SO v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2026 CFSRB 44

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SO Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ivana Vaccaro Date: March 25, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 44 Indexed as: SO v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SO, Applicant RM, Counsel

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, Respondent CS, 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 (“Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application was eligible to proceed under section 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

3The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for decisions made by the Respondent with respect to the following concerns raised by her:

a) In March 2025, the Respondent discussed with the Applicant her desire to meet with the Child in the community as opposed to requiring that visitation be supervised at the Respondent’s office;

b) In February 2025, the Respondent intercepted communications with regards to the Child’s Form 2 visit to the hospital without the consent of the Applicant; and,

c) The Respondent has not continued with the medical intervention, mental health care, and psychiatric assessments of the Child.

ISSUES

4The issue to be determined is whether the Applicant was given the opportunity to be heard, and provided with reasons, for decisions made by the Respondent with respect to the concerns itemized in paragraph 3 above.

RESULT

5Having reviewed the Application, the Response and the hearing documents filed by the parties in this written hearing, I find the following:

a) In relation to the issue identified in paragraph 3(a), the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern that she wished to meet with the Child in the community as opposed to supervised visits at the Respondent’s office. I find that the Applicant did not engage in any meaningful discussions with the Respondent concerning her visits with the Child, regardless of the Respondent’s efforts, because she did not wish to share her concerns, nor did she wish for the Respondent’s involvement in her visits with the Child;

b) In relation to the issue identified in paragraph 3(b), the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that she communicated her concern to the Respondent that, in February 2025, it intercepted communications with regards to the Child’s Form 2 visit to the hospital without her consent. I find that the Respondent was not provided with an opportunity to hear the Applicant’s concern or address it in a meaningful way; and,

c) In relation to the issue identified in paragraph 3(c), the Applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern that the Respondent has not continued with the medical intervention, mental health care, and psychiatric assessments of the Child. The Applicant’s behaviour impacted the Respondent’s ability to engage in discussions concerning the health-related needs of the Child.

6This Decision was made following a hearing in writing.

7The Applicant filed an Application on June 18, 2025 in which she made numerous allegations against the Respondent, many of which were convoluted or incomprehensible. Subsequently, on July 14, 2025, the Respondent filed a Response which addressed the allegations made by the Applicant on a summary basis, set forth a detailed description and chronology of the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant and the Child, and raised additional facts, issues and allegations against the Applicant.

8With its Response, the Respondent included a Temporary Court Order dated February 11, 2025, a Restraining Order dated March 4, 2025, and a Court Endorsement dated July 8, 2025. The Respondent asserts the Applicant’s complaints refer to matters which are before the court or have been decided by the court and as such fall outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

9Since the Response was filed, there have been four pre-hearings, one mediation and two interim decisions. A pre-hearing/mediation was held on July 30, 2025, and further pre-hearings were held on August 7, 2025, September 17, 2025, and December 12, 2025. The CFSRB issued two interim decisions: the Interim Decision dated September 25, 2025 and the Interim Decision dated December November 3, 2025.

10At the pre-hearing/mediation of July 30, 2025, the parties did not reach an agreement; however, the Applicant’s complaints were refined into eight separate complaints. At the pre-hearing of September 17, 2025, the CFSRB determined that one of the eight complaints was not a complaint eligible for review in the Notice of Eligibility dated June 19, 2025. Accordingly, that complaint was removed from the list of issues proceeding to a hearing. On November 3, 2025, the CFSRB issued an interim decision in which it found that four of the remaining seven complaints did not fall within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB, pursuant s. 120(8)(a) of the Act. Specifically, all four complaints had been, or would be, before the court.

11The pre-hearing of August 7, 2025 was scheduled to prepare the parties for a hearing. At that pre-hearing the Applicant requested that the Child, who was then 16 years of age, appear as a witness. The CFSRB requested submissions from each of the parties on how the Child would be a relevant witness given the Applicant’s complaints, and how the Child could be a potential witness given the restraining order which prevented the Applicant from communicating with the Child (see more on this below). On September 25, 2025, the CFSRB issued an Interim Decision in which it determined the Child would not be included as a witness.

12At the pre-hearing of December 12, 2025, the CFSRB confirmed that three issues would proceed to a hearing, as outlined in paragraph 3 above, and determined that the hearing would proceed in writing on the consent of the parties. The CFSRB set out the deadlines for the exchange of arguably relevant disclosure and for each party to file materials and submissions for the hearing. While both parties previously filed submissions with the CFSRB, neither filed any submissions after the pre-hearing report of December 16, 2025, other than the Applicant’s correspondence to the CFSRB and Respondent confirming that she had left with the Child to British Columbia.

ANALYSIS

13The CFSRB has explained that the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act entails the following:

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 33 (para 14).

14Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

15The Applicant has set out a narrative that is not supported by the evidence. The Applicant’s documents include accusations that the Respondent, its worker LH, and the Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (“Niagara CAS”) abused, harassed, bullied, victimized, defamed and stalked her and the Child, and that the Respondent kidnapped the Child from her. The Applicant refers to the Respondent as a “group of child abusers and sadistic bullies” and “a murdering society” and accuses LH of being a “child abuser.”

16The Applicant takes issue with the Respondent wanting to supervise her visits with the Child and facilitating the Child’s access to his father. The father resides in the U.K. and is described by the Applicant as being abusive and non-existent in the Child’s life. The Applicant alleges that by facilitating the Child’s access to his father, the Child will be exposed to “human-trafficking”. The Applicant accuses the Respondent of misleading the court during proceedings, and that she was “set up” by LH to be arrested shortly after she tried to visit with the Child. The Applicant also claims that Niagara CAS failed to maintain the Child’s vaccine schedule and support his mental health challenges while in its care, and that the Respondent “destroyed” the Child’s life by traumatizing him while in its care.

17The Respondent has filed a Response which provides a detailed chronology of its involvement with the Applicant and the Child, as well as that of Niagara CAS, and the child protection proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Respondent describes a history of verbal and physical abuse of the Child by the Applicant, and mental health concerns related to the Applicant. The Respondent also describes the Applicant’s persistent mistrust for the Respondent and its worker LH, her videorecording LH during meetings, her refusal to respond to and work with the Respondent and LH regarding the Child’s welfare, her many emails threatening the Respondent and accusing it of defamation and abuse, and her attempt to have the Child hospitalized for a mental health assessment even after the Child agreed to be placed in the care of the Respondent on February 6, 2025.

18A court order was made on February 11, 2025, placing the Child in the temporary care and custody of the Respondent, with the Applicant having access to the Child at the Respondent’s discretion, and supervised if deemed necessary (“Temporary Order”). The Respondent claims that it repeatedly offered the Applicant supervised visits with the Child which she either declined or did not respond to. The Respondent advises that the Child has legal representation through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) and that his views and wishes are paramount and have been put to the Court. The Respondent also advises that, while in foster care, the Applicant assisted the Child in absconding from his placement on several occasions which then necessitated police involvement given the concern for the Child’s safety. The Child also reported to the Respondent that he was being stalked by the Applicant during that time.

19On March 4, 2025, the Respondent sought and was granted a restraining order against the Applicant, restraining her from communicating directly or indirectly with the Child except as authorized and supervised by the Respondent and from coming within a 500-metre radius of the Child’s home, school or any place the Child is known to be (“Restraining Order”). Notwithstanding the Restraining Order, the Applicant continued to communicate with the Child indirectly through his school. The Applicant then began contacting the Child, sending him insulting communications through text message. The Child disclosed the Applicant’s contact with him to LH, the OCL lawyer and the police. On May 30, 2025, the Applicant was criminally charged for breaching the Restraining Order and released on a promise to appear in court on July 9, 2025. At that time, the Applicant signed an undertaking restraining her from communicating with LH save and except in relation to the family and child services matter.

20The Respondent alleges that since the Applicant’s arrest, she has sent voluminous correspondence to the Respondent making threats and various allegations, many of which are difficult to understand. The Respondent claims that it has done everything possible to maintain meaningful dialogue with the Applicant, despite the challenge of her deteriorating mental health. The Respondent has attempted to meet with her and support her, as well as her relationship with the Child in a supervised setting, until she demonstrates that she can manage her communication with the Child in a safe and child-focussed manner. Rather than communicating with the Respondent and LH regarding the Child and his needs, the Applicant has insisted on communicating with him directly or through his school, contrary to the Restraining Order.

21In the submissions filed by the parties, the Applicant claimed that the Child had attained the age of 16 and returned to her care on August 27, 2025; however, the Respondent submits that shortly afterwards, on September 4, 2025, the Child willingly left the Applicant’s home and returned to his group home placement. Consequently, the Applicant was once again criminally charged for breaching the Restraining Order on September 4, 2025 in relation to the time that the Child was in her home.

22On December 18, 2025, January 15, 2026 and February 27, 2026, the Applicant delivered correspondence to the CFSRB in which she claimed the Respondent, its legal counsel and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice no longer had jurisdiction over her or the Child because she had removed the Child from Ontario and taken him with her to British Columbia. She indicates that she will remain in British Columbia for the long term and that any attempted service of court documents on her by the Respondent or its legal counsel was invalid given that, according to her, the Ontario court which granted the restraining order against her no longer had jurisdiction over her or the Child.

23I find the Respondent’s evidence to be consistent and credible, and for that reason I give it significant weight. The documents filed by the Respondent to date corroborate the Respondent’s position and lend to its credibility. The Applicant, on the other hand, has not provided any evidence which corroborates any of her complaints against the Respondent, which in my view, are misplaced in any event.

Issue (a): The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern that she wished to meet with the Child in the community as opposed to supervised visits at the Respondent’s office.

24In her written complaint to the Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”), the Applicant claims that LH agreed to facilitate community access. However, in that same complaint, the Applicant also disputes the Respondent’s involvement in her access to the Child and insists that it not interfere with her access to the Child or her communication with him. It is clear from the ICRP complaint that the Applicant’s main concern is not where the visits with the Child take place, but rather that her communication with the Child is prohibited and her visits with the Child are supervised by the Respondent.

25The Temporary Order of February 11, 2025 placed the Child in the temporary care and custody of the Respondent with the Applicant having access to the Child at the Respondent’s discretion. Since that time, the matter has been in court, and the Applicant has been represented by legal counsel.

26In the Response, the Respondent notes that the Applicant did not file an Answer or a Plan of Care in response to the Respondent’s Status Review Application returnable February 11, 2025, after being served on February 10, 2025. The Applicant had the opportunity to deal with the Temporary Order which placed the Child in the Respondent’s care and restricted her access to the Respondent’s discretion but, according to the Respondent, the Applicant did not respond to, nor did she make submissions to the court, which would have been the appropriate forum to voice her concerns.

27Following the Temporary Order, the Respondent offered the Applicant supervised visits with the Child at their office, as per the request of the Child. Despite the repeated requests made by the Respondent for the Applicant to have supervised visits with the Child, including through her legal counsel, the Applicant declined the parenting time offered by the Respondent or failed to respond altogether.

28When the Restraining Order was made, the Respondent claims the Applicant retaliated against it by sending voluminous emails in which she made allegations against it and threatened LH. This coupled with the Applicant’s deteriorating mental health and mistrust of the Respondent made it difficult to respond to her and support her.

29Moreover, even after the Applicant was arrested for breaching the Restraining Order, which limited the Applicant’s contact with the Child to visits supervised only, the Respondent claims it continued to try and respond to the Applicant and meet with her to support her relationship with the Child in a supervised environment but faced the same challenges.

30Ultimately, the Temporary Order left the supervision of the Applicant’s visits with the Child to the discretion of the Respondent, and the Restraining Order prohibited any contact except for supervised visits. Where those visits took place remained the discretion of the Respondent.

31On January 15, 2026 and February 27, 2026, the CFSRB received email correspondence from the Applicant in which she confirmed she left Ontario with the Child and is currently staying with him in British Columbia. In the same correspondence, the Applicant claims Ontario no longer has jurisdiction over her or the Child and she refuses to accept service of any court documents from the Respondent which relate to the child and family services matter in Ontario.

32I find that, given the Applicant’s conduct towards the Respondent and LH, which included repeated threats and allegations, it would be impossible for the Respondent or LH to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the Applicant regarding her concern that visits should take place in the community rather than the Respondent’s office, if in fact the Applicant raised this concern prior to her complaint to the ICRP.

33I am satisfied by the evidence before me that the Respondent attempted to engage in discussions with the Applicant concerning supervised visits with the Child, directly and through her legal counsel. I find that the Applicant hindered those discussions. While the Applicant states that LH agreed to community visits, it appears from the Applicant’s evidence that she did not want any involvement from the Respondent in those visits, which would not have been possible given the Temporary Order and the Restraining Order.

Issue (b): The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concern that, in February 2025, that the Respondent intercepted communications with regards to the Child’s Form 2 visit to the hospital without her consent.

34While this issue was highlighted in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report of July 30, 2025, none of the Applicant’s submissions or materials refer to an incident where the Respondent allegedly intercepted communications regarding the Child’s Form 2 visit to the hospital without her consent in February 2025. The only reference to the Child undergoing a psychiatric assessment is in the Applicant’s ICRP complaint where she requests that the Child be returned home to her so that he can undergo a psychiatric assessment, evaluation, and treatment.

35The Respondent explains that on February 4, 2025, the Applicant signed a Form 2 to have the Child hospitalized for a mental health assessment. The Child was brought into hospital and released back to school that same day. The Applicant was upset by it and sent a “barrage of voluminous emails” to the Child’s school, group placement home and LH expressing her discontent.

36At this time, the Child agreed to enter the Respondent’s care, however when he went back home to pick up his belongings from the Applicant, she threatened to take him for a mental health psychiatric assessment. The Respondent explains that a conflict ensued between the Applicant and the Child, and the police were called, alongside LH. LH spoke with the Applicant, who agreed it was best for the Child to be in the care of the Respondent for a period of time because she was not managing well. The Temporary Order was then made on February 6, 2025 placing the Child in the Respondent’s temporary care and custody.

37The Applicant does not present any evidence that she made the Respondent aware of her concern that it intercepted communications regarding the Child’s Form 2 in February 2025, or that she put this concern to the Respondent and her concern was not heard. From the Respondent’s account, LH attended once the police called, and after LH spoke with the Applicant, it was determined the Child should be placed with the Respondent on a temporary basis.

Issue (c): The Applicant alleges that she was not heard regarding her concern that the Respondent did not continue with the medical intervention, mental health care, and psychiatric assessments.

38With respect to medical intervention for the Child, the Applicant’s allegations were unclear. However, she does emphasize that Niagara CAS did not follow through with the Child’s vaccination schedule. This allegation does not concern the Respondent and as such, any concern related to the Child’s vaccinations should have been put to Niagara CAS, not to the Respondent.

39The Respondent explains that, after the Restraining Order was made, the Applicant would not communicate with the Respondent regarding the Child, and specifically “avoided calling” LH, but instead contacted the Child’s school to inquire about his vaccinations, in breach of the Restraining Order. The Respondent asserts that, while the Child was in its care, it worked diligently to ensure that all the Child’s medical needs were met and that it communicated to the Applicant through her legal counsel that the Child had received all his vaccinations by May 2025.

40Moreover, the Respondent maintains that it made every effort to communicate with the Applicant and engage her in discussions concerning the Child. However, after the Applicant was arrested, she sent voluminous email messages to the Respondent, its legal counsel and LH, which included threats against LH and allegations which were difficult to understand. This, together with the Applicant’s alleged mental health deterioration, made it difficult to communicate with her.

41With respect to the continuation of the Child’s mental health care and psychiatric assessment, the only submissions made by the Applicant are included in a document she filed with the Application titled “To FACS Waterloo internal complaints review board panel, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.” In that document, the Applicant requests the return of the Child so that he can undergo a psychiatric assessment, evaluation and treatment. It is not clear, however, from any of the materials filed by the Applicant whether she put this concern to the Respondent.

42In its Response, the Respondent explained that the Applicant had the Child admitted to hospital for a psychiatric assessment and the Child was released to his school the same day. After that, the Applicant assisted the Child in absconding from his group home and, while he was in her care, she threatened to take him for another psychiatric assessment. At that point, a dispute ensued, and the police were called. The Restraining Order was made following this incident.

43Although the Applicant alleges Niagara CAS did not communicate the Child’s vaccination status, the Respondent did through her legal counsel. Nothing in the materials filed by the Applicant satisfies me that she communicated her concern regarding the Child’s continued medical intervention, mental health care, or psychiatric assessment to the Respondent or that the Respondent failed to hear it. However, the Applicant also made it exceedingly difficult for the Respondent to communicate with her, with her refusal to respond, threats and mistrust of the Respondent, particularly after she was arrested.

ORDER

44For the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

45Pursuant 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.