on disability from the Applicant.

38The documentary evidence corroborates the testimony of DL that she offered the Applicant assistance with transportation to services which the Applicant declined.

39There were periodic requests for temporary accommodations. For example, during one of her hospitalizations the Applicant requested a visit with the Child. A hospital visit between the Child and the Applicant was arranged by DL after she conferred with medical staff. There was also an issue in the Spring of 2024 when the Applicant advised that her leg was not doing well, and she may not be able to travel the 1 ½ hours by car to attend a scheduled visit with the Child. The Applicant asked that the visit take place in North Bay where she resided. The evidence of DL was that she subsequently arranged for the visits to take place in North Bay.

40The Applicant submits that she requested an accommodation in relation to the virtual visits by providing that her confirmation of attendance on the day of the visit would always be with the same child protection worker. The Applicant had been provided with a virtual visit schedule that included the name of the individuals the Applicant was to contact on each date. As previously noted, there was no evidence the Applicant suffered from a disability that necessitated the accommodation the Applicant was requesting.

41I find that the Applicant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she had a disability that presented barriers to her participating in the services provided by the Respondent or the access it arranged for her. Therefore, I cannot find that the Respondent’s duty to accommodate was triggered in the circumstances. Despite this, I find that the Respondent did take reasonable steps to accommodate the Applicant when requests were made as noted above.

42I find that the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not provide her with accommodations for her disabilities when requested.

ORDER

43The Application is upheld in part.

44Within 30 days, the Respondent shall meet with the Applicant and hear her reasons for requesting a change in primary worker following which it shall provide the Applicant with its decision. If the Respondent decides not to grant the Applicant’s request, it shall provide her with written reasons.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

45Pursuant 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 these Applications, 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.