TS v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2026 CFSRB 42

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TS Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: March 20, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 42 Indexed as: TS v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

TS, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent Self-represented

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”).

2In a Decision dated December 19, 2025 (the Decision), the CFSRB dismissed all but one of the Applicant’s complaints.

3In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated December 19, 2025, the CFSRB directed that a hearing on the remaining complaint would proceed in writing and further directed that on or before January 30, 2026, the Applicant file relevant materials and submissions with the CFSRB, copying the Respondent. The Respondent was directed to file their hearing materials on or before February 18, 2026.

4The Applicant has not filed any hearing materials. The Respondent has. I have considered the Applicant’s Application received by the CFSRB on October 15, 2025, including attachments and the Respondent’s hearing submissions in making my decision.

ISSUE

5The issue is whether the Applicant was heard regarding her concerns about a particular child protection worker (JB).

RESULT

6I find that the Applicant was heard regarding her concerns about a particular child protection worker (JB).

ANALYSIS

7Subsection 120(4)4 of the Act allows the Board to review allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2). Subsection 15(2) requires service providers, like the Respondent, to “ensure that children and young persons 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”.

8The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) of the Act as follows:

“To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.” P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 (para 15).

9The Applicant complains about the conduct of a particular child protection worker toward her. The issue is set out in the Pre-hearing Mediation Report (PHMR) dated November 17, 2025, as follows: “The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to hear her concerns about its employee JB and his failure to hear her ongoing concerns about her daughter.”

10The Applicant’s Application states that JB engaged in disrespectful, intimidating, and unprofessional behaviour towards the Applicant and the supervisor of access. The Applicant alleges that despite her request for an internal review the Respondent has refused to investigate or provide a formal response.

11Attached to her Application, is an email dated October 14, 2025, from the Applicant to a Manager employed by the Respondent (MD) in which the Applicant stated amongst other things that JB refused to discuss key issues with her on the previous Friday and ended their call abruptly. She goes on to state in the same email that she has raised concerns about child protection issues directly with JB, but no action appears to have been taken and states that she has faced harassment and false accusations.

12Also attached to her Application, is an email dated October 14, 2025, from the Applicant to the Respondent’s Director of Service (DM), which, amongst other things, states “I would like to note my concern regarding the unfair treatment I experienced around the parenting course I completed months ago. It was evident that (JB)’s conduct was not constructive but rather intended to provoke and create unnecessary obstacles. This behaviour was both unprofessional and contrary to the Society’s stated purpose of supporting families.”

13The Respondent submits that the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant’s concerns were heard, received and responded to appropriately through established managerial and organizational processes.

14The Respondent submits that ongoing efforts to hear the Applicant have occurred since the file was transferred to ongoing services through text messages, phone calls, and meetings with Child Protection Workers, Managers, and the Director of Service. The Respondent submitted over 40 examples of such contacts commencing May 22, 2025. In total the Respondent filed over 350 pages of contact logs and records, the majority of which were communications with the Applicant by phone, text, and email.

15The Respondent submitted a letter authored by Director of Service DM sent to the Applicant on May 22, 2025, which states, “Thank you for taking the time to meet with JV and me on May 7, 2025, and for our (sic) phone call to me on May 12, 2025, where we discussed your ongoing concerns regarding your file. As outlined in the recent email that I sent you, we have agreed to your request for a change in worker, and a transfer meeting (where you will meet your new worker) has been scheduled for May 22, 2025. We hope this change will help support effective communication and ongoing collaboration moving forward.” It was at this point that JB became the Applicant’s worker.

16The Respondent submitted an email from Manager MD to the Applicant dated September 3, 2025 which states, “Hi (Applicant), JB and I are available to meet with you either on Tuesday, September 9 at 11 am or Thursday, September 11 at 1 pm. The meeting would be at the office, and the purpose would be to discuss and work towards resolving the concerns you have raised regarding your worker. Please let us know so we can confirm and book a room.” The Applicant responded by email the same day saying, “Again not willing to meet at your offices anymore. JB has overstepped more than once and cancelled 2 meetings short notice after rearranging my schedule. A home visit is required for the plan of care I am requesting that and now with JB alone. Please arrange asap.”

17The Respondent submitted an email from Manager MD to the Applicant dated September 9, 2025, which states, “A second staff member will be present during your home visit to ensure there is a shared understanding about what happened during the home visits, as you have reported concerns about workers...For future, you can reach out to me, and then to DM, if there is a concern or complaint regarding your worker and you aren’t able to resolve it together amongst the two of you.”

18The Respondent submitted an email from Manager MD to the Applicant dated October 10, 2025, which stated, “On September 3, 2025, I offered to coordinate a meeting with yourself, JB, and I regarding your complaint. On the same day, you emailed back to decline this offer, and you requested that JB coordinate his home visit. Please let me know if you would like to reconsider and I will proceed with coordinating a meeting.”

19The Respondent submitted an email dated October 14, 2025, from Manager MD to the Applicant which states, “I am responding to the email you sent to me in addition to the other emails you sent to DM (Director of Service).” The email goes on to state, “I remain willing to participate in a meeting with you and JB so I can support in working through any issues or disagreements you might have. Please let me know if you want me to proceed with coordinating a meeting with you and JB in the office.” Finally, the email states, “I have already reviewed the parameters and expectation for your contact with Society staff; we are not responding to multiple emails from you daily.”

20The Respondent submitted an email dated October 14, 2025, which states, “DM (Director of Service) forward your (email) below (for) response. I am acknowledging we have received and reviewed this information. The email goes on to state, “JB has scheduled home visits and meetings with other families and isn’t able to respond immediately to every email that you send due to the high volume of emails you send regularly. Moving forward, JB can commit to confirming every Wednesday morning that he has received and reviewed your emails, if you have sent any.”

21The Respondent submitted an email dated October 17, 2025, from Director of Service DM to the Applicant which states, “We understand that you have ongoing concerns regarding your case and the decisions that have been made. As we have advised previously, the appropriate place to formally raise any objections or propose alternative plans is during your court proceedings…It is important to reiterate that you do not get to bypass the assigned caseworker and manager by contacting the Director in search of a different decision. Case planning discussions must go through the proper channels – namely, your assigned worker and their manager. I have advised you of this on more than one occasion, and I continue to encourage you to follow the appropriate process. In addition, the volume, tone, and demands expressed in your emails to staff have become inappropriate. We understand you may feel frustrated, but communication must remain respectful and professional on both sides. Repeated and demanding messages hinder rather than help the case planning process. You have been sending a high volume of emails, often repeating the same concerns demanding answers before anyone has an opportunity to read the email. While we respect your right to communicate with us, this level of correspondence is not appropriate and impacts our ability to manage your case effectively. Moving forward, as an agency, we will respond to one email per week. If you have multiple concerns, please compile them into a single message so they can be reviewed and addressed accordingly. As per the usual process you can contact your worker or the back up worker directly if there is an immediate emergency that relates to child protection concerns. Additionally, you have demanded repeated phone calls to discuss your concerns. I am willing to review these in person, however to avoid triangulation, case management decisions should be addressed directly with JB and MD. I have previously offered you a time to come in and discuss your concerns in person with me (October 22, 2025, at 1:00 pm). JB, MD and I are willing to meet to hear your concerns.”

22The Respondent’s evidence is that a meeting was held on October 22, 2025, between the Applicant and the worker, the manager, and the Director of Service to review and address the Applicant’s concerns. The Respondent submits that the actions taken by them in the course of looking into the allegations regarding the child protection worker are confidential and that to the extent the Applicant raised concerns that could potentially fall within the scope of an employment contract or human resources review, those matters were managed in accordance with the Respondent’s internal policies and applicable confidentiality obligations.

23The Respondent submitted into evidence Contact Logs dated October 22, 2025, which document an in person meeting that the Worker JB, the Manager MD, and the Service Manager DM had with the Applicant on that date. The Applicant shared several concerns regarding JB during that meeting including JB not ringing her doorbell; no one getting back to her; JB never asking her about access ; JB saying to her more than once that he is never coming back; and that JB refused to give her a copy of the Plan of Care. The Applicant said at the meeting that she wanted a new worker. DM responded that the Applicant had previously been assigned a new worker when she asked, having had very similar complaints about her previous worker. The Applicant responded that JB was abrasive and gruff, and she did not feel safe. DM responded that a new worker would not be assigned but asked the Applicant how they could make things work. DM welcomed the Applicant to have a support person physically present or on the phone during visits with JB and said that the Respondent would do safety planning. The Applicant agreed to JB remaining her worker. Regarding the Applicant’s complaint about no one getting back to her, it was explained that the sheer volume of emails to various Respondent staff was overwhelming.

24The Respondent submitted a letter dated October 30, 2025, sent to the Applicant and signed by JB and MD. The letter thanks the Applicant for the meeting on October 22, 2025, and reviews the parties’ agreements regarding consents; access; and communication of protection concerns.

25The Respondent submitted an email from Manager MD to the Applicant dated November 7, 2025, which states,” I am following up your call with DM (Director of Service) yesterday afternoon. We heard your concerns about the access previously in place and participated in a meeting with you…”. The email goes on to state, “As DM discussed with you during the phone call yesterday, your abusive behaviour towards Society staff is unacceptable…I have already previously outlined the expectations about your behaviour towards staff in a letter and this has been an ongoing issue. If you contact the Society and engage in insults, threatening behaviour, and/or intimidation, your call will be terminated immediately…You made over 30 calls into the agency yesterday in a short period of time and refused to leave messages, making demands of our administrative support team. During your call with DM yesterday, when she tried to address the issues about your behaviour during these calls, you advised her that you intend on calling 130 times today. If your behaviour carries over into today and you continue to engage in abusive behaviour towards our staff, the call will be terminated.”

26The Respondent submits that they have offered for the Applicant to include a support person in her visits with the worker JB, and JB also attends the Applicant’s home with a colleague for safety purposes.

27The Respondent submits that child protection workers are obligated to communicate difficult information, set clear expectations, and hold parents accountable to court-mandated requirements. The Respondent further submits that disagreement with that information does not constitute misconduct. They submit that the Respondent has a duty not only to provide service to families, but also to ensure a safe and respectful working environment for employees. The Respondent submits that firm, consistent boundaries were maintained in response to the Applicant’s conduct, and those boundaries do not reflect a failure to hear the Applicant’s concerns, but rather an exercise of the appropriate professional practice.

28I find that the evidence submitted by the Respondent demonstrates a history of communication with the Applicant regarding her concerns about worker JB, which demonstrates that the Applicant was heard, and while she may not agree with the Respondent’s decisions, it is not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to investigate whether an employee of a children’s aid society should be disciplined, whether the society’s response to a complaint about its staff was reasonable or whether the society should have assigned a new worker to the Applicant in the circumstances. The issue in this case is whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns.

29I find that the Respondent met the obligation to listen to and discuss the Applicant’s concerns, as demonstrated in the meeting held October 22, 2022, as well as the numerous communications the Respondent had with the Applicant. The Respondent escalated the Applicant’s concerns to the level of the Director of Service. Both the Director of Service and the Manager not only met with the Applicant but responded to her in writing and on the phone, demonstrating that they took her concerns seriously. Further, the Respondent took steps to address the Applicant’s concerns such as inviting her to include a support person in her meetings with JB; sending another worker with JB on home visits; and establishing a day each week when JB would acknowledge having received and reviewed the Applicant’s emails. I find that the Respondent has demonstrated that the Applicant’s concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

ORDER

30The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

31Pursuant 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.