HA v. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2025 CFSRB 67

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

HA Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: May 28, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 67 Indexed As: HA v The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

HA, Applicant Self-represented

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent Judith Hupé, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed on February 18, 2025, 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 pursuant to sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on February 25, 2025. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not give him the opportunity to be heard when a decision that affected his interests was made, and that the Respondent failed to give him reasons for its decisions made that affected his interests.

3The hearing on the merits took place by videoconference on May 14, 2025.

4The Applicant testified on his own behalf.

5The Respondent’s witness, child protection supervisor, LL testified. His affidavit with attached exhibits was adopted and entered into evidence as Exhibit 6.

6The Applicant is the father of two children. The Applicant and the children’s mother separated in July 2023. The children have remained in the care of their mother since that time.

ISSUES

7At a pre-hearing on March 25, 2025, the following issues were identified:

1. The Applicant alleges he was not provided with reasons why the Respondent did not advise him that the July 2023 investigation against him was closed.
2. The Applicant alleges he was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate his complaint in January 2024 regarding his belief that the children’s mother was planning to move the children out of the country.
3. The Applicant alleges he was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate his complaints in January 2024 and February 2025 regarding the children’s mother relocating the children to a new home, which he alleges is unsafe and disruptive to the children’s schooling.

JURISDICTION

8The Respondent alleged in its response to the Application that the Applicant’s complaints are being addressed in family court.

9At the pre-hearing the CFSRB directed that the Applicant may be required to make written submissions on whether the issues in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and if so, further direction will be provided by the CFSRB. The CFSRB did not provide further direction.

10At the Hearing the Respondent made brief submissions regarding jurisdiction, again submitting that the 3 issues raised are or should be the same as those before the Court.

11The Applicant argued that the 3 issues are different and that his complaints relate to procedural fairness, not being meaningfully heard, and only being provided cursory explanations.

12Having reviewed the submissions, I find that the three issues set out at the pre-hearing are separate and different from the issues before the family court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

13Under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

14The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are “separate and different from the substantive issues before the court”.

15There are no child protection proceedings involving the parties. However, the Applicant and his former partner are involved in family court in relation to their children.

16Two endorsements from the family court were filed as Exhibits I and J attached to LL’s Affidavit (filed as Exhibit 6). Exhibit I is an endorsement dated December 11, 2024, made at a Case Conference. The issues to be discussed at the case conference were listed as follows:

• Decision making responsibility for the children.
• Supervised parenting time with the Applicant father.
• The mother’s ability to travel with the children.
• Child support.

No mention is made anywhere in the December 11, 2024, endorsement of the Respondent or their involvement in the proceedings.

17Exhibit J is an Endorsement related to an urgent motion to the Court seeking supervised access. The motion was dismissed. Again, no mention is made of the Respondent.

18While it is true that the Applicant’s complaints arise from his spousal separation and his concerns about his children in their mother’s care, his complaints relate to the closure of his CAS file in July 2023 and to the alleged cursory explanations he was provided regarding the Respondent’s decision not to investigate his concerns in January 2024 and February 2025.

19The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to make any determinations related to decision making responsibility for the children, parenting time, travel restrictions, and support. The family court will ultimately make these determinations, but it will not make any determinations regarding the services the Applicant has received or not received from the Respondent.

20I find that the issues set out at the March 25, 2025, pre-hearing are not before the court and that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

RESULT

21I turn now to the substance of the matter, the issues set out at paragraph 7 above, and make the following findings:

• The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons with respect to Issue 1.
• The CFSRB is removing Issue 2 from consideration in this decision.
• The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons with respect to Issue 3.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Applicant alleges he was not provided with reasons why the Respondent did not advise him that the July 2023 investigation against him was closed.

22The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at paragraph 13 that:

With respect to s. 58(1)(4)5 (now s. 120(4)5), what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that 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 the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

23The parties agreed that the Respondent received a report of domestic violence from police on June 24, 2023, and they agreed that the Applicant had been charged with assault. The parties also agreed that the Respondent subsequently opened a file and commenced an investigation.

24Child protection supervisor LL testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 6) that on July 14, 2023, child protection worker GM had a telephone conversation with the Applicant. The contact log of this conversation was attached as Exhibit B to LL’s affidavit. The record is brief. It states that the Applicant reported the situation was calm and he was respecting the no contact order with his former spouse. The record identifies that he agreed at the time that the children were safe with the mother.

25The Applicant testified that he had no further contact with the Respondent until he contacted them on August 29, 2023. LL testified by way of affidavit that the Applicant contacted the Respondent on August 29, 2023, for an update on his file as he had been made aware that his family file had been closed without notifying him. Supervisor YU returned the Applicant’s call and confirmed the file had been closed. The contact log of this conversation was attached as Exhibit C to LL’s affidavit. The record states that the Applicant was not satisfied with the process; the worker communicated with him only once; and there was no follow up after. The Applicant said he wanted a clinical investigation report and access to the children. YU’s note states, “I discussed with client about investigation process – the reason for closing – I referred him to speak with his lawyer and have his community involved and family and arrange access through it; Client was given information for disclosure as he wanted to share the info with his lawyer.”

26On cross-examination the Applicant testified that he wasn’t given a chance to raise any issues and said that the Respondent did not get his feedback regarding their findings.

27LL testified that the decision to close the file was made after a safety assessment concluded the children were safe on or about July 15, 2023. LL apologized during cross-examination, explaining that the Applicant should have been notified of the file closure. LL acknowledged on cross-examination that failure to notify the applicant was an error.

28The Respondent did not notify the Applicant or provide any reasons for their decision to close his family’s file. Approximately six weeks after the decision to close the file was made the Applicant contacted the Respondent for an update on the file. At that point the Respondent advised the Applicant the file had been closed, but provided him, according to the contact log from August 29, 2023, and the Applicant, very little detail as to the reasons for the decision.

29An examination of what constitutes sufficient reasons may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. On the facts before me I conclude that on both these criteria the Respondent’s reasons were insufficient. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were considered in making the decision to allow him to understand why and how the decision was made. The Applicant was not provided sufficient information regarding the decision to close his family’s file.

30For the above reasons I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons why the Respondent did not advise him that the July 2023 investigation against him was closed.

Issue 2: The Applicant alleges he was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate his complaint in January 2024 regarding his belief that the children’s mother was planning to move the children out of the country.

31There was confusion amongst the parties in relation to this issue.

32LL’s affidavit states at paragraph 11, “After providing [the Applicant] with his disclosure package, the Society did not hear back from him until February 1, 2025. The family file remained closed until then.”

33During the hearing, though, the Applicant filed an e-mail chain dated January 11 through January 15, 2024 (Exhibits 1 and 4), which is detailed below, and provides evidence that the Applicant did bring complaints to the Respondent in January 2024, although the Respondent seems to have had no record of those emails.

34The complaints, though, the Applicant brought to the Respondent in January 2024, related to the children’s well-being and safety in an undisclosed location and what the conditions of their home were. The complaints make no mention of the Applicant’s belief that the children’s mother was planning to move the children out of the country.

35For this reason, Issue 2 is being removed from consideration in my decision. The complaints of January 2024 are considered in the following paragraphs.

Issue 3: The Applicant alleges he was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate his complaints in January 2024 and February 2025 regarding the children’s mother relocating the children to a new home, which he alleges is unsafe and disruptive to the children’s schooling.

36The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act as follows:

“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 (P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)).”

37In relation to the 2024 complaint, the Applicant testified that he made two phone calls to the Respondent in early January 2024 and then sent an email to the Respondent on January 11, 2024, which was filed as Exhibit 1. It states:

“I am writing to request an investigation by the Children’s Aid Society regarding the current living arrangements and conditions of my two children…I am concerned about their current well-being and safety in an undisclosed location…I want to ensure they are safe and that the living conditions with their mother meet the same standards they have been used to. Please consider this letter a formal request for Children’s Aid intervention and assessment of the current home situation.”

38The Respondent characterized the email from the Applicant as a “report received, not investigated”. They did not have a record of the report and subsequent communication. LL’s affidavit states at paragraph 11, “After providing [the Applicant] with his disclosure package, the Society did not hear back from him until February 1, 2025. The family file remained closed until then.”

39The Applicant testified that he received an email response from the Respondent on January 15, 2024. This email chain was filed without opposition and marked as Exhibit 4. Child Protection Worker DG responded, “Thank you for sharing this information with the Society. With anything regarding custody and/or access, please contact a family lawyer”. The Applicant responded the same day, “Thank you so much for your reply, however, I did not ask your involvement for any custody arrangement…I am writing to request an investigation by the Children’s Aid Society regarding the current living conditions of my two children.” Child Protection Worker DG responded, “Thank you for providing the society with this information. If you have any further information or evidence to support your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us…”

40Supervisor LL testified that he had had an opportunity to review the email exchange in Exhibits 1 and 4 on the day of the Hearing after they were provided by the Applicant. On this basis LL testified that the Applicant’s concerns would not have met the threshold for the Respondent to open an investigation or assessment and that the Applicant would have been referred to the Family Court.

41To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to him so that he feels that his concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

42The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests.

43On the facts before me the Respondent did not keep a record of the Applicant’s concerns. Its’ evidence was that it did not hear back from the Applicant again until February 1, 2025, until this evidence was refuted by the emails submitted by the Applicant that demonstrated he had emailed his concerns and that the Respondent had replied.

44I cannot find that the Applicant was heard in these circumstances. The two reply emails the Applicant received were cursory, standard form emails thanking him for his information. The Applicant did not feel that his concerns were taken seriously, and he was not provided with a meaningful explanation regarding his January 2024 complaint.

45In relation to the 2025 complaint, on February 1, 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent, which was attached as Exhibit E to LL’s affidavit. The email states:

“I am writing to formally request immediate intervention and investigation into my children’s well-being. [They] have been:

1. Unlawfully relocated by their mother from our matrimonial home to community housing, despite there being no custody agreement or court order permitting such move.
2. Placed in harm’s way, as they have reported that their new neighborhood is unsafe, with frequent loud fights that have left them scared and anxious.
3. At risk of educational disruption, as [the mother] is now attempting to remove them from their private school…and enroll them in a public school, despite their strong attachment to their current school and lack of academic support from her.
4. Exposed to unauthorized reports created about my [child] without my consent, violating child protection policies and breaching privacy laws.

I am deeply concerned that these actions violate the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, endangering my children’s safety and educational well-being.”

46The email goes on to provide additional details of the Applicant’s concerns and includes numerous attachments, including a Police Report dated January 3, 2024 (filed as Exhibit 5) and family court endorsements.

47LL testified by way of affidavit that on February 4, 2025, telephone intake worker RD responded to the Applicant. This email was attached as Exhibit F to LL’s affidavit. It states, “Thank you for contacting the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society. This is in response to the email you sent…regarding concerns you have for your children. The information you provided will be reviewed and if the Society feels there’s a need to follow up with you then we will be in contact.”

48On February 6, 2025, the Applicant replied to RD. This email was also attached as Exhibit G to LL’s affidavit. It states, “I acknowledge receipt of your response regarding my concerns for the well-being of my children…However, I find your reply inadequate and concerning, as it does not confirm whether Ottawa CAS is taking active steps to investigate serious risks my children are facing due to the unilateral and irresponsible actions of their mother.”

49LL testified that the matter was subsequently referred to legal counsel, who emailed the Applicant on February 10, 2025, which is attached as Exhibit H to LL’s Affidavit. That email states, “I am in receipt of your emails dated February 1 and 6 2025 expressing your concern that the mother of the children had changed their school without your consent….Upon review of all, I can advise the Society will not investigate the matter. The transfer of your children to a new school without your consent is not a child protection safety concern; neither is the fact that the children are doing counselling without your consent. I understand that you are currently in family court which in the Society’s view, in the current circumstances, is the proper forum to deal with your concerns. I want to note that upon review of the police report, there is evidence that suggests that you called the landlord advising you will no longer pay the rent prompting the mother to have to look for alternative accommodations that is affordable to her. For (sic) the Society’s perspective, the mother’s action was reasonable and does not warrant our intervention. Again, you can bring your concerns to family court.”

50A second email was sent by Respondent’s counsel to the Applicant on February 14, 2025, which was attached as Exhibit K to LL’s affidavit, which stated, “The Society’s position with regard to the request for an investigation remains the same as per my February 10, 2025, email. I strongly encourage you to hire a family law lawyer or obtain independent legal advice on how to present the evidence you indicate having in your family law court case. Your matter with the Society is closed.”

51Supervisor LL testified about the Eligibility Spectrum, explaining that it is the tool used to determine whether a reported concern meets the threshold for investigation or assessment. He explained that in relation to the Applicant’s 2025 concerns they did not reach this threshold and were related to parental decision-making authority, which is dealt with in family court.

52On a question from the CFSRB LL testified that disruptions, such as school moves, do not, in and of themselves, constitute emotional harm under the Eligibility Spectrum, but that in the broader context of other child protection concerns they may be a factor. While this was explained briefly during the hearing, it was not included in any of the Respondent’s communications to the Applicant regarding the concerns he brought to them in 2025.

53While I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns in February 2025, as demonstrated by their prompt replies detailing their understanding of the concerns and their position, I find that that the Respondent did not provide sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to not investigate his concerns to allow him to understand why and how the decision was made. I find that for the Applicant to understand the Respondent’s reasoning regarding the decision not to investigate they require further explanation from the Respondent of where the Respondent determined this matter fell on the Eligibility Spectrum.

54For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has not provided the Applicant reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate the Applicant’s complaints in January 2024 and February 2025 regarding the children’s mother relocating the children to a new home, which he alleges is unsafe and disruptive to the children’s schooling.

ORDER

55Issues 1 and 3 are upheld.

56By June 27, 2025, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a letter addressing the following:

1. Provide an explanation of the safety assessment conducted in July 2023 and the Respondent’s subsequent decision to close the file.
2. Provide an explanation of the Eligibility Spectrum and how the Respondent determined that the risk to the children did not meet the eligibility criteria for intervention in January 2024 and February 2025.
3. In providing these explanations the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a copy of the Eligibility Spectrum document.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

57Pursuant 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.