CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
IK
Applicant
-and-
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Date: April 24, 2026
Citation: 2026 CFSRB 62
Indexed as: IK v Windsor-Essex Children’s aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 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 on December 24, 2025.
3A Pre-hearing report dated February 11, 2026, confirmed the issues raised. It was also determined that the hearing would proceed by way of written submissions.
4Within the Application and Response, the parties have submitted emails, court documents, letters, screenshots and correspondence which summarized various meetings as evidence.
ISSUES
5The following issues were raised
a. The Applicant alleges he was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, nor a chance to be heard when he raised concerns:
i. that he was not consulted, represented, or involved in safety planning for the child
ii. about his child’s safety, wellbeing, and deteriorating mental health and academic progress under the care of the Respondent
iii. about his child’s placement, treatment, and mental health issues
iv. that his child’s capacity to consent or not to consent to his involvement was affected by her mental and emotional instability and therefore may not be valid
v. about the inappropriateness of the Respondent worker discussing a possible diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder with the child.
b) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interests, specifically:
i. why Respondent workers have described the child as “doing well” when disclosure documentation indicates the child has been struggling with mental health and substance use issues and engaging in high-risk behaviours.
ii. for the actions or lack of actions they have taken to address the child’s mental health, academic issues, substance use and high-risk behaviours.
iii. for why the Applicant was excluded from planning and decision making regarding the child’s safety, wellbeing, and treatment, specifically exclusion from school meetings, medical decisions, mental-health planning, or safety discussions.
iv. for why the child was placed in an unlicensed placement.
RESULT
6The Respondent has not provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard on his concern that it was inappropriate for a worker to discuss a possible diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, nor did the Respondent provide reasons for why it had originally placed the Child in an unlicensed placement.
7The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and give input, as well as reasons for all other issues.
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant is the father of a 15-year-old child (the Child).
9As a result of the Child’s disclosures and her refusal to return to caregivers, she was brought to a place of safety on August 21, 2025. A Court Order dated August 26, 2025, placed the Child into temporary care where she has remained. Child Protection Proceedings are ongoing.
10The Child has her own counsel appointed through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the OCL).
a) Was the Applicant provided with an opportunity to be heard
11The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to have his concerns heard or provide input for many concerns. These concerns include: safety planning for the Child, her deteriorating mental health and academic progress, her placement and treatment, her capacity to consent to his involvement and make decisions, and a discussion had between the Child and worker on a potential diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.
12The Respondent argues that it did in fact hear the Applicant’s concerns. Despite having heard his concerns, it submits that the Child has her own counsel appointed through the OCL. Accordingly, it must respect the wishes of the Child, as provided through her counsel, and this includes whether to disclose certain information to the Applicant or to have him involved in decision making.
13Many of the Applicant’s concerns at issue are those that the Child has asked to not be disclosed to the Applicant or to have the input of the Applicant. For the concerns that the Child has provided permission to disclose and discuss, the Respondent submits it has.
14In assessing the concerns raised by the Applicant and Respondent’s explanation, I have considered the analysis set out in P.O v Family and Children Services of Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38. At paras 13 – 14, the CFSRB states that the purpose of 120 4 (4) and (5)
reflects the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.
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.
15The Respondent points to a lengthy meeting on December 3, 2025, where many of the issues were discussed, as well as the fact that monthly meetings were set up and held for the Respondent to provide updates to him.
16According to the affidavit of T.C, Child Protection Supervisor, the Applicant made a written complaint on December 2, 2025. A Zoom meeting was held on December 3, 2025, to discuss the concerns where two themes were noted a) lack of information being provided, b) lack of participation in planning for the Child. At this meeting, the Applicant shared some background of the Child including a suspected mental health diagnosis, past relationship issues, skipping curfew, drug use, self-harm and others. He also provided strategies that he thought might be helpful in working with the child. The Respondent acknowledged the strategies provided by the Applicant as being helpful.
17The Affidavit of A.K., Child Protection Worker, states that in January 2026, monthly virtual appointments were arranged with the Applicant to allow him to express his concerns and provide input in regard to the Child’s care. The Applicant confirms in his written submission that the Respondent has provided him with verbal updates regarding the Child’s well-being.
18In reviewing the Affidavits of the Respondent, it is clear that the Applicant has had an opportunity to discuss and provide his thoughts on strategies to support the Child around safety, well-being, risky behaviours, mental health and academic issues. Whether the Child has the capacity to exclude the Applicant or make other personal decision has also been a frequent topic of discussion.
19It is understood that the Applicant has not been provided with all of the information he feels he needs around his concerns, and that the Respondent is clear that it is not sharing everything due to privacy concerns for the Child and her expressed wishes made through her counsel. However, I find that for the concerns listed in paragraph 4 ai – iii, an opportunity to be heard and give input has been provided.
20The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent has not heard his concerns that a worker inappropriately spoke to the Child about a possible mental health diagnosis which led to the Child believing that the Applicant thought that she was “crazy”.
21According to the affidavit of T.C., the Applicant told the Respondent that a therapist suspected borderline personality disorder, but she had not been assessed or diagnosed.
22The Respondent submits that on September 16, 2025, a Children’s Services Worker had a discussion with the Child about her mental health and provided information that she may have borderline personality disorder. The Child indicated she was not aware of a previous diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.
23The Respondent did not provide any evidence to support that they had heard the Applicant’s concern that he felt it was inappropriate for the Respondent to provide this information to the Child. It may be that this was discussed during one of the monthly updates, however, no information was provided specifically that this in fact occurred. As such, I find that the Respondent did not provide an opportunity to be heard for this concern.
b) Was the Applicant provided reasons for decisions that were made
24In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2012, CFSRB 25 para 28, the CFSRB held that there is a link between the right to be heard and the right to reasons because having information helps people understand, participate, and accept decisions.
25An assumption cannot be made that just because there were a significant number of communications between the parties, sufficient reasons have been provided. A determination of sufficient reasons must include looking at the level of detail provided and whether the Applicant himself would be able to understand why and how decisions were made (JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, para 13).
26What constitutes sufficient reasons must be examined in the context of the particular situation, as per JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, ibid. This matter is complicated by the fact that the Child has made a decision, with her lawyer, to not disclose or provide certain information to the Applicant. What constitutes sufficient reasons must be assessed within that context to ensure that this specific Applicant was given enough information to understand why decisions were made.
27The Respondent submits that the Applicant has requested information that it is unable to provide due to the Child’s privacy and confidentiality request. They have however provided the Applicant with information with respect to the Child’s placement, safety and treatment when she has provided consent to do so. It further submits that this is a situation where the Applicant is frustrated or does not agree with the reasons that were provided.
28According to the affidavit of T.C, she provided reasons as far as she could for many, if not most, of the Applicant’s concerns during the December 3, 2025, meeting. Where she could not, it was explained to the Applicant it was due to privacy concerns.
29At the December 3, 2025, meeting, T.C. went into detail about the following:
a. The Applicant’s feeling of receiving little information and the consultations that the Respondent has had with its Privacy Officer;
b. The role of the OCL and how the role of the OCL has moved from assessing the Child’s best interest to only stating the Child’s wishes;
c. The Child’s capacity to make decisions on what information to disclose to the Applicant and whether to have him involved in decision making and meetings;
d. The Child’s wishes and participation (or lack of) in therapy and other services to assess capacity;
e. Safety planning in regard to drug usage, being in the community, curfews etc;
f. Supports and resources available with respect to mental health and school;
g. The limitations presented when a child refuses to accept supports such as therapy; and
h. Rules and expectations communicated to the Child about school attendance, safety and risky behaviour choices.
30It is important to stress that the CFSRB is limited in its jurisdiction in what it can review. The CFSRB has no jurisdiction to look behind a decision or review why a decision was made. It is limited to simply looking at whether an opportunity to be heard was provided and reasons given for decisions.
31I acknowledge that the Applicant is not receiving all of the information he would like in order to feel he is fully apprised of the Child’s well-being, safety and support. Because of this, it may be difficult to fully understand the reasons behind the decisions being made by the Respondent.
32I also acknowledge that the Respondent is faced with a difficult situation to balance the wishes of the Child, expressed through her counsel, with providing the Applicant with sufficient information to understand decisions that were and are being made.
33It is notable that in addition to the initial meeting on December 3 to hear the Applicant and provide him with reasons for decisions and an explanation for why some information cannot be shared, the parties have maintained monthly updates and meetings to ensure the Applicant has a consistent opportunity to be heard and to provide whatever new information might be available or any additional information the Child decides to disclose.
34I find in this situation, the Respondent has been clear that they are restricted in the information they can provide and for the reasons why.
35As much as possible, the Respondent has provided reasons, even if the Applicant does not agree with those reasons, for the decisions listed in paragraph 4 b) i – iii.
36The Applicant also alleges that he has not been provided reasons for why the child was placed in an unlicensed home.
37The Respondent submits that prior to this proceeding this allegation had not been raised by the Applicant. It acknowledges that the Child was originally placed in an unlicenced home and on August 28, 2025, she was placed in a licensed group home. Regardless, it argues that the current process does not involve parents in searching for appropriate placements for children. Further, the Child declined involvement of the father.
38The Respondent itself concedes that it did not even know the Applicant wanted this information. Accordingly, I am satisfied the reasoning for the placement was not provided to the Applicant.
CONCLUSION
39I find that the Respondent did not provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard on his concern regarding the inappropriateness of the Respondent worker discussing a possible diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder with the Child, nor did it provide the Applicant with reasons for why it had originally placed the Child in an unlicensed home.
40The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and/or reasons for all other concerns.
ORDER
41The Application is upheld in part.
42Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for why the Child was originally placed in an unlicensed home.
confidentiality order
43Pursuant 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