AS v. Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, 2025 CFSRB 63

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AS Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: May 22, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 63 Indexed As: AS v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AS, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, Respondent Dawn Dubois, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application which the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) found eligible to proceed under section 120(4) 4 and 120 (4) 5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1.

2On January 7, 2025, the parties participated in a mediation and entered into a Settlement Agreement with eight terms.

3On March 21, 2025, the Applicant sent the CFSRB and the Respondent two separate emails alleging that the Respondent did not comply with terms 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Settlement Agreement.

4In response to a Case Management Directive dated March 25, 2025, the parties agreed to a hearing in writing and in a further Case Management Directive dated April 3, 2025, the parties were directed to provide the CFSRB with their written submissions by April 22, 2025. The Respondent provided their submissions on April 17, 2025, and the Applicant provided her submissions on April 22, 2025.

ISSUES

5The Applicant alleges the Respondent failed to comply with terms 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Settlement Agreement.

a) Term 3 required the Respondent to provide the Applicant with a letter by January 31, 2025, explaining why the Respondent chose to move from a voluntary service agreement with the Applicant to a Supervision Order in March 2023.

b) Term 5 required the Respondent to provide the Applicant with copies of CPIN notes detailing when service plans were discussed with the Applicant, and if service plans were not discussed, why they were not discussed.

c) Term 6 required the Respondent to meet with the Applicant and provide a clear description of what changes the Applicant needed to make for the Respondent to be willing to consider the Applicant’s child being back in the Applicant’s care.

d) Term 7 required that the Respondent worker and the Applicant meet by March 7, 2025, to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding disclosure provided by the Respondent and to answer any questions the Applicant may have regarding reasons provided or information in the disclosure.

e) Term 8 required that by the implementation date of the Settlement Agreement on March 14, 2025, the Respondent approach the child’s father to determine his interest in participating in discussions between the parents regarding parenting, expectations for the child, and service planning.

RESULT

6I find that terms 3, 5, 6, and 7 have been met by the Respondent.

7Due to lack of evidence provided in the parties’ submissions, I make no finding regarding the Respondent’s compliance with term 8.

ANALYSIS

Term 3: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with a letter by January 31, 2025, explaining why the Respondent chose to move from a voluntary service agreement with the Applicant to a Supervision Order in March 2023

8The Applicant argues that the January 29, 2025, letter provided to her by the Respondent in fulfillment of this term did not provide the reasons why the Respondent chose to move from a voluntary service agreement to a supervision order. She acknowledges that the letter did contain a sentence that stated, ““given the length of time with no progress, Child Protection Worker [S.S.] advised you that the Society intended to initiate court proceedings given your inability to ensure that [the Child] attended school on a regular basis.”

9The Respondent argues that their January 29, 2025, letter clearly describes the background and reasons for their decision to move from a voluntary service agreement to a supervision order.

10In my reading of the Respondent’s January 29, 2025, letter, it clearly states that this decision was made following an extensive period during which the Applicant did not make progress in ensuring the Child’s school attendance. The Respondent further states that the ultimate decision to place the Child in the father’s care was a decision made by the courts, not by the Respondent.

11I agree with the Respondent that the Agreed Statement of Facts dated January 17, 2025, and signed by the Applicant clearly sets forth the reasons for the Respondent ending the voluntary service agreement and seeking a supervision order based on the Applicant’s difficulty ensuring that the Child attended school on a regular basis. I find that through this document and the January 29, 2025, letter, the Respondent has provided the Applicant with the reasons required by term 3.

12For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied with term 3 of the Settlement Agreement.

Term 5: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with copies of CPIN notes detailing when service plans were discussed with the Applicant, and if service plans were not discussed, why they were not discussed?

13The Applicant argues in her April 22, 2025 submission that the Respondent did not provide her with copies of safety assessments and service plans, and that no reasons were provided by the Respondent for why safety assessments and service plans were not discussed or disclosed to her.

14The language of the Settlement Agreement states that “the Respondent agrees to provide the Applicant with CPIN case note documentation of when these assessments and service plans were discussed with the Applicant, and, where plans were not discussed with the Applicant, reasons for why they were not discussed.”

15The Respondent argues that it provided copies of all safety assessments and service plans with accompanying letters on February 21, 2025, and February 27, 2025, as part of a disclosure agreed to in term 1 of the Settlement Agreement. Compliance with term 1 is not in dispute. A copy of the disclosure was not included in the submissions provided by either party. In reviewing the February 28, 2025, letter from the Respondent I find that it lists in detail the places in the disclosure where safety assessments and service plans may be found. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary from the Applicant, I find that the Respondent did include in their disclosure to the Applicant copies of safety assessments and service plans included in the Applicant’s file.

16In reviewing the list of safety plans included in the Respondent’s February 27, 2025, letter, I find that there are multiple safety plans listed. What is not clear is whether these safety plans were discussed with the Applicant at the time. The Applicant claims they were not discussed. Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent in their submissions provided me with actual copies of these safety plans or copies of any CPIN notes indicating whether or not these safety plans were discussed with or signed by the Applicant.

17In reviewing the list of file openings and service plans included in the Respondent’s February 27, 2025, letter, I note that for multiple openings between March 30, 2004, and January 31, 2007, no service plans were completed or discussed with the Applicant. Several service plans appear to have been completed between February 26, 2007, and October 5, 2007. There does not appear to have been any service plans completed for openings between August 14, 2009, and April 24, 2017. Further, in the list of CPIN notes provided covering the period from February 7, 2019, to November 21, 2024, there is no mention of service plans being completed.

18Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent included in their submissions actual copies of the service plans completed between February 26, 2007, and October 5, 2007. Had either the Applicant or the Respondent included copies of these service plans in their submissions, I could have made a determination regarding whether they were discussed with the Applicant based upon whether they were signed by the Applicant. Similarly, no copies of CPIN notes documenting the discussion of these service plans with the Applicant were provided by the parties. As copies of these service plans were not included, I have no evidence on which to draw a conclusion regarding whether service plans completed during that period were discussed with or signed by the Applicant.

19In my view, completion and discussion of service plans and agreement to these plans are critical components of an Applicant being heard and given reasons for decisions affecting their interests. It is disturbing that there appears to be such a marked lack of service plans in the Applicant’s file. It is also disturbing that no evidence of existing service plans having been discussed with the Applicant has been presented by the Respondent. This absence of evidence in support of service plans having been discussed with the Applicant tends to support the Applicant’s argument in her Application that she has not been heard and given reasons by the Respondent. It also raises questions regarding whether a clear description of the actions required by the Applicant to address the Respondent’s child protection concerns has been provided to the Applicant.

20Determining whether term 5 has been met turns on whether the Respondent provided the Applicant “with CPIN case note documentation of whether and when these assessments and service plans were discussed with the Applicant.” Evidence in the form of copies of CPIN notes or signed service plans would have assisted me in determining whether the service plans completed between February 26, 2007, and October 5, 2007 (the only service plans that appear to have been completed) were discussed with the Applicant. It appears that the Respondent did provide the Applicant in its disclosure with copies of these service plans, however neither the Applicant nor the Respondent submitted copies of these service plans in their submissions as evidence of whether the service plans were discussed with and signed by the Applicant. Without copies of these service plans and any associated CPIN notes documenting whether the Respondent discussed the service plans with the Applicant, I have no evidence before me to determine whether these service plans were discussed with the Applicant.

21The language of the settlement agreement further required that where plans were not discussed with the Applicant, the Respondent provide reasons for why they were not discussed. In their submissions, the Respondent did not provide any reasons for why service plans were not discussed with the Applicant. However, given the lack of evidence before me regarding whether the Applicant did, or did not, have input into the service plans in the disclosure completed between February 26, 2007 and October 5, 2007, I have no way of knowing whether any reasons were required from the Respondent regarding these service plans. If the Applicant did have input to and sign these service plans, then the Respondent did not need to provide reasons for why these service plans were not discussed.

22The burden of proof for determining whether any term was met lies with the Applicant. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the Respondent did not provide “CPIN case note documentation of when these assessments and service plans were discussed” and, if these service plans were not discussed, it is the Applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that the Respondent did not provide reasons for why these service plans were not discussed. While I recognize that proving a negative (that something didn’t happen) is challenging, the Applicant could have included in her submissions any existing unsigned copies of the service plans from between February 26, 2007, and October 5, 2007 that were included in the disclosure as proof that she did not have input into the service plans.

23For the above reasons, despite the concerns I expressed above regarding the limited number of service plans completed during the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant, I find that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof required, and I therefore find in the Respondent’s favour that the requirements of term 5 have been met.

Term 6: Did the Respondent meet with the Applicant and provide a clear description of what changes the Applicant needed to make for the Respondent to be willing to consider the Applicant’s child being back in the Applicant’s care?

24In the Applicant’s original email dated March 21, 2025, at 5:06 p.m. alleging non-compliance, the Applicant alleged that term 6 was not met. In a subsequent email received at 5:49 p.m. on the same date providing further details of the allegations, the Applicant did not address term 6. In their submission received on April 22, 2025, the Applicant provided details regarding how term 6 was not complied with and argued that the Respondent did not provide her with a letter providing “a clear description of what changes the applicant would need to make for the Respondent to no longer be concerned regarding the child returning to the Applicants care.” This letter was to be provided to the Applicant by February 7, 2025.

25Because the Applicant did not address term 6 in her March 21, 5:49 pm email and only addressed this term in her April 22, 2025, submission, the Respondent did not respond directly to this submission in their submission received on April 17, 2025. Despite this, I find that the information provided by the Respondent in their April 17, 2025, submission does provide sufficient detail for me to make a finding regarding whether the requirements of term 6 were met.

26In their April 17, 2025, submission in their discussion of term 5, the Respondent states that it provided the Applicant with an updated Plan of Care dated January 17, 2025, that was also provided to the Court. This Plan of Care which the Respondent included as an Addendum to their submission sets out at Paragraph 5 in detail the Respondent’s expectations for the Applicant as it relates to child protection concerns.

27While a formal letter outlining these expectations was technically required by term 6, I find that the description of expectations for the Applicant provided in the Plan of Care dated January 17, 2025, meets the requirements of term 6, and that it was provided to the Applicant prior to the February 7, 2025, date required by term 6.

28For the above reasons, I find that the requirements of term 6 have been met.

Term 7: Did the Respondent worker and the Applicant meet by March 7, 2025, to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding disclosure provided by the Respondent and to answer any questions the Applicant may have regarding reasons provided or information in the disclosure?

29The parties agree that a meeting took place on March 4, 2025, between the Applicant and the Respondent worker during which some discussion took place regarding the disclosure provided by the Respondent and the Applicant had some opportunity to raise questions regarding the disclosure. During this discussion the Applicant raised concerns regarding inaccuracies in the disclosed record.

30The Applicant expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the interaction between the Respondent worker and herself. She states that the worker arrived 20 minutes late for the appointment with no notice that she would be late. The Applicant felt the worker was dismissive of her concerns and the misinformation included in the disclosed record. The Applicant further states that the worker was distracted during the meeting by phone calls and text messages and that the Applicant’s questions and concerns were not addressed during the meeting and she did not feel heard.

31In their submissions, the Respondent acknowledges that the worker was late to this meeting. The Respondent states that the worker attempted to address the Applicant’s concerns to the best of her ability and offered to schedule another meeting to further discuss the Applicant’s concerns.

32I find that the meeting did take place within the time frame required by term 7 and did address some of the Applicant’s concerns, although the Applicant states that many of her concerns and questions were left unaddressed. It is unfortunate that this meeting, which was intended to provide the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns unfolded in a manner that reinforced for the Applicant her perception that she was still not being heard by the Respondent.

33Despite the Applicant’s expressed frustrations regarding the meeting, I find that the Respondent met the minimum requirements of this term by meeting with the Applicant by the required date and engaging in some discussion regarding the required issues. For this reason, I find that term 7 was met. It is my hope that a further meeting was scheduled between the Applicant and the Respondent to provide additional time to hear and address the Applicant’s concerns and to work toward building a more collaborative working relationship with the Applicant.

34With regard to the Applicant’s concerns about inaccuracies in the disclosure file, I note that the Applicant has a right to further address any alleged inaccuracies with the Respondent under the provisions of Section 315 of the Child Youth and Family Services Act that deals with disclosure and corrections to records, Section 315 falls under Part X of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, and concerns regarding the Application of this section should be addressed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

35For the above reasons, I find that the requirements of term 7 have been met.

Term 8: Did the Respondent approach the child’s father to determine his interest in participating in discussions between the parents regarding parenting, expectations for the child, and service planning before the March 14, 2025, implementation date for the Settlement Agreement?

36The Applicant states in her April 22, 2025, submission that as of a March 31, 2025, court date, she had received no indication regarding whether the Respondent had initiated contact with the Child’s father regarding the father’s willingness to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process.

37In their April 17, 2025, submission, the Respondent confirms that all parties including the child’s father have agreed to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process.

38The language of term 8 required the Respondent to approach the father to determine his interest in participating in discussions. The father was to have been approached prior to the Settlement Agreement implementation date of March 21, 2025.

39The Applicant states in her April 22, 2025, submission that she was unclear whether the Respondent had discussed with the father his participation in an alternate dispute resolution process.

40Making a finding with respect to term 8 turns on the availability of documentary evidence regarding when the Respondent approached the Child’s father regarding participating in an alternate dispute resolution process. Neither party in their submission provided any evidence or documentation indicating if or when the Respondent spoke with the father. It appears from the Respondent’s submissions that the Respondent did speak with the child’s father and that he agreed to participate in alternative dispute resolution, however I have no evidence before me regarding whether the Respondent spoke with the father prior to the March 21, 2025, implementation date.

41As I have no evidence before me regarding when the Respondent spoke with the father, and as the evidence before me is that all parties have now agreed to participate in an alternate dispute resolution process, I find that this issue is now moot, and I make no finding regarding whether term 8 of the Settlement Agreement was met.

CONCLUSION

42For the above reasons, I find that terms 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Settlement Agreement have been met.

43Due to lack of evidence, I am unable to make a finding regarding compliance with term 8 of the Settlement Agreement, and I further find that at this point, compliance with term 8 is moot.

44The CFSRB’s file is now closed.

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 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.