CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SW
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: SW v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
SW, Applicant
Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent
Kevin Chao, 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)4 and section 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The hearing was held by videoconference on April 4, 2025.
ISSUES
4The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated January 22, 2025, set out the issues for Hearing as:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for closing its file regarding a complaint made by her in October 2002.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for closing its file regarding a complaint of assault against her and her child (“the Child”) by the father in May 2010.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to advise her of a report of protection concerns made by the Child’s teacher, Miss G., in 2010. The Applicant further alleges that as a result, the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard regarding that report. Finally, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for either not opening or closing the file regarding the report made by Miss G..
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to advise her that a Referral New Information Report was generated as a result of a complaint made by her in July 2011. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear her concerns that the Child was being allowed to take the TTC alone at the age of nine. The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with an explanation of the referral eligibility codes on the Referral New Information Report. Finally, the Applicant alleges that she was not provided with reasons as to why no further action was taken by the Respondent following completion of this report.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for the decision not to open a file regarding her complaint that the Child’s father might fail to provide the Child with medication for a cough during an access visit in January 2012.
The Applicant alleges that in 2013 she made a complaint to the police and to BOOST that the Child was afraid of their father and that the father’s family had a history of abuse. The Applicant alleges that the file regarding this complaint was transferred to a child protection agency in York Region without the opportunity for her to be heard regarding the transfer. The Applicant further alleges that she was not provided with reasons why the 2013 complaint was transferred to York Region, nor was she provided with reasons why the complaint was not investigated in Toronto.
The Applicant alleges that she was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding a 2014 complaint by staff at the Barbra Schlifer Clinic to the Respondent. The Applicant alleges that the complaint detailed the abuse of the Child at the hands of the father as described by his siblings. The Applicant further alleges that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for not opening an investigation because of this complaint.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons why her files were printed by someone in the Respondents employ in 2017 and 2019.
5The Hearing proceeded on these issues.
RESULT
6The CFSRB finds that in relation to issue 1 the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons for closing its file regarding a complaint made by her in October 2002
7The CFSRB finds that in relation to issue 2 the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons for closing its file regarding a complaint of assault against her and the Child