DR v. Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County, 2025 CFSRB 77

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DR Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: June 09, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 77 Indexed As: DR v Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

DR, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin County, Respondent Shannon Dinh, 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 Application was deemed eligible to proceed on March 5, 2025, pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Application relates to a single incident where the Applicant reported to the Respondent on February 25, 2025, that his child (‘the Child’) was allegedly physically and sexually assaulted by peers on the school yard and the yard duty teacher allegedly failed to act.

4A second pre-hearing in this matter was held on April 14, 2025. At the pre-hearing and upon review of Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure the parties agreed to a hearing in writing.

5The CFSRB directed the Applicant to file his written submissions and material no later than May 16, 2025. The Applicant sent an email and attached letter to the CFSRB and the Respondent on April 14, 2025, which is outlined below in the analysis. I find the email and attached letter constitute the Applicant’s written submissions.

6The CFSRB directed the Respondent to file its’ written submissions and material in relation to the issues no later than May 23, 2025. The Respondent filed its’ written submissions on that date.

7The CFSRB directed that the Applicant may, but was not required to, file Reply submissions. The Applicant did not file a reply.

8This decision is based upon the Application, Response, and the relevant submissions and material filed by the parties as outlined above.

JURISDICTION

9In its’ written submissions the Respondent took the position that the Applicant was not in receipt of service. This appears to be the first time the issue of jurisdiction has been raised.

10The Respondent submits in its’ submission that the Applicant was not in receipt of a service pursuant to section 15(2) of the Act but was a referral source for the concern.

11Section 120(1) of the Act sets out that complaints to the CFSRB relate to services “sought or received”. The Respondent submits that the Applicant was not in receipt of service, but the Applicant’s materials show that he sought services from the Respondent.

12Subsection 2(1) of the Act defines a “service” under the Act. This includes a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family.

13The Applicant has identified in the Application that he sought a service from the Respondent, namely, to hear his concerns that the Child was the victim of a violent physical and sexual assault and an adult with a direct duty of care allowed this to happen. While this is a report to the Respondent, it is also a request for service and support from a parent. Following his report on February 25, 2025, the Applicant followed up with a voice mail on February 26, 2025, saying that the Child was terrified to go to school and had been traumatized, which is further evidence of the Applicant seeking services and support from the Respondent.

14The Applicant has sought a service as defined in the Act. Thus, the Application meets the first threshold test for eligibility under section 120(1) of the Act and is eligible for review by the CFSRB.

ISSUE

15The Applicant alleges he was not heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate the teacher who was supervising the schoolyard and allegedly did not act when the Child was allegedly physically and sexually assaulted by peers in February 2025. The Applicant specifically alleges that he was not provided with reasons related to the following:

(a) how the Respondent determined that this incident did not meet the eligibility spectrum;

(b) what information the Respondent took into account when determining whether to open an investigation; and

(c) how the Respondent weighed the credibility of the sources when determining not to open an investigation.

RESULT

16The CFSRB finds that while the Applicant was heard by the Respondent, he was not provided with reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate the teacher who was supervising the school yard and allegedly did not act. Specifically, the Applicant was not provided with reasons related to the three items listed above.

ANALYSIS

17The CFSRB explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act in P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 at para 14: “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.”

18The “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.”

19The Applicant made his report to the Respondent’s intake screener DB on February 25, 2025. The contact log regarding this report was filed by the Respondent. It states that the Applicant reported that the Child had been the victim of a physical and sexual assault perpetrated by peers, while a yard duty teacher standing nearby did not intervene in any way. The contact log states, “Caller is calling the Society today because it is his opinion that the school officials are/have not addressed or spoken to his concerns regarding the actions/inactions of the staff person that he believes was present and did not intervene, as per the information he received from [the Child].”

20The February 25, 2025, contact log indicates that DB immediately sought a consultation with intake managers GC and NM. DB then called the school the following day, obtaining information about the incident and the school’s investigation from the principal. DB then sought a consultation with intake manager GC, who advised given the information provided by the school, there was no child protection role for the Respondent.

21The Respondent filed a contact log dated February 26, 2025, which notes, “Attached is a v/m left by [the Applicant] today at approximately 14:30 hrs describing that [the Child] had to return to school today and was terrified to do so. Derek does not believe that the school has handled the situation appropriately and the incident has traumatized [the Child].”

22The Respondent submitted that on February 26, 2025, DB emailed the Applicant. The Respondent filed a copy of this Email as Schedule A to their Response dated March 11, 2025, and later as part of their written submissions. It states, “With respect to your concerns regarding the information that you received, as to the actions/inactions of the yard teacher/staff on duty at the time of the incident, the Society has gathered additional information and determined that based on the additional information, it does not warrant a child protection investigation.” The email also recommends the Applicant reach out to Victim Services Elgin for support for the Child, noting that the Child had experienced a traumatic event, and providing contact information.

23The Respondent filed a contact log dated February 27, 2025, documenting a telephone call intake manager GC made to police, and another made to the school principal. Both calls were to obtain additional information about the incident in question.

24As noted above, the Applicant made written submissions to the CFSRB on April 14, 2025. Included was a copy of an email dated February 26, 2025, authored by the Applicant to the Respondent, which states, “Can I ask what additional information you could have possibly gather(sic) that would suggest there is no case? Was it the word of [the principal] saying that the assault and sexual assault were just part of a playground game? Did you ever consider that [the principal] could lie out of [their] own self interest? Is the standard of care for children so low in 2025 that as an adult with a Duty of Care you can literally watch a child be assaulted and sexually assaulted and do absolutely nothing and that’s a-ok? Please open an ICRP review for this matter”.

25The Respondent filed an email dated February 28, 2025, authored by intake worker TC, to the Applicant, which states, “The Society gathered additional information from [the school] and [the police] and it is determined that the concerns do not meet the eligibility for a child protection investigation. Your request for an ICRP related to this matter has been forwarded to the appropriate person.”

26The Applicant states in his Application that on February 28, 2025 he received an email from the Respondent’s Executive Director BF indicating that no ICRP review would take place as “the matter you are referring to was not opened for service and has/is being addressed by the appropriate parties.”

27To be heard includes the Respondent 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. I am satisfied that the Respondent heard the Applicant as demonstrated by the evidence above. Worker DB quickly contacted the school principal to obtain information about the reported incident and then consulted with supervisors. DB responded to the Applicant the day after he made his report explaining that based on the information she had obtained the report did not warrant a child protection investigation. DB also recommended that the Child receive services for trauma and provided contact information. These actions demonstrate that the Applicant’s report was heard and taken seriously.

28Intake manager GC subsequently contacted both the school and police to obtain additional information, again demonstrating that the Applicant’s report was taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

29I am satisfied that the Applicant was heard.

30I turn now to whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for their decision not to open a file or investigate the Applicant’s concerns.

31The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. 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.

32The Respondent submitted that pursuant to Part X of the Act it does not communicate with referral sources as to the investigative steps taken. They state in their submissions that although the Applicant made the referral call, the concern was not documented under the Applicant’s personal file. They argued that the Applicant does not have authorization to obtain information for a third party without consent as this is confidential. The Respondent argued that the information the Applicant sought in answering his questions would require the Respondent to disclose confidential information that the Applicant is not privy to under Part X.

33Even if the Respondent feels constrained in providing some information to the Applicant about its decision making due to its interpretation of Part X of the Act the Applicant is entitled to know the factors the Respondent considered in not opening a case in relation to the Child. When a children’s aid society asserts that it is prevented from providing certain information to a parent due to legislation, it needs to identify in plain language what that legislation says and how it constrains them. (GA v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2022 CFSRB 46 para. 25)

34The Respondent cannot merely cite “Part X” as a reason for not providing information to the Applicant. The Respondent has an obligation to provide meaningful reasons about the substance of an issue, or at least a meaningful explanation as to why the Applicant’s questions about decisions made by the Respondent cannot be provided. (GA v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2022 CFSRB 46 para 31)

35The only reasons the Respondent provided to the Applicant were the following:

• DB’s email of February 26, 2025, stating, “With respect to your concerns regarding the information that you received, as to the actions/inactions of the yard teacher/staff on duty at the time of the incident, the Society has gathered additional information and determined that based on the additional information, it does not warrant a child protection investigation.”

• TC’s email of February 28, 2025, stating, “The Society gathered additional information from [the school] and [the police] and it is determined that the concerns do not meet the eligibility for a child protection investigation.”

• BF’s email of February 28, 2025, stating, “the matter you are referring to was not opened for service and has/is being addressed by the appropriate parties.”

36I find that the foregoing emails do not provide a meaningful explanation to the Applicant. 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.

37The Applicant was not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not investigate the teacher who was supervising the schoolyard and allegedly did not act when the Child was allegedly physically and sexually assaulted by two other youth in February 2025, other than to say that it did not meet the criteria for eligibility.

38The Respondent did not provide an explanation as to how it determined that this incident did not meet the eligibility spectrum.

39The Respondent did not explain what information it considered when determining whether to open an investigation.

40The Respondent did not explain how it weighed the credibility of the sources when determining not to open an investigation.

ORDER

41The issues set out at paragraph 15 a, b, and c are upheld.

42With respect to the Respondent’s failure to provide reasons, no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a letter addressing the following:

1. An explanation of the Eligibility Spectrum related to the Respondent’s determination that the incident reported by the Respondent on February 25, 2025, did not meet the Eligibility Spectrum.

2. In providing this explanation the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a copy of the Eligibility Spectrum document.

3. An explanation of what information the Respondent considered when determining whether to open an investigation and how the Respondent weighed credibility of sources when determining not to open an investigation.

4. Where the Respondent takes the position that it is limited in its ability to provide explanations in part or fully due to Part X of the Act the Respondent shall: (a) set out the specific section(s) of the Act that, in its view, impact its ability to respond; and (b) provide an explanation in plain language to the Application about how, in its view, the section(s) apply.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

43Pursuant 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 09, 2025.

Karynn von Cramon

Karynn von Cramon Member