CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SB Applicant
-and-
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: January 05, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 5 Indexed as: SB v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
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 Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4, and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Case Management Direction dated October 29, 2025, directed that the hearing would be held in writing and set deadlines for the parties to file material and submissions.
4The Applicant’s complaints were identified in a Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated November 12, 2025. The report also directed the Applicant to provide his written submissions by November 28, 2025, and the Respondent to provide its written submissions by December 12, 2025. The Applicant’s Reply, if any, was to be submitted by December 15, 2025. A decision would be made based on the materials and submissions in the file.
5The Applicant has not filed submissions in response to the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report. The Respondent filed its submissions on November 20, 2025, and confirmed that it was relying on these submissions via email on December 12, 2025. This review is based solely on the limited information provided in the Application, Response, Respondent’s submissions, the Pre-Hearing Reports and Case Directions noted above.
ISSUES
6The issues to be determined are whether the Respondent:
a. failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision to leave the child in the mother’s care since April 2024;
b. failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not implement safety measures for the child since April 2020 in relation to BB; and
c. did not hear, or provide reasons to the Applicant relating to the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent refused to provide a letter of support to the Applicant for the Jordan’s Principle.
RESULT
7I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the issues listed in paragraph 6a and 6b. The Respondent has not provided reasons for the issue listed in paragraph 6c.
ANALYSIS
A) Did the Respondent fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision to leave the child in the mother’s care since April 2024
8The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for why it has left the child in her mother’s care, despite his repeated inquiries.
9The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s clinical assessment and decision on this matter. It submits that it explained its decision to leave the child in the care of the mother and answered the Applicant’s questions and concerns regarding the child’s safety with the mother in person on April 18, 2024.
10The Respondent further submits and has provided court orders dated April 3, 2024; July 19, 2024; and October 16, 2025, placing the child in the care of the mother. The Applicant is a named party to each of those orders and would have been aware of these orders.
11Without any evidence or submissions provided by the Applicant which contradicts the Respondent’s evidence, and in lieu of the court orders placing the child with the mother, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to leave the child in the mother’s care since April 2024.
B) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not implement safety measures for the child since April 2024 in relation to BB
12The Respondent argues that they have in fact implemented safety measures for the child in relation to BB and have advised the Applicant of such.
13The Respondent submits that it advised the Applicant of the measures that were in place for the child in relation to BB in May 2021. The Respondent provided a court order dated April 3, 2024, which includes terms around the child’s contact with BB, and submits that it advised the Applicant during a meeting on August 14, 2024, that the court order was being followed and a safety plan was in place.
14A final court order dated October 16, 2025, was provided which revised the terms relating to the child’s contact with BB. The Respondent argues that it continues to monitor the safety plan in relation to BB, but due to privacy concerns, specific details concerning BB cannot be provided to the Applicant.
15Given the Court Orders, and no evidence provided by the Applicant that challenges the evidence provided by the Respondent, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision.
C) Did the Respondent hear, or provide reasons to the Applicant relating to, the Applicant’s concerns that the Respondent refused to provide a letter of support to the Applicant for the Jordan’s Principle Program in or around August 2024, and in or around January 2025.
16The Applicant alleges that he asked the Respondent for a “letter of support” to use for the Jordan’s Principle program, but the Respondent has refused him, and has not explained why.
17The Respondent submits that they issued a response to the Applicant advising that he would need to sign a Release of Information form to allow it to communicate with the Jordan’s Principle staff. The Applicant refused.
18The Respondent further submits that it has been advised by the Band Representative for Six Nations of the Grand River that the Applicant is ineligible for Status, and that the application to Jordan’s Principle for the funding the Applicant is requesting would have to come from the child’s primary care parent. As such, it could not, then or now, provide a letter of support as requested.
19Finally, the Respondent argues that the Band Representative advised the Respondent that they had attempted to explain this to the Applicant. However, the Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has communicated the information it has received from the Band Representative to the Applicant or explained to him why a letter of support can not be provided.
20I find the Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for not providing a letter of support.
CONCLUSION
21The Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for the issues listed in paragraphs 6a, and 6b. The Respondent has not provided the Applicant with reasons for the issue listed in paragraph 6c.
ORDER
22The Application is upheld in part.
23Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with written reasons for why it can not provide him with a letter of support for the Jordan’s Principle Program.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
24Pursuant 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.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member