MK v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton, 2025 CFSRB 60

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MK Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: May 16, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 60 Indexed As: MK v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).

2The Applicant is the mother of two children (the “Children”) who were the subject of an investigation by the Respondent.

3The Applicant made a formal complaint to the Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”) on December 14, 2024. The Respondent wrote to the Applicant on December 30, 2024, stating that the ICRP eligibility decision was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation and a further letter on January 23, 2025, staying the ICRP eligibility decision until the conclusion of this CFSRB matter

4The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)4,120(4)5 and 119(5)1 of the Act.

5The Applicant’s complaints were identified in a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated February 4, 2025. A Pre-Hearing Report dated March 5, 2025, confirmed the hearing would be held in writing and set deadlines for the parties to file material and submissions, including for the Applicant to provide their written submissions by April 2, 2025, and for the Respondent to provide their written submissions by April 9, 2025.

6The Applicant provided her submissions on April 2, 2025, which contained over 50 exhibits including, emails, court documents, letters from doctors and therapists and photographs. The Respondent provided Affidavits from: Theresa Zonneveld, Director of Child Protection Services; Meaghan Christie, Child Protection Supervisor; and Samantha Siebert, Child Protection Worker, on April 9 and its submissions on April 10, 2025, 1 day past the deadline. The Applicant also provided a Reply to the Respondent’s submission.

ISSUES

7The issues to be determined are:

A. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard: i. regarding her concerns that the investigative process did not follow procedural fairness, was not completed in a timely fashion, and that key investigative steps were missed; ii. regarding her concerns that the investigative process did not consider the abuse disclosures that were made to various professionals; iii. regarding her concerns for the safety of the Children;

b. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns that the privacy of her older child was not respected;

c. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions: i. for how the Respondent considered the professional recommendations regarding the safety of the Children ii. for the recommendation that “parenting time” is a Family Court matter; iii. the rationale behind suspending the Applicant’s ICRP eligibility.

RESULT

8I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard on issue b) and did not provide sufficient reasons for issue c)ii.

ANALYSIS

9The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions made concerning the Children, the investigative process, or the complaints process. In addition, the Applicant requests that the CFSRB make a finding that the Respondent provided services that were inadequate, disrespectful, not transparent, or consistent with the Act. She also requests an order that acknowledges the impact the service failure had on her and the Children, and to provide non-binding recommendations on how to improve service.

10The Respondent argues that they heard the Applicant’s concerns on all matters and provided reasons for the decisions that were made. Further, it argues that the Applicant is requesting the CFSRB to make findings which are outside of its jurisdiction and to provide remedies it is unable to provide.

11The CFSRB recognizes how difficult this matter, including the investigation, has been for the Applicant, the Children and the Applicant’s other child. However, the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the services provided by a Society and to order remedies is very limited.

12Section 120(4) of the Act sets out the matters which the CFSRB may review and in this matter, is limited to whether a society refused to proceed with a complaint, failed to provide an opportunity to be heard, and/or failed to provide reasons. The CFSRB can not review the thoroughness, correctness or steps taken to conduct the actual investigation. As such, it can not provide findings as to the “quality” of the services or the impact the services had as requested by the Applicant.

13Further, section 120(7) of the Act sets out the orders that the CFSRB can make upon a review. In this matter, the CFSRB finds for the Applicant, it is limited to ordering the Respondent to proceed with the complaint process, provide a response to the Application, or to provide reasons for a decision.

Were the Applicant’s concerns heard regarding the investigatory process, whether abuse disclosures made to professionals were considered, and for the safety of the Children?

14The Applicant submits that she was not heard about her concerns that the investigative process was flawed in terms of process and the information that was considered in making its decision. Specifically, she alleges that she was not provided an opportunity to relay her concerns about procedural fairness, timeliness, and delays in the investigation. In addition, the Applicant alleges that her concerns about whether professional opinions were adequately considered, and for her for the safety of the Children, were not heard.

15The Respondent concedes that the investigation took longer than usual due to new information being brought forward, the number of professionals involved and the police involvement. However, it argues that it provided the Applicant an opportunity to be heard about her concerns during numerous emails and phone calls.

16An application deemed eligible under section 120(4)4 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only whether an Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard, and provided with reasons for those decisions. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices, including whether the investigation itself was thorough or done correctly.

17On October 24, 2004, the Applicant contacted the Respondent about concerns related to the Children’s parenting time with their father. There were multiple communications between the Applicant and Respondent and an interview with the Children which resulted in a decision to initiate a joint investigation with the Halton Regional police on November 13, 2024. On November 18, 2024, the Respondent provided the Applicant with an update on the police interviews and advised that their investigation was ongoing as they needed to speak with community collaterals.

18Between November 18 and January 13, 2025, there were numerous emails and phone calls about the investigation between the Applicant and Theresa Zonneveld, Director of Child Protection Services; Meaghan Christie, Child Protection Supervisor; and Samantha Siebert, Child Protection Worker. In many of the communications, it is clear that the Applicant is voicing frustration in how the investigation is being managed, which professionals were being contacted, whether the children’s disclosures were being adequately weighed and whether they should be interviewed again.

19On November 27, 2024, the Applicant sent the Respondent an email and a voice mail which detailed her ongoing concerns for the Children’s safety and well-being. The Respondent returned the call on November 28, 2024, and discussed the investigation and initial findings as well as confirmation of a professional who would be contacted.

20In another email from the Applicant to the Respondent on December 4, 2024, the Applicant thanks the Respondent for speaking with her on the phone regarding her concerns. The email goes on to seek clarification on how the Respondent was considering disclosures made by the Children and various professionals with a request for the Respondent to revisit this information. The Respondent emailed the Applicant on December 5 confirming that a doctor and therapist had been consulted and they were aware of the Children’s statements to those professionals.

21As shown in email correspondence from the Ms. Zonneveld, a phone call was scheduled on December 19, 2024, with the Applicant to discuss her concerns. Although there is no evidence as to the discussion itself, the Applicant confirmed that the conversation did in fact take place in an email on December 19, 2024.

22A further email was sent by Ms. Christie, to the Applicant on December 19, 2024, which listed all professionals who had been contacted and letters which had been received. It also confirmed that the investigation was still ongoing but that it was hoped that they would be able to provide an outcome in January 2025. The Applicant responded the same day stating “I appreciate the update you have now provided; however, it would have been helpful and more transparent if this information had been shared earlier. To date, I have not received any transparency regarding the investigation until now.”

23Again, it is not for the CFSRB to determine whether the Respondent correctly engaged in the investigation or came to the correct decision, only to determine whether the opportunity was provided for the Applicant to have her concerns heard. I find that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to have her concerns heard with respect to the investigation, the disclosure made to the professionals and for the safety of her Children. The Applicant’s real issue is in whether she feels the investigation was done correctly, fairly, or quickly.

Was the Applicant’s concern that her older daughter’s privacy was not respected heard?

24As part of the Respondent’s Response to the Application, it included sensitive historical information regarding the Applicant’s older child.

25The Applicant argues that the Respondent did not hear her concerns with respect to her older child’s privacy and questioned the inclusion of this information in the material. The Applicant further provided a letter from this daughter detailing the impact the inclusion of her information in this matter had on her.

26The Respondent argued that this information was provided as it was historical information that existed at the time of the most recent investigation. It argues that the concern for the eldest child’s privacy has only arisen in the context of the CFSRB proceedings, was not part of the Application, and should not be reviewable.

27Although I agree with the Respondent that this issue only arose because of this Application, I do not agree that this means it is not reviewable. The Applicant’s complaints were set out in the Pre-hearing/Mediation report dated February 5, 2025, and confirmed by both parties at the Pre-hearing on March 5, 2025. At no time did the Respondent object to this issue.

28I find that the Applicant’s concern for her older daughter’s privacy has not been heard as there has been no evidence presented showing that an opportunity to be heard was provided.

Was the Applicant provided with reasons for how the Respondent considered the professional recommendations regarding the safety of the Children?

29The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for how the Respondent considered professional recommendations. Specifically, there were multiple therapists, school employees, doctors and police involved in the investigation that the Applicant alleges the Respondent failed to listen to. The Applicant refers to the Endorsement of Justice Yamashita on December 11, 2024, ordering the father only supervised access to the Children, on a temporary basis, as evidence that the Respondent ignored the risk that was alleged to have been advised of by the professionals.

30The Respondent spoke with the school on November 26, 2024. Police were consulted on November 13, 2024. On December 5 and 19 the Respondent provided the Applicant with the names of other professionals, including doctors and therapists, that they had consulted and/or reviewed letters from.

31The Respondent provided the Applicant a closing letter dated January 21, 2025, explaining “the verification decision is made on the balance of probabilities. The evidence was assessed to make a decision about whether the protection concerns are more likely to be true than not true. The information gathered was reviewed to determine if credible and persuasive.”

32Again, it is not for the CFSRB to determine whether the Respondent correctly considered professional opinions, only that they provided the Applicant with reasons for how they considered the information provided. I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with those reasons.

Was the Applicant provided with reasons for the recommendation that “parenting time” is a Family Court Matter?

33The Applicant alleges that she was not provided reasons why parenting time is a Family Court matter.

34The Affidavit of Ms. Siebert submitted that she spoke with the Applicant on November 18, 2024, and explained that the Respondent did not have grounds to interfere with the parenting time and encouraged her to speak with her lawyer. Ms. Christie’s Affidavit indicates that she provided the same information on November 28, 2024. There does not seem to be any other evidence of reasons being provided for why the Family Court would need to be involved.

35In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at paragraph 13, 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.

36I find that the reason provided above would not have been sufficient to allow the Applicant, who has no legal training, to understand what the threshold was that the Respondent required to intervene in parenting time or that the intervention was one that the Respondent would have had to have gotten approval by the Courts. The reason provided would not have provided clarity about the difference between family law matters and child protection matters.

Was the Applicant provided with reasons behind the suspending of the Applicant’s ICRP eligibility?

37The Application alleges that she was not provided with reasons for why the ICRP eligibility decision was suspended.

38The Respondent argues that written reasons were provided.

39On December 14, 2024, the Applicant filed a formal complaint to the Respondent. The Respondent sent a letter on December 30, 2024, stating that the ICRP was suspended until the open investigation was completed. It noted that within seven days of closure of the investigation, a written decision on eligibility would be provided. A further letter was sent on December 30 by the Respondent providing clarification, stating “upon review of the ICRP complaint details, it was determined that to address all areas of concern, it was important to have the complete investigation information. The ICRP process may be suspended if awaiting further information such as the completion of an investigation. This does not mean that the process will not continue but will be reviewed again once the investigation is complete.” Another letter was sent by the Respondent January 23, 2025, stating that the ICRP submission was stayed pending the outcome of the CFSRB matter.

40I find that the Respondent provided reasons to the Applicant on why the ICRP eligibility decision was suspended.

41Section 119(5)1 of the Act enables someone to apply to the CFSRB for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure. Section 120(4) 1 states that the Board may review allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint. As the complaint review procedure has not been completed and the Respondent has not technically refused to proceed but merely suspended the decision, there is no ruling that I can make.

42I feel compelled to note however that the core of the Applicant’s complaint has not yet been reviewed in terms of eligibility for an ICRP and it is not the focus of the CFSRB’s review. Based solely on the information before me, including the complaint made to the ICRP, I do not see any reason why eligibility for an ICRP would be denied.

CONCLUSION

43I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns that the privacy of her oldest daughter was not respected and it did not provide sufficient reasons for why it advised that parenting time was a Family Court matter.

44I find that the Respondent provided an opportunity to be heard and/or reasons for all other issues.

ORDER

45The Application is upheld in part.

46Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with:

a. a response to her concern that they did not respect her older daughter’s privacy; and

b. detailed written reasons for why it advised that parenting time is for the Family Court.

47The remainder of this Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

48Pursuant 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.