CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MT
Applicant
-and-
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: MT v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
MT, Applicant
Self-represented
North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondent
Sonia Migneault, 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 pursuant to sections 120(4) 4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on February 4, 2025. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns or provide him with reasons for its decisions that affected his interests.
3A hearing on the merits took place by videoconference on May 26, 2025.
4The Applicant testified on his own behalf.
5The Respondent called three witnesses, whose affidavits were adopted and entered into evidence as follows:
LJ – Service Manager – Affidavit filed as Exhibit 3
CL – Child Protection Supervisor – Affidavit filed as Exhibit 4
KL – Child Protection Worker – Affidavit filed as Exhibit 5
6The Applicant is the father of a child (the “Child”). The Applicant and the Child’s mother (the “Mother”) separated in 2024. The Child has remained in the care of the Mother. The Child is the subject of a Protection Application brought by the Respondent, which remains before the Court.
ISSUES
7At a pre-hearing on April 16, 2025, the following issues were identified:
The Applicant alleges that the Child’s maternal grandmother spanks the Child and hit [the Child] in the mouth and that the Respondent was dismissive of his concerns, in or around September 2024, and did not investigate the situation.
The Applicant alleges that the Child’s maternal grandfather ‘plays’ with the Child’s buttocks in a manner the Applicant believes is sexual and, that the Respondent was dismissive of his concerns, in or around September 2024 through January 2025, and did not investigate them.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent refused his many requests to speak with a child protection supervisor with one exception. On the one occasion a supervisor named CL spoke with him, the Applicant alleges that CL said she would look into his concerns and get back to him, but he never heard back from her.
The Applicant alleges that he tried to speak with LJ who is CL’s supervisor, regarding his concerns about the services he was receiving but did not receive a response.
The Applicant alleges that, at his initial meetings with the Respondent, prior to it serving the apprehension warrant on him it did not hear his concerns and the reason it provided to him is that he was ‘a liar’ without listening to his version of events. That in this instance, and otherwise, the Respondent has not treated him fairly and respectfully.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE – APPLICANT’S WITNESSES
8At the April 16, 2025, pre-hearing the Applicant identified himself and his father ET as witnesses for the Hearing.
9The pre-hearing report set out that the parties were to file witness statements for all witnesses, including the Applicant, however, the Applicant did not file witness statements.
10Although the Applicant did not file a witness statement as required the Respondent consented to him testifying. Given that his evidence was both direct and highly relevant I allowed the Applicant to testify on his own behalf.
11In relation to the evidence of his father, ET, the Applicant submitted that his father had evidence regarding Issue #5 and had made statements to the Respondent. The Respondent objected to ET’s evidence, explaining that ET lives in another jurisdiction and time zone and has no direct evidence related to the 5 issues for hearing. The Respondent argued that any evidence ET had was hearsay.
12Child protection worker KL testified in her affidavit that the only contact ET had with the Respondent was on February 25, 2025, when he called KL to express concerns. KL’s affidavit notes, “Mr. ET did not provide new or firsthand information.”
13I found that ET had no direct evidence nor evidence relevant to the 5 issues for hearing, and therefore determined his testimony was not necessary.
RESULT
14I turn now to the substance of the matter, the five issues set out at paragraph 7 above, and make the following findings:
Issue 1: Issue 1 is dismissed for lack of evidence, as neither the Applicant nor the Respondent provided evidence that a report was ever made.
Issue 2: The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons in relation to their decisions about their investigation regarding the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s maternal grandfather.
Issue 3: The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to adequately hear and respond to the Applicant’s requests to speak with a supervisor.
Issue 4: The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to adequately hear and respond to the Applicant’s efforts to raise concerns about the services he was receiving with the service manager.
Issue 5: The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns during his initial meetings with the Respondent and did hear and listen to his version of events. The CFSRB finds that in this instance, and otherwise, the Respondent heard the Applicant and therefore, treated him fairly and respectfully bearing in mind the CFSRB findings related to issues 2, 3 and 4.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: The Applicant alleges that the Child’s maternal grandmother spanks the Child and hit [the Child] in the mouth and that the Respondent was dismissive of his concerns, in or around September 2024, and did not investigate the situation.
15Child Protection Worker KL testified by way of affidavit that the Applicant has never reported any allegations of abuse perpetrated by the maternal grandmother to the Respondent. She repeated this on cross-examination.
16The Applicant did not provide persuasive evidence that he reported any allegations of abuse perpetrated by the maternal grandmother to the Respondent.
17Issue 1 is dismissed for lack of evidence.
Issue 2: The Applicant alleges that the Child’s maternal grandfather ‘plays’ with the Child’s buttocks in a manner the Applicant believes is sexual and, that the Respondent was dismissive of his concerns, in or around September 2024 through January 2025, and did not investigate them.
18The 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)).
19The “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:
“…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.”
20Child protection worker KL testified by way of affidavit that on December 26, 2024, ML, emergency after-hours worker, received a call from the OPP reporting that the Applicant had called the OPP claiming that he had reported to police in early 2021 that the Child was being patted on the buttocks too often by her maternal grandfather, which he considered to be sexual assault. Police could not find any record of a previous complaint. The Applicant said that he would attend the police detachment the next day to make a statement.
21KL testified that on January 1, 2025, ML received another call from the OPP reporting that the Applicant had again reported the alleged sexual assault by the Child’s maternal grandfather.
22KL testified that on January 24, 2025, she received a call from a detective to discuss the information the Applicant had reported to the police. It was agreed that interviews with the Child and the Mother would be conducted.
23KL testified that on February 6, 2025 she and a detective interviewed the Mother, who denied the allegations and stated that the Child had almost never been alone with the grandfather. KL testified that the detective found the Mother’s statement credible. The Child was also interviewed, and the child did not disclose any information.
24The Applicant testified that he made a report to the police in 2021 about the concerns he had about the grandfather’s behavior with the Child. On cross-examination the Applicant agreed that he had made a statement to the OPP in 2021, but not to the Respondent.
25The Applicant testified that he was not involved in the 2025 investigation, despite having made the report. The Applicant testified that no investigator called him and that he had no contact from the Respondent, except about access and classes he has done. The Applicant testified that he felt nothing was done because it was he who was making the report.
26KL testified that on February 25, 2025, she had a text conversation with the Applicant. The contact log documenting this text conversation was filed as Exhibit 6. The contact log notes that the Applicant texted KL on February 25, 2025, the following, “I am requesting at this time that [the Mother’s] parents are not to be around [the Child] for safety reasons until this is settled in court please that’s a very big safety concern I have for [the Child] thanks in advance”. ML responded, “[the Mother] has moved out of the home and is no longer living with her parents. [the Mother] has minimal contact to her parents and police investigated your concerns.” The text exchange goes on to discuss a call that the Applicant’s father would be making, but nothing more is said in relation to the police investigation.
27On cross-examination regarding the text exchange that occurred on February 25, 2025, the Applicant said he did not really recall the texts and did not recall being told in the texts that the police had concluded their investigations.
28In closing arguments, the Respondent submitted that the OPP and the Respondent had conducted a joint investigation into the Applicant’s concerns, but that the Respondent’s role was only with regard to the Child and the Mother. The Respondent submitted that the OPP were responsible for any other decisions and/or interviews, including contact with the Applicant. The Respondent explained in submissions that it could not speak to the steps taken by the OPP in the criminal investigation. The Respondent referenced Child Protection Standards.
29While I agree that the Respondent cannot speak to steps taken by the OPP in the criminal investigation, I am not satisfied that the Respondent did not have a greater duty to communicate with the Applicant their role in the investigation and the decisions it made. The Respondent had an open file in relation to the Applicant, the Mother, and the Child. It undertook a joint investigation with police and interviewed both the Mother and Child with regard to the Applicant’s concerns. Given this relationship and role the Respondent had a duty to demonstrate that it heard the Applicant’s concerns and to provide him with reasons regarding their portion of the investigation.
30To be heard includes communicating so that a parent feels that their concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. The “right to reasons” is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. What constitutes sufficient reasons 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 considered in making the decision to allow him to understand why and how the decision was made.
31The Respondent never spoke to the Applicant about his concerns. The only evidence adduced regarding the communication they had with the Applicant regarding the investigation is a text message which states [the Mother] had minimal contact with her parents and police investigated the Applicant’s concerns. There is no explanation of the joint investigation that occurred or the role the Respondent played and, therefore, no way for the Applicant to know his concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. Both the timeline between the interviews and the text exchange (approximately 3 weeks) and the very sparse level of detail in the text exchange does not constitute meaningful reasons. The Applicant was not 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.
32I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with meaningful reasons in relation to its decisions about its investigation regarding the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s maternal grandfather.
Issue 3: The Applicant alleges that the Respondent refused his many requests to speak with a child protection supervisor with one exception. On the one occasion a supervisor named CL spoke with him, the Applicant alleges that CL said she would look into his concerns and get back to him, but he never heard back from her.
33The Applicant testified that he made several requests of KL to speak to her supervisor, but she said he had to contact the supervisor himself. The Applicant testified that when he finally spoke to supervisor CL he told her that KL had called him a liar in September 2024 and shared his version of events. The Applicant testified that CL told him she would look into his version and would get back to him after four days, but he never heard back.
34KL testified that on November 28, 2024, she received a text message from the Applicant stating his intention to request a new worker and supervisor due to perceived unprofessionalism and disrespect. KL testified that she responded by informing the Applicant he was welcome to call her supervisor CL to make that request. There is no evidence that the Applicant called CL at this time.
35KL testified that on February 18, 2025, the Applicant sent her a text message requesting a new worker due to a perceived conflict of interest. KL explained that it is typical for one worker to service the entire family, and this does not constitute a conflict of interest. She also informed the Applicant that he could speak to her supervisor CL to make his request.
36Child protection supervisor CL testified by way of affidavit that on February 18, 2025, the Applicant left her a voicemail stating he was requesting a new worker due to a ‘conflict of interests’, as he and the Mother had the same worker. There is no evidence that CL responded to the Applicant’s message.
37KL testified that on February 20, 2025, the Applicant sent her a text message expressing frustration over not hearing from her supervisor despite multiple requests since September the previous year. KL testified that she sent two separate text messages inviting the Applicant to call her supervisor that day.
38CL testified that on February 27, 2025, the Applicant left another voicemail message requesting a call back.
39CL testified she returned the Applicant’s call on February 27, 2025, leaving a voicemail message advising him that communicating with his worker KL via text message/cell phone was no longer permitted.
40CL testified that the Applicant left a subsequent voicemail message on February 27, 2025, asking why he was not advised prior that he could not communicate with worker KL via text message. He stated he would await CL’s call later that week. There is no evidence that CL returned the Applicant’s call.
41CL testified that on March 7, 2025, the Applicant left a voice mail message stating he was expecting a call from her that day. He asked for a call back.
42CL testified that she spoke with the Applicant by telephone on March 11, 2025. She explained that the purpose of this call was to discuss and clarify the details of the incident involving the Applicant, the maternal grandmother, the Mother, and the Child of September 14, 2024. The Applicant provided CL his version of events. CL testified that during the March 11, 2025, phone call she reassured the Applicant that the Respondent was hearing his concerns.
43On cross-examination the Applicant explained that CL had said that she would contact witnesses regarding the September 2024 incident and would follow up with him.
44On cross-examination CL testified that she did speak to the grandmother and Mother following the March 11, 2025, conversation. CL explained that the worker KL was present when she was speaking with the Applicant, the Mother, and the grandmother and that nothing new was added. She did not follow up with the Applicant. She testified that KL had followed up with the Applicant.
45KL testified that on March 14, 2025, she received a telephone call from the Applicant, during which he accused both her supervisor and her of lying and incompetence. KL suggested the Applicant consult his lawyer for further advice and reiterated he could contact her supervisor, CL.
46KL testified that on March 14, 2025, the Applicant called her again regarding CRA and ODSP fraud. KL advised the Applicant to contact the organizations directly or contact the police. KL testified that on the same day the Applicant contacted the Respondent’s intake department three times.
47The first call was to intake worker CF, which is documented in a contact log entered as Exhibit 2. The Applicant questioned how an intake worker could cancel an access visit. He also said he had not heard from a supervisor since the file opened in 2024. He said he wanted an explanation. CF told him about accessing the complaint procedure on the Respondent’s website. The Applicant said that the Respondent had 24 hours to respond otherwise it would be sued. CF sent a copy of her contact log to the worker KL, the supervisor CL and covering supervisor JB.
48The second call was to intake worker DD, which is documented in a contact log entered as Exhibit 2. The Applicant complained that the worker KL and supervisor CL did not know what they were doing and kept blaming each other. He complained that the Respondent was not following the rules regarding his access. The Applicant requested to speak to “someone hiring [sic] than the supervisor”. DD noted that a “Teams message” was sent to KL to advise of this call.
49The third call was to intake worker CF, which is documented in a contact log entered as Exhibit 2. The Applicant complained that he had tried to discuss his concerns with the worker and supervisor. He said that the supervisor was supposed to contact him; when she did, she told him to contact the worker in charge of the case. The Applicant complained about his access being cancelled. CF told the Applicant he would need to speak to the assigned worker to discuss the situation. CF emailed KL, CL and covering supervisor JB with her contact log.
50On cross-examination CL testified that she was away from March 13 to March 20, 2025, and another supervisor was covering. CL testified that the supervisor was aware of the Applicant’s calls and had spoken to the worker KL who was to be following up with the Applicant.
51CL testified that on March 18, 2025, the Applicant left a voicemail asking to speak to her about his worker pointing the finger at him and refusing access. CL testified that she was aware that access had not been refused or suspended, but that a recent visit had ended early. CL was aware that the worker KL had sent an email to the Applicant on March 18, 2025, addressing his concerns and access. CL explained that as the worker had addressed the Applicant’s concerns, she did not return his call.
52The Respondent argued in closing submissions that KL had followed up with the Applicant on March 18, 2025, and that that follow-up satisfied the Respondent’s obligations. The Respondent argued that it was not necessary that a specific person, such a supervisor, follow-up with the Applicant.
53To be heard involves the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating so that they feel that their concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. Parents have the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect their interests.
54The chronology put forward in evidence demonstrates that the Applicant expressed several different concerns in his communications with the Respondent. Some of his concerns related to access, in particular an access visit that was cut short in March 2025. The worker KL responded to this concern in an email of March 18, 2025. The Applicant, though, had expressed other concerns in his telephone meeting with supervisor CL on March 11, 2025. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he thought CL would follow up with him after she spoke to witnesses about his version of events. CL testified that KL followed up with the Applicant. The evidence does not support this. Communications in the week following March 11, 2025, centered on access concerns. The Respondent did not close the circle regarding the concerns the Applicant expressed to supervisor CL on March 11, 2025. The Applicant had no way of knowing if CL had taken his concerns seriously or how she had dealt with them.
55The CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to adequately hear and respond to the Applicant’s requests to speak with a supervisor.
Issue 4: The Applicant alleges that he tried to speak with LJ who is CL’s supervisor, regarding his concerns about the services he was receiving but did not receive a response.
56The Applicant testified that he left a message for service manager LJ in January 2025. LJ testified that she had reviewed her voicemails, which are transcribed into emails, and she did not receive a voicemail from the Applicant in January 2025.
57LJ testified by way of affidavit that on March 14, 2025, the Applicant left a voice mail without identifying information saying that he wanted an explanation as to why his worker “keeps putting the blame on you”. He asked who was at fault for the Court of Law, and for his lawyer. He did not provide contact details.
58LJ testified that later March 14, 2025, the Applicant left another voice mail message, this time identifying himself more clearly and providing his telephone number. He asked for information on why the Respondent’s employee was not doing their job.
59LJ testified that because March 14, 2025, was a Friday, she did not have the opportunity to review the messages until the following week. At that point, she redirected the voicemail messages to the worker and supervisor to address with the Applicant. On cross-examination LJ explained that because it was unclear why the Applicant was contacting her, she asked the worker or supervisor to follow up with him.
60As demonstrated by the evidence at paragraphs 48 – 54 the Applicant contacted several of the Respondent’s staff on March 14, 2025, complaining about his access being suspended, but also making more general complaints about the service he was receiving from the worker and supervisor on his case.
61To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to them so that they feel that their concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. The evidence of the calls the Applicant made on March 14, 2025, demonstrates that he did not feel he was being heard. He called his worker; he called intake; he asked to speak to “someone higher”; and he called the service manager. The only responses he received were to be pointed to the Respondent’s complaint procedure and an email from his worker about his access concerns. His broader service concerns remained unaddressed.
62I find that the Respondent failed to adequately hear and respond to the Applicant’s efforts to raise concerns about the services he was receiving with the service manager.
Issue 5: The Applicant alleges that, at his initial meetings with the Respondent, prior to it serving the apprehension warrant on him it did not hear his concerns and the reasons it provided to him is that he was ‘a liar’ without listening to his version of events. That in this instance, and otherwise, the Respondent has not treated him fairly and respectfully.
63Child protection worker KL testified by way of affidavit that on September 18, 2024, during her initial meeting with the Applicant, he was given the opportunity to explain what happened on September 14, 2024, his living situation, and his interactions with the Mother and her family. She testified that throughout the meeting, the Applicant’s explanations and disclosures were listened to and noted in her contact log. She testified the Applicant was given the chance to ask questions and raise further concerns at the end of the discussion. The Applicant told KL he had no further questions or concerns.
64KL testified that on September 27, 2024, she served a warrant on the Applicant and testified that at this time the Applicant was provided with the reasons for the removal of the Child and that the concerns and reasoning behind the decision were explained to him.
65KL testified that she had a follow up meeting with the Applicant on September 30, 2024, and that the Respondent’s concerns and reasons for removing the Child were thoroughly explained, including inappropriate conversations he had with the Child and threats he made about taking the Child away in the middle of the night. KL testified that the Applicant shared a concern about the Mother’s parents fighting in front of the Child, which was noted.
66On cross-examination the Applicant said that his primary concern was that when he met with KL on September 18, 2024, she called him a liar. He was asked whether KL had told him the Respondent’s concerns. The Applicant responded, “Yeah, she said I was emotionally harming my child.” When asked that KL also said there was a concern about him threatening to take the Child in the middle of the night, the Applicant responded, “Yes”.
67On cross-examination the Applicant said that during the meeting he was able to tell KL about problems he’d had with the Mother since January 2024, saying that the Mother had lied so many times, but that KL believed the Mother over him.
68On cross-examination KL was asked by the Applicant whether on the second day, when he came in for an interview, she said everything he said was a lie. KL responded, “I did not.”
69On cross-examination of the Supervisor CL the Applicant asked how it was proper that the worker KL had called him a liar. CL responded, “She didn’t. She would never use that language.”
70In addition to those initial meetings in September 2024 KL testified about 20 additional communications with the Applicant from October 2024 to April 2025, which included the following examples:
October 17, 2024 - The Applicant expressed concerns about the maternal grandparents threatening his life. KL advised the Applicant to contact the police. His concerns were acknowledged and documented.
November 29, 2024 – The Applicant’s concerns about KL’s intervention during visits were addressed.
December 23, 2024 - The Applicant sent KL a text message advising that he had ended a visit early due to being emotional. KL acknowledged his feelings and extra time was added to the following visit.
January 13, 2025, - The Applicant sent her a text message about alleged harassment and ODSP/CRA fraud from the Mother. KL advised the applicant to contact ODSP, CRA, or the police. On cross-examination the Applicant acknowledged this was the case.
January 20, 2025 - The Applicant sent a text message about ending the visits early that week. KL agreed to add additional time to his next visits.
February 20, 2025 - The Applicant sent KL a text message alleging that she was denying him in person access. KL informed the Applicant that in-person visits were not being denied. She explained that she did not want to impose set days for in-person access as she was mindful that he lives 10 hours away. She advised the Applicant he could schedule in person access anytime, provided he notified the Respondent of the dates he intended to attend.
February 26, 2025 – The Applicant said it was his hope to visit the Child in person during March break. KL assured the Applicant that the Respondent would make it work and schedule access accordingly. The Applicant inquired if the Mother could participate in parenting classes. KL advised the Applicant she had already spoken to the Mother and was in the process of completing a referral for her.
• March 14, 2025 - The Applicant called her again with regards to CRA and ODSP fraud. She advised the Applicant to contact the organizations directly or contact the police.
• March 15, 2025 – The Applicant requested that virtual visits be held at the Respondent’s office to ensure visits were just between him and the Child. His request was approved and accommodated.
• April 17, 2025 – KL advised the Applicant about a change in visit locations to facilitate better engagement and focus during visits. His concerns about a previous visit were acknowledged. The same day KL sent the Applicant an email containing activity ideas to do during visits to keep the Child engaged.
71To be heard by the Respondent involves active listening, discussions, taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to him so that he feels that his concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. The evidentiary examples provided above satisfy me that worker KL heard the Applicant both in September 2024 and after. The evidence demonstrates that KL has a pattern of communicating with the Applicant fairly and respectfully. KL denies ever having called the Applicant a liar. KL’s supervisor testified that that was not language KL would use. I accept their evidence.
72I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns during his initial meetings with the Respondent and did hear and listen to his version of events.
ORDER
73Issue 1 is dismissed.
74Issues 2, 3 and 4 are upheld.
75Issue 5 is dismissed.
76No later than 30 days from the date of this Order, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a letter addressing the following:
An explanation of the Child Protection Standards related to the Respondent’s role and responsibilities in the February 2025 investigation of the concerns raised by the Applicant regarding the maternal grandfather; and an explanation of the decisions the Respondent made related to that investigation.
In providing these explanations the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a copy of the Child Protection Standards document.
An explanation of the follow up the Respondent engaged in after the Applicant shared concerns with supervisor CL on March 11, 2025, and any decisions made because of that follow up.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
77Pursuant 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.
Dated, June 05, 2025.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member