GS-R v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2026 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GS-R Applicant

-and-

Peel Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: February 03, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 17 Indexed as: GS-R v Peel Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

GS-R, Applicant OO, Counsel

Peel Children’s Aid Society, Respondent MP, 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 Applicant is the mother of two children. The Respondent became involved after the Applicant consulted with a health care provider regarding her children’s disclosure to her about their father driving with them under the influence of alcohol. The health care provider made the initial referral to the Respondent. According to the Applicant, after detailing her many concerns about the father, including his use of coercive control, the Respondent advised her that she would be contacted prior to being interviewed by the Respondent. However, on December 17, 2024, the Respondent attended the Applicant and the father’s home to interview them and the children, all under the same roof, without contacting the Applicant first, despite the Applicant’s stated concerns about abuse.

3The Applicant complained to the Respondent. A new worker was assigned to interview the children. That interview ended up taking place at the paternal grandparents’ home, where the Applicant alleges, the children face intimidation. This, despite the Applicant’s requests to have the interview in a place where the children feel safe. Following the interview, the Respondent verified concerns that related to both parents and closed the file, without a further interview with the Applicant. The Applicant had requested and expected an interview with the Respondent, in the presence of her lawyer. The Applicant alleges that as a result of how the Respondent conducted its interviews, the children experienced intimidation and abuse from their father and paternal grandparents, which has had a lasting and ongoing impact on their health and wellbeing.

Procedural Issues

4The Applicant did not file materials prior to the hearing, despite the CFSRB’s repeated directions to do so. I allowed the Applicant to file documents on the morning of the hearing. There was no prejudice to the Respondent of doing so due to the low volume of materials which it was able to review. I primarily relied on the evidence provided in testimony as scant documentary evidence was entered as exhibits at the hearing.

ISSUES

a. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and/or provide the Applicant with reasons for why it allegedly failed to conduct interviews with her and the children in a place where they felt safe and unintimidated?

b. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and/or provide reasons for why it allegedly did not arrange meetings as expected and requested by the Applicant?

c. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant an opportunity to be heard and/or provide reasons for decisions it made related to the investigation including how it reached conclusions about the Applicant without providing an opportunity for the Applicant to be interviewed?

RESULT

5I find that the Respondent provided an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard, but the Applicant denied this opportunity in December, 2024. I also find that the Respondent offered the Applicant the opportunity for it to provide reasons for why it conducted its interviews on December 17, 2024 as it did, but the Applicant declined. The Respondent did not provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard or provide the Applicant with reasons for why it conducted its interviews in January, 2025 as it did.

6The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard or provide her with reasons for why it did not arrange a meeting with her lawyer and the Respondent’s lawyer, as the Applicant requested and expected.

7The Respondent did not provide the Applicant an opportunity to be heard or provide her with reasons for the decisions it made related to its investigation. The Respondent did not explain how it reached its conclusions about the Applicant without providing an opportunity for the Applicant to be interviewed following the second interview with the children.

ANALYSIS

8Section 15(2) of the Act sets out that service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. Pursuant to section 120(4)4, the CFSRB may review allegations that the society has failed to comply with section 15(2). Pursuant to section 120(4)5, the CFSRB may review allegations that the society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

9To be clear, the CFSRB cannot review the wisdom of the Respondent’s decisions, nor whether the Respondent applied a trauma-informed approach to its investigation practices. The CFSRB’s authority, in terms of the matters that it can review, is limited to the legislation as set out in paragraph 8 above.

a) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and/or provide the Applicant with reasons for why it allegedly failed to conduct interviews with her and the children in a place where they felt safe and unintimidated?

10The Applicant testified that following the meeting with the Respondent worker on December 17, 2024, she complained to the Respondent supervisor. She testified that she was angry about how the Respondent chose to conduct its interviews on December 17, 2024, in light of the information both she and the health care provider had shared with the Respondent regarding the father’s abusive behavior and alcohol abuse. The Applicant testified that the Respondent had told her that it would let her know in advance when it planned to interview her and the children, but then the worker showed up unannounced to the house, when the father and paternal grandparents were home. The Applicant further testified that at the interview on December 17, 2024, the worker did not ask the children about their disclosure to their mother about the father drinking and driving. She testified that the worker said that the father assured her that he would not drink and drive, and that he is an adult, and there is no more she can do. The Applicant described how the worker was rushing off to deliver Christmas presents on behalf of the Respondent and prioritized this over a thorough and proper investigation.

11Following the unannounced visit of December 17, 2024, the Applicant complained to the Respondent, and spoke with the supervisor. She indicated she wanted nothing more to do with the worker who had come to her house.

12When asked in cross examination if, following the initial interview on December 17, 2024, the Respondent offered to meet with the Applicant after she complained to the supervisor, the Applicant acknowledged that an offer to meet at the office was made. The Applicant testified that first the supervisor suggested another meeting with the same worker, then a meeting at the office, and finally, that a new worker be assigned. The Applicant did not attend the meeting at the office, because she said, the damage was already done.

13I find with regard to the first issue, the Applicant was provided the opportunity to be heard and declined. The Applicant did not accept the Respondent’s offer to attend the Respondent’s office to share her concerns beyond what she shared on the telephone.

14In January 2025, however, when the Respondent assigned a new worker, the Respondent’s interviews were scheduled to be conducted in a similar way, at the Applicant and father’s home. As is set out below in detail, the Applicant was not provided an opportunity to be heard and represented, nor was she provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decisions when it came to the January interviews the Respondent conducted.

b) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and/or provide reasons for why it allegedly did not arrange meetings as expected and requested by the Applicant?

c) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant an opportunity to be heard and/or provide reasons for decisions it made related to the investigation including how it reached its conclusions about the Applicant without providing an opportunity for the Applicant to be interviewed?

15I find issues b and c are inextricably connected, and they are addressed together in the paragraphs that follow.

16The Applicant testified that following the initial interview, she received a telephone call from the new worker assigned to the case. The Applicant stated that she asked the new worker to call her lawyer. The Applicant further testified that there was a lot of back and forth to set up a meeting time that included both the Applicant’s lawyer, and the Respondent’s lawyer.

17The Applicant testified that after the initial interview, she would only speak with the Respondent with her lawyer present. She also testified that she would only agree to her children being interviewed if the interview was conducted in front of both her lawyer and that of the Respondent. The Applicant stated that the new worker was first agreeable to a meeting that included counsel, and that the worker told her that findings would be provided by January 26, 2025, but none of that happened. The Applicant stated, “attempts were made to meet but it never happened.”

18An email from the worker to the Applicant dated January 6, 2025, was admitted into evidence. The letter set out that “I am to meet with you, your lawyer, and your family on January 7,8, or 9, 2025 at a time that is convenient for you.” The letter also provided that she will be away on vacation from Jan. 13 to 17, 2025, and “returning to work on January 20 and able to meet with you, your lawyer, and your family at a time that works for everyone”. Lastly, the letter set out that they could meet at the Respondent’s office, or the Applicant’s home. The letter provided that the Respondent’s counsel would join by Zoom if the meeting were to take place at the Applicant’s home.

19An email to counsel for the Applicant dated January 23, 2025 was also admitted into evidence, sent from Respondent counsel Amanda Rozario. The email provided “I am writing in response to your correspondence of Wednesday, January 22, 2025. Please be advised that Ms. Pannu is presently out of the office and will return to the office on Monday, January 27, 2025. She will address your request at that time.”

20No further written correspondence was filed pertaining to scheduling a meeting with counsel. There is no written explanation as to why the first dates offered, January 7, 8, or 9, 2025, did not pan out.

21PH testified that she was asked by her supervisor to “do her a favour” on January 6, 2025, to meet with the two children named in this Application, to complete the investigation that had been started by her colleague. PH was clear that her only assignment was to interview the children, because, as she understood from her supervisor, the previous worker had not asked them about their father’s drinking and driving. PH advised that she reviewed the entire file before commencing her assignment.

22PH testified that the Applicant was adamant that she wanted the meeting to take place with her lawyer, and that the children be interviewed with their mother present. PH stated that she needed to explain that they do not interview children in front of parents or lawyers, and that children must be interviewed in private. PH testified that the Applicant’s lawyer was adamant that the children were not going to be interviewed without her, adding that she found the lawyer’s behavior to be unethical, arrogant and unprofessional, stating “I never met a lawyer in my experience like this.”

23Some time after her exchange with the Applicant’s lawyer, PH testified that she arranged to meet with both parents and children on January 29, 2025, at their home, where the parents were both still living, although separated. PH testified that on that day, she interviewed the father who was home with the flu, but while she was at the home, the Applicant called that she had picked the children up from school and was taking them to the doctor. PH testified that she suspected this was a “stunt” to avoid the children being interviewed because the lawyer was not available. The father advised PH that the children will be at their paternal grandparents’ home the following day after school. PH stated that after the Applicant “pulled the stunt” on January 29, she decided to interview the children on January 30 at their grandparents’ home, and that she did not require the Applicant’s consent to interview the children. She stated that there was a time limit to complete the investigation. She said she could have interviewed the children at school, but she wanted to respect the children’s privacy.

24PH testified that while she was in her car outside the home, she received a text from the Applicant stating she did not consent to the interview without herself and her lawyer present. PH checked with her supervisor, who advised she could proceed to interview the children.

25The father met PH at the paternal grandparents’ home, and PH interviewed the children in private, downstairs, while the father and paternal grandparents were upstairs. PH said she could hear an upstairs door close, so she was satisfied the interview was private.

26She described the children as being clear, open and truthful, bright and talkative. She also testified that the children shared concerning behavior about both parents. Following the interview with the children, PH described speaking with the father, who denied drinking and driving, but was receptive to the information provided, and that she believed for that reason, that “he will think twice before he drinks and drives.”

27Following the interview, PH spoke with her supervisor and verified protection concerns about both parents. PH testified that typically, when the Respondent verifies a protection concern, it advises the parents of the outcome of the interview. She stated that if the Applicant had presented differently, the Respondent could have transferred the file to “ongoing” but because of the Applicant’s difficulty working with the Respondent, they decided to close the file. No conversation took place with the Applicant following the interview with the children. PH stated that she did not sit down with the Applicant and her lawyer at any time because they were very combative and she would not “put myself [herself] through that trauma.”

28In cross examination, PH clarified that when she was first assigned the file, she had tried to “appease” the Applicant by meeting with her as she requested, but decided not to do so in the end, because of how combative she was, and because an interview with her was not necessary, as she was assigned to interview the children only. I find that the Applicant was not provided an opportunity to be heard after the children were interviewed in late January, 2025. I further find that the Applicant was not provided with reasons for decisions the Respondent made related to the investigation, including how it reached conclusions about the Applicant without providing an opportunity for the Applicant to be interviewed.

29PH testified that when the interview was scheduled with the Applicant at the house on January 29, 2025, she was given an opportunity to be heard. When asked in cross examination, PH denied knowing that the Applicant had previously complained about being interviewed in the same home as the father. She said that there are ways around interviewing both parents in a variety of situations, such as asking each parent to leave the house during the other’s interview.

30PH was clear in her testimony that once the Applicant did not appear on January 29, 2025, her attitude changed. She described the Applicant’s non-attendance on January 29, 2025 at different times as a “stunt” and “playing games”, and that she decided she was “done,” when that happened, because she had a time sensitive investigation to complete. PH stated that she did not need to interview the mother again, because she had been interviewed on December 17, 2024. The father, however, met with the Respondent twice after December 17, 2024, once on January 29, and then again, the next day, following the children’s interview at the paternal grandparents’ home. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Applicant felt the investigation was imbalanced.

31Regarding the second issue under review, I find that PH explained to the Applicant that the children must be interviewed by themselves, away from parents and lawyers, however, the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with an explanation for why the meeting with lawyers did not take place as she requested and expected. It was only through the hearing process that it became clear that the Respondent decided the Applicant was too combative to work with, and to pursue the meeting with lawyers.

32It is clear from the evidence that PH made no attempt to meet with the Applicant, after January 29, 2025. It is quite possible that even if PH had made further attempts to provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard, the Applicant would have made meaningful conversation impossible. However, PH did not make further attempts.

33PH described taking on the assignment of interviewing the children as a “favour” to her supervisor. The worker’s insistence that she was “only supposed to do one thing” gives the impression that the Respondent was just going through the motions to pacify the mother and not engaging in meaningful investigation at that point. Child protection investigations cannot be neatly compartmentalized into discrete tasks. If the investigation was to be meaningful, the next step in the investigation would be dependent on the information gleaned from the previous step. In testimony, PH described their initial agreeableness to meet with the Applicant and her lawyer as a desire to “appease” the Applicant. Appeasing is what one does to placate but does not indicate that the Applicant’s concerns were meaningfully heard. Furthermore, the January interviews were ultimately scheduled to take place in the same fashion as the December interviews, under the same roof as the father, which was central to the Applicant’s initial complaint. PH testified that she did not know this manner of interview was an issue, although she said she had reviewed the file. I find for these reasons, the Applicant’s concerns were not heard. I also find the Respondent did not explain or provide reasons for why the January interviews were scheduled to take place with all family members under the same roof, especially given the Applicant’s complaints to the Respondent following the interviews conducted on December 17, 2024.

34One would have reasonably expected further attempts to meet with the Applicant to explain the investigation results. PH testified that the Respondent would have kept the file open if the Applicant had not been so combative. While the Applicant and her counsel’s conduct was problematic, it does not, in my view, negate the Respondent’s obligation to comply with section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. To be clear, I understand that the Applicant’s and her lawyer’s conduct was extremely challenging for the Respondent. It was also self defeating. That said, the Respondent had an ongoing obligation to provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard and to be represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, and to be heard when she had concerns about the services she received.

35My remedial powers in this matter are restricted to section 120(7) of the Act. The Act does not provide a means for an Applicant’s concerns to be heard as a remedy under section 120(7).

36Through the hearing process, the Respondent provided a reason for its decision to not pursue a meeting with the Applicant and her lawyer. It provided the same reason for its decision not to meet with the Applicant after the children were interviewed, to explain its investigation findings. The Respondent decided the Applicant was too challenging to work with. It would not be productive to order the Respondent to provide reasons for these decisions again, in writing. I understand why the Applicant may feel the reasons provided are insufficient, however the CFSRB does not have remedial powers beyond that which is set out in section 120(7) of the Act.

ORDER

37Within 30 days, the Respondent is to provide written reasons to the Applicant explaining:

a. Why the Respondent arranged to conduct interviews of the children in the same house as the father and paternal grandparents, in January, 2025, given the concerns the Applicant had previously raised about the children feeling intimidated by these individuals.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

38Pursuant 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.

Caroline Sand

Caroline Sand Vice-Chair