CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MM Applicant
-and-
Ogwadeni: deo Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: June 25, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 80 Indexed As: MM v Ogwadeni: deo (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
MM, Applicant Self-represented
Ogwadeni: deo, Respondent Chase Harris, Student-at-law
Introduction
1The Applicant is the father of child, J (the “Child”). J and J’s mother are members of the Six Nations of the Grand River.
2The Applicant made a formal complaint to the Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”) on February 12, 2025, and filed the first Application in the matter with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) on the same day.
3The Applicant filed a second Application on March 10, 2025.
4The CFSRB found the Applications eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1, 120(4)4, and 120(4)5 of the Act.
5The parties agreed that Applications CA25-0023 and CA25-0052 would be joined and proceed through the CFSRB process together.
6At a March 18, 2025, Pre-Hearing, 15 separate complaints were identified.
7The CFSRB held a full-day oral hearing by videoconference on May 27, 2025.
ISSUES
8The issues for determination are:
A. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard: i. regarding safety concerns for his child due to the mother’s drinking and lack of compliance with medications for BPD, depression, PTSD, psychosis, and fits of anger; ii. regarding video evidence and text messages of the mother placing the Child at risk; iii. regarding concerns described in a December 9th phone call with worker Marcus Allen and a December 10, 2024, email to Marcus Allen; iv. regarding the Applicant’s denial of criminal charges; v. regarding allegations worker Kimberly Davey is allied with the mother to alter custody and have his child with the mother 100% of the time; vi. regarding feeling discriminated against because the Applicant is male and not Indigenous vii. regarding the risk to the Child from the mother allegedly evidenced by ten police calls regarding mother’s self-harm and psychotic episodes since the Child’s’ birth; viii. regarding alleged origins of the Child’s torticollis from the Child’s mother co-sleeping with him while intoxicated.
B. whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affect his interests as follows: i. why the Respondent allegedly failed to respond to repeated calls to speak with the Respondent worker and failed to provide the name of the Respondent worker between December 2 and mid-December 2024; ii. why the Respondent allegedly failed to notify the Applicant of case openings/investigations from July 30, 2024, October 9, 2024, and October 25, 2024, and why the Respondent did not provide the Applicant an opportunity for input into these investigations and into safety planning; iii. why the Applicant was not contacted as part of care planning as indicated in the notes of Cyerra Martin related to an October 29, 2024, case opening; iv. why a band representative was not involved in all the above investigations; v. why the Applicant was identified as verified for Risk of Harm, Partner Violence and coded as 5.3B in connection with the Respondent’s October 9, 2024, investigation; vi. why the Respondent was not willing to facilitate visits with the Child for the Applicant.
C. whether the Respondent followed the proper procedures for a complaint against a society as outlined in CYFSA Section 119(1) and Regulation 156/18 and whether the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) meeting took place within the prescribed time frames.
RESULT
9In respect of Issue A, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard on all concerns except for the alleged origins of J’s torticollis.
10In respect of Issue B, I find the Respondent has not provided reasons for why the Respondent allegedly failed to notify the Applicant of the case opening on October 9, 2024, why band representatives were not involved in the case opening/investigation of July 30 and October 9, 2024; and why the Applicant was verified for Risk of Harm in connection with the October 9, 2024, investigation.
11In respect of issue C, I find that the Respondent has not followed proper procedures for a complaint against it as outlined in the Act. However, the Respondent’s internal review process to address the Applicant’s complaint was suspended pending the outcome of this matter. Until the Respondent’s internal review process has been completed no remedy can be provided by the Board.
ANALYSIS
12The material and submissions relied upon by the Applicant includes various email and mail communications with Respondent Workers, screenshots of CPIN entries, medical documents, pictures, texts, and videos. Recollections of discussions and meetings with Respondent workers, were provided via oral testimony by the Applicant and the Applicant’s mother, Angela McPhee.
13The materials relied upon by the Respondent include various CPIN entries, court documents, emails, and letters. The Respondent also relies on the written and oral evidence of the following workers: Monica Szikszy, Director of Services; Kimberly Davey, Medical Lead/Concurrent Disorders Nurse; Sarah Dyck, Child Protection Worker; Tanika Bonneville, Child Protection Worker; and the written testimony of Marcus Allen, Child Protection Worker.
Issue A: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard?
14The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to be heard on eight (8) different concerns.
15The Respondent submits that the Applicant was provided multiple opportunities to express all concerns with a number of Respondent workers via emails, zoom meetings and through a formal complaint process.
16After reviewing all the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant’s overarching issue is that he feels that his concerns were not investigated or appropriately acted upon. The role of the CFSRB is not to review the clinical judgement of the Respondent, but rather to determine whether the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard.
Complaints i-iv
17The complaints outlined in paragraph 8A. i - iv in this matter can be reviewed together as they arise either from the same originating incident or were discussed together by the parties.
18During his oral testimony, the Applicant explained that he contacted the Respondent’s worker, Marcus Allen, on December 9th, 2024, and communicated concerns he had for the wellbeing of his child. He shared concerns about his child’s mother’s drinking, noncompliance with medication, and fits of anger. On December 10th, 2024, the Applicant followed up by sending an email to the worker which contained multiple photographs and videos which he alleges provide evidence for all his concerns. The Applicant submits that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding the safety of the Child which were outlined in the two noted communications and evidenced in the video, photographs, and texts he provided.
19The Applicant also submits that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that he denied he had any criminal charges laid against him when questioned during the resulting investigation.
20The Respondent submits that it heard the Applicant’s concerns at the time they were first made in December 2024 as well as multiple times afterwards via emails, meetings with the Applicant and through a formal complaint process engaged by the Applicant.
21I find that although the Respondent delayed in corresponding with the Applicant for several weeks after his initial complaint of December 9, 2024 was received, it did provide multiple opportunities to the Applicant to raise the concerns in paragraph 8A. i-iv and to be heard.
22Both the Applicant’s and Angela McPhee’s evidence was that there were multiple attempts after December 10, 2024, to contact the Respondent to get an update and receive the name of the assigned worker which were met with no success. The Respondent agreed that the investigation went past the typical timeline because it was considered a high-risk case. In other words, the Respondent conceded that it did not follow up with the Applicant in a timely manner on the investigation or with the name of the assigned worker.
23According to a CPIN log dated January 2, 2025, Monica Szikszy spoke with Angela McPhee who expressed hers and the Applicant’s concern for the well-being and safety of the Child, the alleged risk posed by the mother’s behaviour, and that neither she nor the Applicant had received any communication from Respondent workers. Angela McPhee stated that she had the consent of the Applicant to speak with Monica Szikszy to also share and express his concerns as he was too fearful to contact the Respondent on his own. She also testified at the hearing that she expressed the concern to the worker that the Applicant’s criminal charges were “just alleged” at the time the CPIN log was created.
24On January 21, 2025, the Respondent emailed a letter to the Applicant in response to an emailed complaint he made on January 14, 2025. The Respondent addressed the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s mother’s caregiving abilities based on mental health, previous acts of violence and/or drug and alcohol abuse. The Respondent concluded that if the Applicant was not satisfied with these responses, he could request an ICRP.
25On January 23, 2025, the Applicant and Angela McPhee attended a virtual meeting by zoom with Tanika Bonneville and Monica Szikszy. According to the written and oral evidence provided by Monica Szikszy, the meeting was set up to provide an opportunity for the Applicant and Angela McPhee to present their concerns and ask questions. The parties discussed the following: the mental health of the mother, the drug and alcohol use of the mother, whether the Respondent could assist the Applicant in gaining access to the Child, and the Applicant’s criminal charges.
26Tanika Bonneville’s evidence also confirmed that at the meeting the parties also discussed mental health, drug use of the mother and that the Respondent advised the Applicant that an investigation had already taken place, and the mother and the Child had been deemed safe. She further provided her recollection that the concern about whether or not the Applicant had criminal charges pending was discussed.
27During their oral testimony, the Applicant and Angela McPhee confirmed that these concerns were expressed during that meeting. The Applicant noted they did not go through each concern “word for word” as it was all in the December 10th, 2024, email, and he felt the workers were “not really listening” at this meeting.
28Sarah Dyke met with the Applicant and Angela McPhee on February 27, 2025. The Applicant forwarded the December 10, 2024, email to her along with the video and pictures he had previously presented. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that he was able to express his concerns about the well-being of his son to Sarah Dyke at this time but still felt that he was not being heard.
29Based on the evidence provided, I find that the Applicant had multiple opportunities to express his concerns for the safety and well being of the Child originally outlined in the phone call and email sent to Marcus Allen on December 10, 2024, including video photographs, and texts, as well as his denial of criminal charges.
Complaints v-vi
30The Applicant alleges that he was not provided an opportunity to be heard regarding allegations that Kimberly Davey was allied with the Child’s mother and his concerns of discrimination because he is both male and not Indigenous.
31On January 8, 2025, the Applicant wrote via email to Kimberly Davey and Monica Szikszy stating that he believed Kimberly Davey showed the Child’s mother his December 10, 2025 email. He expressed his concern that he does not trust Kimberly Davey and he does not want to meet with her alone. He also asked for a new worker to be assigned to address his concerns. It was the testimony of both Monica Szikszy and Kimberly Davey that they had heard the Applicant’s concerns about the breakdown of the relationship between worker Kimberly Davey and the Applicant, and as a result, a new worker was assigned to the file. The Applicant was sent an email on January 15, 2025, noting that a new worker would be assigned.
32The Respondent specifically addressed the Applicant’s concern of alleged bias and perceived discrimination based on gender and race in the letter dated January 21, 2024.
33The Applicant testified that he shared his concern with the Respondent about Kimberly Davey’s bias and his ongoing feeling that she was not doing her duty to protect his son again during the January 23, 2025, meeting. Tanika Bonneville confirmed that Kimberly Davey’s perceived bias and the Applicant’s feeling that he was being discriminated against were specifically discussed at the January 23, 2025 meeting.
34Based on the above, the Applicant was provided with multiple opportunities to be heard regarding allegations that Kimberly Davey was allied with J’s mother and his feelings of discrimination based on gender and race.
Complaint vii
35The Applicant submits that he was not provided an opportunity to be heard regarding the risk to the Child based on the evidence he provided to the Respondent of ten separate phone calls to the police regarding the Child’s mother self-harming. Although there were inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence on the actual number of phone calls made, who made them, and when they were made, he testified that he told the Respondent about these phone calls on October 2,9,16, and 25. His concern was that the Respondent did not act upon these concerns.
36It is beyond the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to determine whether the Respondent did or should have acted upon these concerns. The decision of the CSFRB is solely based on whether the Applicant was provided the opportunity to provide his concerns to the Respondent. Based on his own testimony, I find that, the Applicant was provided multiple opportunities to express his concerns and be heard.
Complaint viii
37The Applicant submits that he was not provided an opportunity to be heard regarding his concern about the origins of the Child’s torticollis. Specifically, the Applicant submits that the Child acquired torticollis in November 2024 as a result of negligent behaviour from his mother. He alleges that when he raised this concern, he was completely dismissed by the Respondent. When asked on cross examination how it was decided that the torticollis was not caused by the mother, Kimberly Davey testified that she took the Child’s mother’s word that the Child was born with this medical condition.
38The Respondent submitted no other evidence to indicate that it provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard. There are no notes, texts or emails from Kimberly Davey or any other Respondent worker on this concern of the Applicant. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on this matter.
Issue B – Did the Respondent provide reasons for decisions
39The Applicant submits that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for 6 separate decisions it made. The Respondent submits that reasons were given, or reasons were not necessary, given the facts.
40The CFSRB is not to decide whether a decision reached was right or wrong only whether sufficient reasons for the decision were provided.
41What is sufficient reasons is dependent on the facts of the case. In 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.
Decision i
42The Applicant submits that he was not provided reasons for why the Respondent failed to respond to his repeated calls or to provide the name of the assigned worker.
43In oral testimony, Angela McPhee conceded that during the phone call with Monica Szikszy on January 2, 2025, it was explained to her that a name for a worker was not provided as the investigation was still ongoing.
44Upon a review of the documentary and oral evidence provided, it appears that between December 9, 2024, when the Applicant first phoned the Respondent outlining his concerns, and January 2, 2025, there was little if any communication from the Respondent to the Applicant. Various reasons were provided at the hearing such as: holiday office closures, inability to provide information to Angela McPhee because of privacy concerns, the Applicant’s resistance to contacting the respondent out of fear of criminal charges, one worker’s perceived hostility by the Applicant and her own concession that she did not follow up in a timely manner.
45Although I find that the Respondent may have provided one cursory reason, it was insufficient given the length of delay and the many other reasons that caused it. I find that the Applicant was entitled to sufficient reasons for the lengthy delay in order to fully understand why his concerns were not addressed by the Respondent for almost a month.
Decisions ii - iv
46I find that the Respondent did not provide reasons to the Applicant on why it did not notify him or ask for input on the case openings that took place on October 9, 2024, or why a band representative was not involved in the case openings/investigations that took place on August 1, 2024, October 9, 2024, or October 25, 2024.
47The Applicant submits that there were three opening/investigations concerning him and the Child which he was not made aware of. He alleges that he was not provided reasons for: the Respondent’s failure to notify him, the Respondent’s failure to contact him as part of care planning, and the Respondent’s failure to ensure a band representative was involved in the opening/investigations. It is his evidence that it was not until January 23, 2025, during the meeting with Monica Szikszy and Tanika Bonneville that he learnt about the three opening/investigations. When the Respondent was asked why he was not notified about the case openings and investigations, he testified that he received no answer.
48Monica Szikszy provided evidence for the three case openings/investigations in question as follows:
A. An intake was opened on July 30, 2024, and resulted in an investigation opening on August 1, 2024. An email was sent to the Band Representative on August 1, 2024. The Applicant and the Child’s mother were notified of the investigation as they participated in an interview on August 2, 2024, and their input was sought. This is evidenced in CPIN notes as well. The investigation was closed on September 6, 2024. No evidence was submitted to indicate whether the Applicant was provided information on why a Band Representative was not present.
B. On October 9, 2024, the Respondent received a referral from Police Services. A decision was made that the referral did not warrant an investigation. As such, the Respondent testified that neither the family nor Band Representative were contacted. There was no evidence submitted by the Respondent that the Applicant had been provided reasons for the Respondent’s failure to tell the Applicant about this referral, or why the Respondent determined it was not necessary to have a Band Representative’s involvement.
C. An intake was opened on October 25, 2024, and resulted in an investigation being initiated on October 28, 2024. The Respondent attempted to call the Applicant on October 29, 2024, to notify him of the investigation but the phone number on file was incorrect. The Respondent then sent a letter to the Applicant using the address that was on file. The Applicant concedes that the Respondent told him on January 23, 2025, that attempts had been made to contact him via phone call and mail about this investigation, but both the phone number and address were no longer correct.
49Based on the above, I find that the Respondent did not provide reasons for why the Applicant was not notified of the October 9, 2024, case opening, nor did it provide reasons for why a Band Representative was not involved in the August 1, 2024, investigation or October 9, 2024, case opening.
50The evidence is clear that notwithstanding the Respondent’s attempts, the Applicant did not know of the October 25, 2024, matter, was not contacted about care planning nor were reasons provided to him about the possible involvement of a Band Representative. However, I am not to decide on whether he was or was not told about the intake and investigation, only whether he was provided reasons for the lack of this communication. I find that he was in fact provided with the Respondent’s reasons, namely: that both his phone number and mailing address on file were incorrect, during the meeting of January 23, 2025.
Decision v
51The Applicant submits that the Respondent has not provided reasons to him for why the Respondent identified him as verified for Risk of Harm, Partner Violence and coded as 5.3B in connection with the October 9, 2024, investigation.
52The Respondent worker, Tanika Bonneville testified she authored a February 3, 2025, CPIN entry which incorrectly indicated that the Applicant had been credited with the investigation code 5.3 – B, which correlates to: Caregiver has Problem Causing Risk that the Child is Likely to be Harmed. She testified that the note has now been corrected.
53The Respondent provided no evidence which would indicate that the Applicant was provided reasons for why he was identified incorrectly. Acknowledging that the entry was done in error and correcting it after the fact is not sufficient reasons given the subject of this error. It is understandable that this type of error is quite concerning to the Applicant as it could have an impact on future matters and was only discovered once disclosure was provided. I find that the Respondent has not provided reasons for this issue.
Decision vi
54The Applicant submits that he was not provided reasons for why the Respondent was not willing to facilitate visits with the Child.
55The Respondent submits that it has provided the Applicant with reasons on multiple occasions.
56It was the evidence of Monica Szikszy and Tanika Bonneville that the Applicant asked the Respondent to grant access to the Child at the January 23, 2025, meeting. It was explained to the Applicant that the Respondent can not grant custody or access but can assist in scheduling an alternative dispute resolution process to help the Applicant and the Child’s mother come to an agreement about access.
57This was clarified via email the next day “we had suggested you obtain a lawyer who can assist in facilitating an access arrangement through family court with [child]. We are voluntarily involved with your family and cannot enforce an access plan if one party does not agree…. I did not say that you could not see your son due to your charges. I said that a referral to Alternative Dispute Resolution could be made, and a mediator could assist in developing an access plan.”
58I find that the Respondent provided reasons for why it was not willing to facilitate visits with the Child for the Applicant.
Issue C: Were proper procedures for a complaint as outlined in section 119 of the Act followed
59The Respondent failed to fully comply with the review procedure, however, there is no further remedy for the CFSRB to provide.
60Reg 156/18: General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (the “Regulation”) outlines the required timelines for a children’s aid society to proceed with an internal complaint. It mandates that the Society shall determine eligibility within 7 days of receiving a complaint, and a meeting of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (the “ICRP”) shall be held within 14 days after the date of written notice to the complainant that the complaint is eligible for review, or at such later time as may be requested by the complainant.
61The Applicant emailed a complaint to the Respondent on January 14, 2025. The Respondent confirmed receipt via email on January 15, 2025. The Respondent responded to the complaint via letter on January 21, 2025, addressing the complaints as outlined above. The letter noted that if the Applicant was not satisfied with the result, he could escalate the complaint and request a review by the ICRP.
62The Applicant submitted his formal complaint to the Internal Review Board on February 12, 2025.
63The first Application in this matter was also submitted on February 12, 2025. The Respondent submits it received the Notice of Eligibility from the CFSRB on February 20, 2025, and as a result, suspended its internal review proceedings arising from the Applicant’s February 12, 2025 formal complaint. The Respondent emailed the Applicant with this decision on March 3, 2025.
64Under section 120(2) of the Act, if a person submits a complaint to the Board after having brought the complaint to the society, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate. However, the Respondent notified the Applicant of its decision to stay the review past the date required.
65Sections 119(10) and 120(7) of the Act together set out the decisions that the CFSRB may make upon a review of allegations under section 120(4)2 that a society has failed to respond to a complaint within the required time This includes, under section 120(7)(c), ordering a society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.
66As the Respondent has not refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, only suspended it pending the outcome of the CFSRB process, there are no further remedies I can order.
67Given the Respondent’s acknowledgement of the lack of timely communications and errors made in CPIN entries, I find it is understandable that the Applicant is not trusting of the process and feels he has not been heard or provided sufficient reasons. Notwithstanding the decisions made here, I do not see any reason for the Respondent to not proceed with the complaint process.
CONCLUSION
68In respect of Issue A, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard on all concerns except for the alleged origins of the Child’s torticollis.
69In respect of Issue B, I find the Respondent has not provided reasons for why the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the case opening on October 9, 2024, failed to identify why Band Representatives were not involved in the case opening/investigation of July 30 and October 9, 2024; and failed to identify why the Applicant was verified for Risk of Harm in connection with the October 9, 2024, matter.
70In respect of Issue C, I find that the Respondent has not followed the proper procedure for a complaint against it as outlined in the Act. However, as the Respondent has not yet decided whether to proceed with the complaint but has only suspended the decision until this decision has been made, there are no further remedies that can be provided.
ORDER
71The Application is upheld in part.
72Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for the following decisions:
A. Why the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of the case opening on October 9, 2024;
B. Why Band Representatives were not involved in the case opening/investigation of July 30 and October 9, 2024;
C. Why the Applicant was identified as verified for Risk of Harm in connection with the October 9, 2024, matter.
73The remainder of this Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
74Pursuant 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.
June 25, 2025.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley Member