SD v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2025 CFSRB 94

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SD Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie Date: July 24, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 94 Indexed As: SD v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SD, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent Mark Hecht, Legal 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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

ISSUES

2This Application consists of the following complaints under section 120(4) 4 and 120(4) 5 of the Act:

i) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that on or about December 2010, Respondent staff Karen Douglas, Danielle Flemming, Jen Campbell and Iva Horvet were making false allegations regarding his behaviours and history of substance abuse. The Applicant alleges that when he raised these concerns the Respondent engaged in retaliatory actions. These actions resulted in disruption to the Applicant’s relationship with his child.

ii) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding his child’s physical injuries while in the care of the Society. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent when he raised these concerns and was subject to retaliatory actions by having his comments brought to the police as threats by Ms. Flemming and cancelling access visits.

iii) The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his allegations that Respondent workers placed drugs in his child’s diaper bag and stole his phone.

iv) The Applicant alleges that in March 2011 he was not heard by Respondent workers, regarding his denial of allegations that he was abusive to his children during a visit and that Respondent workers did not hear him or view audio or video tapes that disputed the evidence of abuse allegations.

Further, the Applicant was not given reasons by the Respondent for why his visits with his child were cancelled despite the evidence he provided.

v) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his allegations that he was threatened by worker Mohammed Said and was not given reasons for the Respondent’s failure to address this concern.

vi) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the actions of Respondent worker Donna Bloom and other workers interfering with his place of residence.

vii) The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for why the Respondent repeatedly forwarded details of the Applicant’s file to other Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario and Canada.

viii)The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding factual inaccuracies in an Amber Alert that was issued on or about September 2017 that falsely stated the Applicant’s child was a missing child.

ix) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the actions of Respondent worker Alain Corriveau and other workers in interfering with his place of residence.

x) The Applicant alleges the Respondent has failed to provide reasons for keeping his file open.

RESULT

3Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented for this written hearing, I find the following:

a. The Applicant was able to show that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for the Respondent’s decision that the Applicant’s visits with his son were cancelled around March 2011.

b. The Applicant was unable to show that the Respondent failed to hear him or provide him with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions in relation to all other complaints.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

4Following the February 14, 2025 hearing, the CFSRB determined that this matter would proceed in writing. On May 16,2025, the CFSRB directed the parties to provide their written materials, with the last documents to be filed by June 24, 2025.

Background

5The Applicant is the father of two children. He had the first child, T, with MQ and the second child, A, with AY.

6According to the Application, the CAS removed both of his children based on a claim that the Applicant’s children were not safe in his care. One of the children (T) was returned to his care in July 2011, under a Supervision Order with conditions.

Applicable Law

7In an appeal under section 120 of the Act, the legislation provides at section 120(7) that, after reviewing a complaint about a children’s aid society, the CFRSB may,

“(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.”

8The legislation further limits the CFSRB jurisdiction when a matter is before the courts, at section 120(8):

“The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court; or

(b) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

9In his hearing documents, the Applicant does not clearly set out what order he is seeking. Many of his submissions allege that, if his allegations are true, the staff of the Respondent violated his rights as a father, committed various Criminal Code offences, as well as an offence of making false statements under the CYFSA, and breached the CYFSA standards of conduct or the social workers code of ethics.

10In the absence of a more specific remedy requested by the Applicant, for the sake of clarity a review of section 120(7) of the Act shows that the CFSRB’s power is limited in scope. The process under section 120 is not a judicial review of the Respondent’s decision. To be clear, the CFSRB cannot order the Respondent or any other agency to reopen an investigation. The legislation does not give the CFSRB the power to find anyone guilty of an offence, misconduct or make any decisions respecting discipline. This decision will consider solely whether the Applicant was heard and if he was given sufficient reasons for the Respondent decisions.

ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Evidence

11The Applicant’s hearing documents include his submissions of June 5, 2025, pictures and recordings submitted on July 4, 2024, as well as ten documents submitted in reply on June 25, 2025. The recordings are not dated, they are short extracts of conversations (they do not include the start and end of conversations) It is not clear who is being recorded and the recordings appear to have been made surreptitiously. The CFSRB does not give much weight to these recordings given the lack of context. Despite this, the analysis below does refer to some of these recordings or photos where appropriate.

12In some of his submissions, the Applicant refers to himself at times in the third person and sometimes in the first person. This made it more difficult to ascertain who was referenced in the submissions. For example, the Applicant submitted: “I SD the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding his child’s physical injuries while in the care of the Society.” I have interpreted “his concerns” to be Mr. D’s concerns.

13In his reply, the Applicant provides separate documents to provide further submissions. Much of these submissions focussed on what he framed as a “complete legal and regulatory analysis of the laws that were potentially violated in his dealings with the CAS”.

14I note as well that some of the documents referred to the Tribunal members’ role, including submissions regarding “1. Mandate and Legal Authority of the Child and Family Services Review Board”; “2. Legal violations if the Board or a Member Neglects Duties or Covers Up Misconduct”; and “3. Accountability and Disciplinary Pathways for Board Members and Judges”. The Applicant writes that if a member of the CFSRB “chooses to ignore or suppress credible evidence or aligns himself or herself with CAS Ottawa’s bad faith conduct, You then may face civil, administrative, and potentially criminal consequences”. The CFSRB finds these submissions both irrelevant and inappropriate. The suggestion that a member would act dishonorably is disrespectful and contrary to Rule A7.1 of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Common Rules:

“All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding.”

15As a creature of statute, the CFSRB derives its jurisdiction entirely from the statutory provisions which govern it. Section 120 of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB as well as what orders the CFSRB can make. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to make findings under these other statutes. Consequently, the CFSRB will not refer to these other statutes in this decision. As above, the CFSRB will consider the impact of the Respondent’s actions on the Applicant in how it heard the Applicant and communicated reasons for their decisions.

Analysis of the Applicant’s complaints

16Each of the Applicant’s complaints are reviewed below. The complaints relate to events going back as far as December 2010 which may make evidence scarcer. Another challenge is that the Applicant does not provide much context for each complaint. He refers mainly to legislation, much of which is not within the CFSRB jurisdiction, and he focusses mainly on what he alleges to be Respondent staff misconduct. Below, the CFSRB has attempted to summarize the context based on the information available in the hearing documents. This is followed by the analysis of the available evidence.

i) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that on or about December 2010, Respondent staff Karen Douglas, Danielle Flemming, Jen Campbell and Iva Horvet were making false allegations regarding his behaviours and history of substance abuse. The Applicant alleges that when he raised these concerns, the Respondent engaged in retaliatory actions. These actions resulted in disruption to the Applicant’s relationship with his child.

17The Applicant submits that the Respondent did not hear his concerns about the conduct of staff (specifically, Karen Douglas, Danielle Flemming, Jen Campbell and Iva Horvet) in December 2010. He submits that if the staff knowingly made false statements in affidavits or reports, that it would constitute professional misconduct under the Act among other violations. The Applicant refers to perjury, abuse of process, etc.in his submissions. Further, the Applicant submits that these actions disrupted his relationship with his child.

18The Respondent submits that the concerns raised by the Applicant were heard, and that the Respondent responded to these concerns. The Respondent indicates that the allegations date back many years and most of the staff are no longer with the Respondent. The Respondent submitted a report showing that Danielle Flemming had documented contact with the Applicant, including multiple meetings where the Applicant raised various concerns. In support of these submissions, the Respondent provides notes from Ms. Fleming dated March 3, 2011 which indicate the following:

“(T) is considered in need of protection and is currently in the care of the Society. He was apprehended from (the Applicant’s) case on December 8, 2010 as S was charged with assault and harassment towards AY. (…) S fails to recognize the risk he posed to (t) by continually exposing him to the violence.”

19This same report includes a “Summary of Case Events” indicating several communications with the Applicant from December 8, 2010 to February 23, 2011.

20The Applicant provided reply evidence showing partial drug testing results that are positive for THSCA. The report appears to have been prepared for the Respondent. The CFSRB finds that there is no evidence from the Applicant showing that, on or about December 2010, he raised any concerns with the Respondent regarding Respondent staff making false allegations regarding his behaviours and history of substance abuse.

21The CFSRB has the benefit of the contemporaneous notes from the Respondent staff (the “Summary of Case Events” mentioned above) which includes logs from December 2010 showing several communications with the Applicants, including noting the concerns he raised. There is no indication that the Applicant raised any concerns about staff making false allegations. The CFSRB finds that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns in December 2010, but finds that the Applicant has not shown that he raised any concerns regarding staff conduct in that period.

ii)The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding his child’s physical injuries while in the care of the Society. The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent when he raised these concerns and was subject to retaliatory actions by having his comments brought to the police as threats by Ms. Flemming and cancelling access visits.

22The Applicant submits that an employee of the Respondent, Ms. Flemming, dismissed his concerns about injuries to his child; characterized his concerns as threats; contacted the police without justification; and cancelled his access to his child in retaliation. The Applicant provided a photograph as evidence of injuries to his child. The Applicant does not provide much information about who he contacted about his concerns and when these were raised.

23The Applicant refers to the obligation to immediately investigate, failure of which could lead to a breach of duty. He refers to an offence for making false or misleading statement as well as professional misconduct by social workers.

24In addition to the Applicant’s recollection of the complaint, the Applicant relies also on a photograph that he claims was taken on April 29, 2011 at 12:43 p.m. The Applicant does not provide details such as showing to whom this photograph would have been sent at the Respondent’s office and on what date the photo was sent. The CFSRB does find this photograph concerning however there is insufficient evidence support that it was brought to the Respondent’s attention.

25The Respondent submits that the Applicant “did not raise concerns regarding his Child’s physical injuries while in the care of the Society, still less leading to a Worker retaliating by cancelling his visits. Rather, Mr. D made an allegation to the Police against the Mother of causing a bruise on the Child. He also raised concerns about the Foster Parent not bathing child or child losing weight in Foster Home. Further, as noted above, it was Mr. Dl that refused to attend his access.”

26The Applicant’s reply submissions suggest that the Applicant made the allegation of abuse by the child’s mother to the Police, not to the Respondent. He also indicates that the foster parent was not bathing the child, but the CFSRB notes that those allegations were included in the Respondent’s notes.

27The CFSRB finds that the concerns that the Applicant raised with the Respondent were documented which suggests that he was heard. The Applicant may not be satisfied with the Respondent’s decision not to verify his concern, but that is beyond the scope of the CFSRB mandate.

iii) The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his allegations that Respondent workers placed drugs in his child’s diaper bag and stole his phone.

28The Applicant submits that Respondent workers placed marijuana in his child’s diaper bag and stole his phone to manufacture evidence against him. The submissions refer to potential violations/ offences should the allegations be true. The submissions provided little evidence as to what happened and when it happened.

29The Applicant provided a recording of a conversation that cannot be verified. However, the CFSRB considered it. In the recording the Applicant suggests that someone lost his phone, but the person indicates that they know nothing about it.

30The Applicant also provided one page of a letter he wrote (note that only the last page of the letter was provided to the CFSRB). It is not clear who was the recipient of this letter however the CFSRB note that the Applicant writes that he “accidentally” placed the phone in this child A’s snowsuit. The CFSRB finds that this letter does not suggest that the Respondent “stole” the phone. The letter does not refer to drugs.

31The Respondent submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent placed drugs in the Applicant’s child’s diaper bag. The Respondent notes (Summary of Case Events) indicate that on December 10, 2010, the foster mother found marijuana in T’s diaper bag. The notes also show that on February 8, 2011, the foster mother advised the Respondent that the Applicant’s phone was in the child, A’s, snowsuit, and that the Respondent called the Applicant to inform him. According to the notes, on February 10, 2011, the Applicant’s “cell phone was brought into the agency and misplaced” and that the Respondent informed the Applicant who then became upset. The Respondent further submits that allegations of this nature are not within the mandate of the Board to investigate.

32The Applicant’s reply includes another recording and a letter of February 11, 2011 from the applicant to Karen Douglas which documents the information provided above.

33The CFSRB agrees that it is not within its mandate to investigate whether the Respondent placed drugs in a diaper bag or stole a phone. The CFSRB can only make a finding on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided reasons. The CFSRB finds that the Applicant has not met the onus to show that the Respondent did not hear him about his allegations. The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did let the Applicant know that his phone was found and then that it was misplaced. This shows that the Applicant was heard and was given reasons. I understand that the Applicant may not be satisfied with this explanation, but the scope of this hearing is limited to whether the Applicant was heard and provided with reasons. The CFSRB cannot find the Respondent responsible for the Applicant’s phone.

34The CFSRB finds that the Applicant has not provided evidence that he raised concerns about the Respondent placing drugs in a diaper bag, and therefore cannot find that the Respondent failed to hear him or provide reasons.

iv) The Applicant alleges that in March 2011 he was not heard by Respondent workers, regarding his denial of allegations that he was abusive to his children during a visit and that Respondent workers did not hear him or view audio or video tapes that disputed the evidence of abuse allegations.

Further, the Applicant was not given reasons by the Respondent for why his visits with his son were cancelled despite the evidence he provided.

35The Applicant submits that around March 2011, the Respondent falsely accused him of abusing his child, T. He writes that he denied the allegations and provided evidence proving that no abuse had occurred.

36The Applicant provided a video recording in which he submitted that Jennifer Campbell admits that “hitting and abuse was not the right word”, and then used those terms in reports and affidavits. The CFSRB does not have verification of who is on the recording, nor the date. It also does not have the context of the full conversation. As a result, the CFSRB cannot make conclusive findings in favour of the Applicant.

37The Applicant submits that the Respondent did not hear his denial that he was abusive to his children during a visit. He submits that the Respondent did not consider his audio or video tapes that dispute the allegations of abuse. He submits that the Respondent fabricated abuse allegations and ignored evidence that exonerates him.

38The Applicant further submits that he was not given reasons by the Respondent for why his visits were cancelled.

39The Respondent submits that there is no evidence that the Society has conspired against the Applicant and that this complaint is not properly before the CFSRB.

40The Applicant’s reply provides “supporting evidence and context” in which the Applicant indicates that the visit in question occurred at a supervised access location. He writes that he placed audio/video recording devices to document everything. He provided a redacted document which appears to be an affidavit of July 22, 2011. It includes two paragraphs and part of two others and does not indicate the name of the affiant. There is a handwritten note indicating that “charges were completely withdrawn”.

41The CFSRB finds that the Respondent’s document of March 3, 2011 created by Danielle Fleming shows a history of communications with the Applicant and the verification of allegations of partner violence (33E) and risk of harm to the child and partner (33H and 33 F). The CFSRB finds that this document shows that the Applicant was heard and while he may not agree with the Respondent’s decisions, it is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine whether verification of allegations is correct.

42The CFSRB finds that the evidence before it does not include a verification letter to the Applicant. Therefore, this should be submitted to the Applicant so that he can understand why the visits with his son were cancelled around March 2011.

v) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding his allegations that he was threatened by worker Mohammed Said, and was not given reasons for the Respondent’s failure to address this concern.

43The Applicant submits that around December 2010 Mohammed Said, a Respondent worker, threatened and coerced him at a time when he was in a vulnerable position given an ongoing child protection matter. He submits that the worker told him to ignore his lawyer, and implied that failure to obey him would result in the Applicant losing his child and would show that the Applicant does not care about getting his child back home. The Applicant submitted that Mr. Said stated:

“You don’t listen to what your lawyer says. You do what I say. If you don’t listen to me, then you’re showing me you don’t want to have your child back very badly.”

44The Respondent submits that these allegations were already put before the Court in May 2012 when the Applicant brought a Motion before the Court seeking a Restraining Order against the assigned Child Protection Worker. The Motion was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice on May 28, 2012.

45In his reply, the Applicant submits that his motion was dismissed on procedural technicalities.

46The CFSRB has very limited information about this complaint. The issue appears to have been brought before the Court and the legislation is clear that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction in a complaint where the issue has been decided by the court or is before the court (subsection 120(8) of the Act).

47However, even if the matter was not properly before the court as submitted by the Applicant, the Respondent was made aware of the Applicant’s concerns about the worker in question and it heard his concerns. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to investigate whether an employee should be disciplined.

vi) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the actions of Respondent worker Donna Bloom and other workers in interfering with his place of residence.

48The Applicant submits that Donna Bloom and other employees of the Respondent intentionally interfered with his place of residence, which at the time was approved by the court as his bail surety and the primary condition for reunification with his son. He believes that the workers were fully aware that any disturbance to his living arrangement would jeopardize both his release conditions and his ability to parent. He submits that their alleged actions amounted to a deliberate and malicious attempt to sabotage his legal stability and block the return of his child.

49The Applicant’s complaint is not focussed on “not being heard” but rather that the employees of the Society interfered with his place of residence. This latter complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

50To support his allegation, the Applicant submitted an email of May 5, 2014 addressed to him from what appears to be the landlords for his residence. The email indicates that he must vacate his home by June 3, 2014.

51The Applicant also submitted a February 28, 2014 reference letter from the same landlords. This letter indicates that the landlords had known the Applicant and his son for 3 years and felt able to speak to his character. The reference letter suggests that the Applicant tries to provide the best quality of life for his child and suggests that the Respondent makes it difficult for him to do so.

52The Respondent submits that there is no evidence that the Society intentionally interfered with the Applicant’s place of residence. They deny the allegation.

53The CFSRB notes that there is no information in the Applicant’s submission showing that the Applicant complained about Ms. Bloom. In his reply, the Applicant does not provide details about who he contacted to complain.

54The CFSRB finds that it does not have jurisdiction to investigate whether there was interference by the Respondent and that the Applicant failed to prove that he was not heard in this regard.

vii) The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for why the Respondent repeatedly forwarded details of the Applicant’s file to other Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario and Canada.

55The Applicant submits that the Respondent targeted him and shared defamatory and unverified information with other Children’s Aid Societies across Canada as well as police and other government bodies, without any legal need to do so, to retaliate, defame, and surveil his family. He believes that the sharing of information was not authorized as it was not tied to a need for child protection. In support of this allegation, the Applicant filed an excerpt of a document that has no date or name of an author. The document refers to another children’s aid society and not the Respondent. It is not clear what role the Respondent had in this document. Finally, the document suggests that there is reasonable cause to believe that the security or development of the Applicant’s child T is or may be considered to be in danger.

56The Respondent submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent shared information about the Applicant’s file and that the CFSRB does not have the power to investigate this allegation.

57In his reply, the Applicant provided further submissions about this complaint under Complaint #3. The information provided refers to another Ontario children’s aid society.

58I find that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the Respondent shared information about the Applicant’s file and therefore do not find that reasons are required.

viii) The Applicant alleges that he was not heard by the Respondent regarding factual inaccuracies in an Amber Alert that was issued on or about September 2017 that falsely stated the Applicant’s son was a missing child.

59The Applicant’s submissions indicate that on or about September 2017, the Respondent, in coordination with the police, issued a knowingly false Amber alert alleging that his son T was a missing child. He submits that this was a “fabrication with no factual basis and was designed to terrorize and discredit [his] family”. The issue for the CFSRB is whether the Applicant was heard.

60The Applicant includes a one-page document with no information as to the source that appears to be dated September 5 (the number is not clear) with no year indicated. The document indicates the following: “Cormier contacts S&H in BC and directs them to ST Facebook page and photos of TA. They confirm that TA was not the boy at their door.” What may be the Applicant’s writing indicates: “pure fabrication and clarifying one story of my son not being the missing child”.

61The Respondent submits that the Applicant has referred to various statutes alleging violations by the Respondent and that this is not within the CFSRB jurisdiction.

62In his reply, the Applicant submits that the Respondent worked in coordination with the police to issue the Amber Alert and further submits that the Respondent fabricated information to discredit the Applicant’s family.

63The CFSRB finds that it is not mandated to investigate the reasons for issuing an Amber Alert. It is not clear what role the Respondent had regarding the issuance of an Amber Alert. For this reason, the CFSRB finds that the Applicant has not met the onus to show why he should have been heard by the Respondent for a decision that was not shown to be made by it.

ix) The Applicant alleges he was not heard by the Respondent regarding the actions of Respondent worker Alain Corriveau and other workers in interfering with his place of residence.

64The Applicant submits that “In or around [October 9, 2012], CAS worker Alain Corriveau willfully interfered with my place of residence by contacting my landlord and/or engaging in conduct aimed at destabilizing my tenancy. This malicious interference was designed to manufacture a narrative that I was incapable of providing stable housing for my son, [T], in direct contradiction to the truth. These actions were not only unethical under the Ontario College of Social Workers' Code of Ethics but also constituted criminal mischief (s. 430), obstruction of justice (s. 139), and possibly a pattern of systemic persecution under s. 318 of the Criminal Code due to my Indigenous background and whistleblowing against CAS. These actions further violated my rights under Section 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter, and form the basis of civil claims for malicious interference and emotional distress.”

65The Applicant alleges that the worker may have put pressure on the landlord because shortly after the worker contacted the landlord, the Applicant and his son had issues and false allegations made against them.

66The Applicant provides a warrant for access to records relating to the Applicant issued by the Ontario Court of Justice on October 12, 2012.

67The Respondent submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent intentionally interfered with the Applicant’s place of residence or portrayed him as an unfit parent. The Applicant’s reply reiterates his allegations about the employee but does not provide context for any complaint he made about the employee to the Respondent.

68The CFSRB finds that the Applicant did not show that the Respondent did not hear his concerns about staff interfering with his relationship with his landlord. The Applicant did not provide information about to whom and when he raised this issue with the Respondent.

x) The Applicant alleges the Respondent has failed to provide reasons for keeping his file open.

69The Applicant submits that "Despite a court order directing the closure of [his], file, the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa maliciously kept it open without lawful authority, with the intent to obstruct justice and delay civil proceedings I was initiating for the abuse and injury caused to my son [T] while under their supervision. […] The continued open file was used as a tool to interfere with my access to legal remedies and protect CAS from accountability for its misconduct, including premeditated perjury, child injury, and the systemic violation of our family’s rights."

70The Applicant does not provide a copy of the court order with his hearing submissions, nor in his reply submissions. If there was a court order, as submitted by the Applicant, this issue is not properly before the CFSRB in accordance with section 120(8) of the Act.

ORDER

71The onus was on the Applicant to show that it was more likely than not, on a “balance of probabilities,” that he was not heard and that he had not been provided with meaningful reasons. I find that the Applicant met the onus regarding the Respondent not providing reasons for why his visits with his son were cancelled around March 2011 as set out in paragraph 42. The Respondent must provide the Applicant with such reasons by email by August 29, 2025.

72I find that the Applicant did not meet the onus regarding all other complaints.