JS and TS v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2026 CFSRB 8

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JS and TS Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: January 09, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 8 Indexed as: JS and TS v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JS and TS, Applicants Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent JE.H, 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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2The Applicants, JS and TS, are the parents of two children. A different children’s aid society from the Respondent was involved with the family in 2016. The Respondent was first involved with the Applicants in 2021. More recently, in late January 2023, the Respondent received referrals from two medical professionals who expressed concerns that the situation involved “caregiver fabricated illness for the children.”

3On January 30, 2023, the Respondent held a virtual meeting which included the Applicants, two Respondent staff, and two medical professionals from the hospital which had made the referral.

4The Respondent’s attempts to schedule a home visit with the Applicants in February and March 2023 were unsuccessful. The Applicants cancelled multiple scheduled visits advising that they or their children were ill.

5On April 12, 2023, The Respondent had a three-hour meeting with both Applicants. Several subsequent meetings by the Respondent with one or both Applicants are detailed below.

6Both parties agreed to hold the hearing in writing, and I find that it is appropriate to do so.

ISSUES

7The issues to be decided are:

• Did the Respondent hear the Applicants’ explanations for the Respondent’s concerns and give them a chance to defend against allegations?
• Did the Respondent hear the Applicants regarding the ways in which JS’s physical disability presents as mental health issues?
• Did the Respondent provide the Applicants with reasons for its actions, including its plans to proceed to court?
• Did the Respondent provide the Applicants with a clear explanation of what is expected from them in order for the Respondent to close their file?

8The Applicants also allege that the Respondent has made remarks to individuals in the Applicants’ network that have led those individuals to incorrectly view JS as having mental health issues. The Applicants further allege that the Respondent has not provided the Applicant JS with requested disability accommodations. For the reasons set out below, these allegations are not issues within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

RESULT

9I find that the Respondent met its obligations under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, I find that the Respondent:

• heard the Applicants’ explanations and gave them ample opportunity to defend against the child protection concerns;
• attempted to understand JS’s concerns about how her physical disability may present as mental health issues but were prevented from a fuller understanding of the situation due to JS’s refusal to consent;
• provided the Applicants with reasons for its decisions, including its plan to proceed to court; and,
• provided the Applicants with a clear and detailed explanation of the Respondent’s expectations regarding what the Applicants were required to do in order for the Respondent to close its file.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

Post Application Evidence

10The Respondent submitted affidavits from two workers and a manager. Two of the affidavits include information about events that took place after the Application was filed with the CFSRB. Some of the Child Protection and Information Network (“CPIN”) file notes submitted also record post-Application events. I agree with the Applicants that evidence of meetings or other actions that took place after the Application was filed cannot be the basis of determining the issues in the Application. Accordingly, I have disregarded that evidence.

ANALYSIS

The CFSRB’s Jurisdiction is Limited

11The parties have two very different perspectives. The Applicants see themselves as caring parents seeking help for their children’s serious medical issues. In contrast, the Respondent is concerned that the children are being subjected to unnecessary and sometimes intrusive medical scrutiny and medication. It is not my task to evaluate these competing perspectives. Instead, I am limited to reviewing matters that fall within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

12The rights under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act are procedural rather than substantive. When reviewing an application under these sections the CFSRB is limited to determining whether a respondent has heard an applicant’s concerns and provided meaningful reasons for decisions that affect an applicant. The CFRSB does not have the authority to evaluate and make determinations about whether a respondent’s actions were correct. Nor does the Act permit the CFSRB to determine the merits of clinical decisions made by a children’s aid society or other service providers.

13The Applicants have the burden of proof. This means they must provide persuasive evidence to establish their allegations on the balance of probabilities, i.e., that it is more likely than not that the Respondent failed to hear their concerns and provide them with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected their interests.

14The Applicants’ submissions focus largely on establishing that their children have significant health issues rather than on whether their concerns were heard by the Respondent and whether they received meaningful reasons from the Respondent for the Respondent’s decisions that affected the Applicants’ interests.

Issues Outside the CFSRB’s Jurisdiction

15The Applicants allege that the Respondent made remarks to collaterals in the Applicants’ network that led these collaterals to incorrectly view JS as having mental health issues. As noted above, the CFSRB lacks the jurisdiction to review any substantive actions of the Respondent. This includes determining the accuracy and effect of communications by the Respondent with other service providers. This issue is therefore outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

16Similarly, the issue of whether the Respondent provided JS with requested disability accommodations is a substantive issue that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, that issue must also be dismissed.

Statements from the Applicants’ Relatives

17The Applicants submitted statements from the maternal grandparents and maternal aunt. Both statements repeat the Applicants’ position that the children have significant behavioural and medical issues. The maternal aunt appears to have attended at least one meeting between JS and the Respondent. Her statement, however, contains no details of that meeting. She simply expresses the opinion that the Respondent “has been nothing but a hindrance in getting the children help.” Neither statement contains evidence relevant to whether the Respondent heard the Applicants’ concerns and provided the Applicants with reasons for decisions that affected their interests. As a result, I give no weight to these two statements

The Respondent Heard the Applicant’s Concerns

18The Applicants allege two areas in which the Respondent failed to hear their concerns. First, they allege that the Respondent did not give them a chance to provide explanations for child protection concerns and did not give them an opportunity to defend themselves. Second, they allege that the Respondent did not hear the information they provided about how JS’s physical disability may present as mental health issues. For the reasons below, I find that the Applicants have not provided persuasive evidence to support these allegations.

19On January 30, 2023, shortly after receiving the two referrals from medical professionals, the Respondent held a virtual meeting with both Applicants. A doctor and social worker from the hospital which had made the referral also attended. The meeting lasted just over an hour and a half and focused primarily on concerns regarding one of the Applicants’ children, particularly the frequency with which the Applicants sought medical treatment for the child and the lack of objective evidence that the child was experiencing the symptoms his parents described. The doctor who had made one of the January referrals to the Respondent participated in the January 30, 2023 meeting. The Applicants had the opportunity to engage directly with the concerns he raised and to offer their perspective. After hearing from the doctor and the Applicants, the Respondent decided that ongoing involvement with the family was necessary.

20In February and March 2023, the Respondent tried to meet again with the Applicants. These attempts were unsuccessful as the Applicants cancelled each scheduled meeting on the basis that either they or their children were ill. Eventually, on April 12, 2023, the Applicants met for approximately three hours in person with the Respondent worker and manager.

21The following day, the worker sent the Applicants an email, thanking them for attending the meeting and listing 11 service providers that had contacted the Respondent with concerns. The email noted that the service providers had concluded that “worries do not relate to the mental or physical wellbeing of the children but to parental functioning and family dynamics. The email went on to set out the Respondent’s “bottom line” expectations, including limiting the number of doctors to whom the children were taken.

22The Respondent also met with one or both Applicants on the following dates: April 21, 2023, April 26, 2023, May 8, 2023, May 12, 2023. May 23, 2023, and May 31, 2023. In addition, the Respondent worker attended a virtual meeting with JS, two supports for JS, and the children’s pediatrician on April 26, 2023.

23Both the January 30, 2023 and April 12, 2023 meetings were lengthy and covered the child protection concerns of the Respondent. The CPIN notes from the meetings recorded the Applicants’ position that JS has a variety of physical health issues and that the children have a long-term illness. As noted above, one of the referents attended the January meeting, thus providing the Applicants with the opportunity to challenge his perspective and defend their own actions in repeatedly seeking medical treatment for their children. The documentation indicates that the Respondent weighed the information provided by various service providers and reached a conclusion with which the Applicants disagree. That disagreement does not establish that the Respondent did not hear the Applicants’ concerns.

24The Respondent contacted the children’s school and attended a visit with the family doctor. While initially providing consent for the Respondent to communicate wit the children’s and JS’s medical treating professionals, the Applicants later withdrew that consent thus preventing the Respondent from gathering further information to understand how JS’s physical conditions may have appeared as mental health conditions. It is clear, however, that the concerns reported by numerous medical professionals were not limited to concerns about how JS presented herself. The concerns were about the children being subjected to unnecessary examinations and medication.

25I find that the Respondent listened to the Applicants’ concerns in the following ways. The Respondent reached out to service providers such as the children’s school, family doctor, and pediatrician, and held lengthy meetings that gave the Applicants an opportunity to express their concerns and to provide their perspective on the child protection concerns that had been raised. For these reasons I find that the Respondent met its obligations under section 120(4)4 of the Act to hear the Applicants’ concerns.

The Respondent provided the Applicants with meaningful reasons for its decisions

26The Applicants allege that the Respondent failed to provide them with reasons for its plan to proceed to court. They also allege that the Respondent failed to provide them with a clear explanation of what they had to do to convince the Respondent to close its file. In other words, they allege that they did not receive meaningful reasons for the file remaining open. Neither of these allegations are supported by the evidence.

27The Respondent met with one or both of the Applicants six times between January and May 2023 in addition to telephone and email communication during that period.

28The April 13, 2023 email from the child protection worker to the Applicants, described in detail the Respondent’s criteria to voluntarily work with the Applicants and not proceed to court, as follows:

• The children are seen by one family doctor;
• The children are seen by one pediatrician;
• The Applicants meet with the worker monthly and permit the worker to speak privately with the children;
• The Applicants attend school meetings and the children attend school regularly;
• The Applicants engage a home support worker for parenting support;
• JS have a mental health assessment; and,
• The Applicants sign consents for the Respondent to speak with professionals and/or attend appointments with the family.

29Further, the April 13, 2023 email from the Respondent to the Applicants lists 11 service providers who had contacted the Respondent with concerns. The email notes that all 11 service providers “have concluded upon their observations of the children, assessments, information received from yourselves, and reviews of medical records, that worries do not relate to the mental or physical wellbeing of the children but to parental functioning and family dynamics.”

30Both during the April 12, 2023 meeting and in the April 13, 2023 email, the Respondent provided a detailed list of the concrete actions the Applicants would have to take in order for the Respondent to refrain from proceeding to court and to close its file. Thus, I find that the Respondent met its obligation under section 120(4)5 of the Act to provide the Applicants for meaningful reasons for decisions that affected their interests.

CONCLUSION

31For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the Respondent heard the Applicants’ concerns. The Applicants have provided no persuasive evidence to contradict the documentary evidence which establishes that they were provided with ample opportunity to discuss their concerns with the Respondent through lengthy meetings.

32I further conclude that the Respondent provided the Applicants with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected their interests. The Applicants strongly disagree with the Respondent’s view that their children are in need of protection. This disagreement does not change the fact that the Respondent repeatedly provided the Applicants with clear and detailed explanations for why the Respondent held this view, what the Applicants needed to do for the Respondent to close its file, and why the Respondent was planning to proceed to court.

33For the reasons set out above, the Application must be dismissed.

ORDER

34The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

35Pursuant 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.