T and J R v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2026 CFSRB 81

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

T and J R

Applicants

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicators: Alexandra Barthos Karynn von Cramon Jessica Lubrick

Date: May 22, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 81

Indexed as: T and J R v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.192)

APPEARANCES

T and J R, Applicants

Adam Lake, Counsel

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent

Jeffrey Hustins, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 192(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”).

2The Applicants, JR and TR, seek a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child, AK (“the Child”).

3In an Interim Decision dated February 25, 2026, the CFSRB determined that this Application was eligible for review. Procedural matters, including witness lists and disclosure timelines, were heard on March 2, 2025, and March 19, 2025.

4Subsequent procedural issues, specifically the status of disclosure and modifications to the timelines for exchanging disclosure, were addressed through Case Management Directions issued on April 20, 2026, and April 24, 2026.

5The hearing on the merits proceeded by videoconference on May 13 and May 14, 2026 following an adjournment on consent on May 12, 2026 due to counsel’s illness.

ISSUES

6The issue in dispute is as follows:

(a) Is it in the Child’s best interests to rescind or confirm the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child?

RESULT

7It is in the Child’s best interests to rescind the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child.

8The Respondent is directed to take all necessary steps to proceed with the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child including forthwith arranging for the completion of an adoption home study to be conducted by an assessor or agency not already involved with this family namely the Respondent, North Bay and Parry Sound Child Protection Services (“PARNIP”), Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services (“Niijaansinaanik”), and the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Ottawa CAS”). A copy of this Decision is to be provided to the professional conducting the adoption home study.

9The reasons for the Order are set out in this Decision.

ANALYSIS

Overview

10The Applicants have been married for six years. They have custody of the Child’s half-siblings, O, age 13 (“O”), and the twins, J and A, both age 3 (“J” and “A” – collectively “the twins”).

11The Child is two years old and resided with the Applicants as a foster child from approximately two months of age until her removal on March 7, 2025.

12The Child has been in the extended care of the Respondent since July 8, 2025. Prior to that, the Child was in the Respondent’s temporary care and custody from birth. Since the Child’s removal from the care of the Applicants on March 7, 2025, the Child has resided in another foster home a little over two hours’ drive (one way) from the Applicants’ home.

13All four children were removed from the care of their biological mother. O was removed at approximately six years of age, while both the twins and the Child were removed at birth.

14There is no current involvement by the biological parents with respect to the Child.

15The Applicants connected with the children through TR’s friendship with the children’s maternal aunt, C. As a result of this connection, the Respondent approached the Applicants to be the twins’ kin providers and placed the twins with the Applicants when they were approximately 11 months old.

16TR is Indigenous. Since the twins possess Métis heritage through their biological father, the Respondent’s placement of the twins with the Applicants was supported and assisted by Niijaansinaanik.

17The Applicants were granted legal custody of the twins on a final basis in October 2023.

18The eldest child, O, was initially placed in the care of O’s maternal grandmother following removal from O’s biological mother’s care. After the twins were placed with the Applicants in mid-2023, the Applicants and the maternal grandmother began to facilitate contact between the twins and O to maintain the sibling bond. This resulted in O spending increasing time at the Applicants’ home and eventually O requesting and coming into the Applicants’ care on a full-time basis with the consent of the maternal grandmother in July 2024.

19The Applicants were granted primary care and sole decision-making with respect to O on a final basis in July 2025.

20The Child was born in March 2024. The Respondent placed the Child in the Applicants’ care approximately two months later in May 2024. The Respondent approached the Applicants prior to the Child’s birth to explore immediate placement once the Child was born, as the Child’s twin siblings resided with the Applicants. At this point, O was not yet in the Applicants’ care.

21Prior to the Child’s birth, the Applicants indicated that they did not wish to have the Child placed with them on a foster basis to avoid disrupting sibling attachment should the Child ultimately be placed with a different family. The Applicants indicated to the Respondent that they would wait to present a permanent plan for the Child.

22Once the Child was born, the Applicants changed their minds and requested that the Child be placed with them as a child in care to avoid missing milestones while waiting to present an adoption plan.

23The Child initially spent approximately one month in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (“NICU”) for treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Symptoms. The Child was then placed in a different foster home for a period of one month until the Applicants could complete their kin in care assessment with Niijaansinaanik and obtain their foster care license.

24The Respondent placed the Child with the Applicants in May 2024. The child protection agency local to the Applicants, PARNIP, assisted the Respondent and completed all in-person visits to facilitate the placement.

25TR was a child protection worker with Niijaansinaanik until April 2025. She is currently a stay-at-home parent and is attending school remotely to become a law clerk.

26JR works remotely from home and is employed on a full-time basis.

Allegations Against JR and PARNIP’s Investigation

27Midday on March 6, 2025, TR notified the Respondent that she was taking the Child to West Nipissing General Hospital (“West Nipissing Hospital”) due to a suspected injury to the Child’s right arm of unknown origin. JR remained at home to care for the other children in the household.

28TR advised the Respondent that JR had been caring for the children that morning. After she left for work, TR discovered that her work was closed for the day and subsequently returned home at approximately 9:30 a.m. TR stated that the Applicants and all four children left the house shortly thereafter to attend a birthday party. JR and the Child returned home late morning because the Child was fussy while TR took the other children to Tim Horton’s. A short time later, TR indicated that JR called her and advised that the Child was not moving her right arm.

29Medical professionals at West Nipissing Hospital diagnosed the Child with a dislocated elbow and referred her to North Bay Regional Health Centre (“North Bay Hospital”) to be seen by an orthopedic surgeon. TR took the Child to North Bay Hospital and updated the Respondent regarding the Child’s medical condition and asked for consent for treatment as required.

30At this time, TR advised the Respondent that the only incident that she could think of that may have caused the injury was that the Child was crawling around under her bouncer chair that morning and stumbled on the metal bar.

31Once able to secure care for the other children, AR joined TR at North Bay Hospital. Medical professionals at North Bay Hospital attempted to reset the Child’s elbow but were unable. The Applicants were then directed by the Child’s attending physician to take the Child to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) the following morning to set the elbow.

32Due to the nature of the injury and the inability of the Applicants to pinpoint a cause to the attending physician, the Child’s attending physician from North Bay Hospital reported the injury to the Respondent.

33Based on the North Bay Hospital physician’s report, the Respondent opened a Community Care investigation. As the Applicant was employed with Niijaansinaanik at that time, the referral was made to PARNIP as the local agency to conduct the investigation.

34TR communicated to the Respondent that she would be taking the Child to CHEO in the morning, and the Respondent advised that a referral would be made to PARNIP for consultation.

35The Child and TR arrived at CHEO on the morning of March 7, 2025~~.~~ The Child was diagnosed with a right physeal separation of her distal humerus (the “elbow injury”). The Child underwent surgery (specifically a closed reduction, pinning and casting) that same day to set the elbow.

36Additional tests were performed while the Child was at CHEO, and evidence was discovered that may have suggested a healing fracture on the Child’s right tibia in addition to the elbow injury. Bruising was also observed inside the Child’s right elbow.

37The Applicants were unable to offer any explanation for the Child’s injuries beyond that it may have been from the Child falling on the metal bar while crawling under her bouncer chair.

38An emergency meeting was held with all agencies involved with the file, including the Respondent, Niijaansinaanik, PARNIP, and Ottawa CAS (as the Child was currently in Ottawa while at CHEO) on the afternoon of March 7, 2025. On the same day, the Child was removed from the Applicants’ care.

39Following the Child’s discharge from CHEO on March 11, 2025, the Respondent placed the Child with a different foster family. The Child has remained with this same foster family to date.

40The Child’s injuries were reported to the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) following the Child’s admission to CHEO on March 7, 2025.

41The OPP conducted interviews in March 2025 with people living in the home, including the Applicants, O, TR’s half-brother, Co, and Co’s partner, D.

42Based on the Child’s unexplained injury, on March 8, 2025, PARNIP put a safety plan in place with respect to O, J, and A. The children were to remain in the Applicants’ home, but all contact with either Applicant was to be supervised by JR’s mother, P, Co, or D.

43On March 19, 2025, following further investigation, PARNIP put an updated safety plan in place, as they had concluded that the Child was not in the care of TR when the elbow injury occurred. Pursuant to this safety plan, O, J, and A could continue to remain in the home, but all contact with JR was to be supervised by TR, P, Co, or D.

44Between June 10, 2025, and June 15, 2025, PARNIP and the Respondent approved the Applicants’ travelling with the Child and the other three children on an overnight trip to Great Wolf Lodge in Niagara Falls. Following the trip, the Child was returned to the care of the same foster family with which the Child had been placed since March 11, 2025.

45Between March and September 2025, additional medical testing, including bloodwork, imaging, and a bone health evaluation, was completed to determine whether there was any underlying medical cause that could have explained either the elbow injury or the healing evidence in the leg bone.

46No medical condition was identified as the cause of the elbow fracture or the bone healing in the leg.

47In August 2025, the OPP deemed that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation and closed the file.

48In October 2025, the Applicants advised PARNIP that O had new information to share regarding the events that occurred on March 6, 2025.

49On November 3, 2025, PARNIP interviewed O.

50In O’s interview, O disclosed that, on the morning of the injury, she and A had been playing with the Child and that O had observed that the Child had begun to cry following A pulling the Child by the arms.

51On December 18, 2025, workers from PARNIP and the Respondent held a Zoom meeting with the Applicants. PARNIP advised the Applicants that the investigation had been completed and that PARNIP had verified the concern of an unexplained injury, with an unknown maltreater, with respect to the Child. PARNIP recommended that the Child not be returned to the Applicants’ care.

52PARNIP did not verify any concerns with respect to the other children. PARNIP lifted the safety plan regarding O, J, and A, which had required JR’s contact to be supervised.

53On December 18, 2025, a meeting occurred with the Applicants, the PARNIP child welfare case worker, Bailey Boyd (“Ms. Boyd”), PARNIP supervisor Shannon Lachance (“Ms. Lachance”), and the Child’s child-in-care worker from the Respondent, Gail Fitzpatrick (“Ms. Fitzpatrick”). PARNIP informed the Applicants that they intended to remove the Child from their home, and that they would receive written notice shortly.

54In a letter dated January 27, 2026, PARNIP confirmed the outcome of the investigation, including the file closure, shared with the Applicants at the December 18, 2025, meeting in writing.

55On February 5, 2026, the Respondent provided the Applicants with written notice of their intention to follow PARNIP’s recommendations and not return the Child to the Applicants’ care.

56In the same notice, the Respondent also advised that they did not support the Applicants’ expressed interest to adopt the Child, and would not be moving forward with the Applicants’ family plan.

The Respondent’s Position

57The Respondent’s position is that, because the cause of injuries to the Child is unknown, the Respondent cannot proceed with the Applicants’ adoption application.

58The Respondent relies on the “unexplained injury principle” and submits that, when a young child has been injured and a sufficient explanation has not been provided for those injuries, the Respondent must remove the child from the caregivers. The Respondent’s position is that the Child’s physical safety needs to be paramount and, absent an explanation as to how the injuries occurred or who caused them, it is impossible for the Respondent to mitigate future risk of harm to the Child.

59The Respondent concedes that there were no concerns with respect to the Applicants’ care of the Child outside of the injuries discovered following the Child’s hospital admission in March 2025. However, the Respondent relies on the fact that medical professionals indicated that both the Child’s injuries were indicative of trauma and that, specifically in the case of the elbow injury, significant force would be needed to cause such an injury to the Child’s arm. As such, the Respondent submits that the risk of harm to the Child outweighs all other best interest considerations, and it is therefore in the Child’s best interest that the adoption application not proceed.

The Applicant’s Position

60The Applicants’ position is that the Respondent has failed to prove that it is in the Child’s best interests not to proceed with the Applicant’s adoption application.

61The Applicants also submit that the “unexplained injury principle” does not apply to the facts of this case.

62The Applicants question the utility of the evidence offered by the Respondent in this proceeding. Specifically, the Applicants submit that none of the individuals from PARNIP, the child protection society responsible for the investigation into the Child’s injuries and the verification of the child protection concerns, were called as witnesses in this proceeding, and neither were the physicians who treated the Child after the discovery of the elbow injury.

63The Applicants also submit that the medical reports regarding the Child’s injuries are inconclusive as to whether the injuries could have been caused accidentally by one of the other children in the Applicants’ home. The Applicants take the position that, outside the March 2025 incident, the evidence demonstrates that all of the Respondent’s observations and the observations of other children’s aid societies in relation to the Applicants’ care of all of the children in their home, both before and following the March 2025 incident, were uniformly positive.

64The Applicants submit that it is in the Child’s best interests to proceed with the Applicant’s adoption application.

The Best Interests of the Child

65The paramount purpose of the Act at section 1(1) is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. The Preamble of the Act also acknowledges that children are individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard, and that services provided to children and families should be child-centred.

66The Divisional Court in Family Youth & Child Services of Muskoka v. DM and CM, 2010 ONSC 6018, established the test that the CFSRB must apply in the review of a section 192 (formerly section 144) application at paragraphs 20 – 22:

In this case, the pertinent provision is s. 144(11) of the CFSA, which states: "The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision".

The language of this section expressly requires the Board to make a determination as to what action is in the best interests of the child. If the decision under review is a refusal of an adoption application, the action relates to the entire adoption application process, which involves a number of distinct steps. Although action must be interpreted in the context of the decision under review (adoption application or removal from placement), it gives the Board broad authority to determine what should be done in the child's best interests within the confines of the decision/action under review.

The Board does not have parens patriae jurisdiction to determine best interests in relation to any action. Rather, its determination is confined to the parameters of s. 144. Put simply, the Board must determine whether the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests having regard to the criteria set out in s. 136(2). If the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests, the Board will rescind the Society's refusal decision. If it is not, the children's aid society's decision will be confirmed. [emphasis in original]

67The Panel is mindful of the overarching considerations set out in the Preamble and Section 1 of the Act. In determining the best interests of the Children, the Panel is specifically required to consider:

(a) the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community; and

(c) any other circumstance of the case that the decision-maker considers relevant, including several enumerated factors.

68In JE and KE v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2020 ONSC 4239 (“JE and KE”), the Divisional Court provided additional guidance to the CFSRB on applying the best interests of the child test. In doing so, the Court directed the CFSRB to consider the totality of the evidence before it, including the following specific guidance:

(a) The CFSRB has a duty to consider the views and wishes of the child;

(b) The weight given to the child’s wishes depends on the child’s age and maturity; and

(c) The CFSRB’s reasoning related to the integration of the Legislature’s intention, and the application of the best interests test should be stated clearly, including commenting on which factors outweighed other factors.

69In the Application before it, the Panel assessed the evidence based on the criteria in the Act and considered the jurisprudence. The Panel’s analysis is set out below according to each subsection of section 179(2).

The Child’s Views and Wishes: Subsection 179(2)(a)

70The Child is two years old. Over the course of her short life, the Child has been placed with three different families.

71Given the Child’s young age, the Child did not participate in the hearing, and there was no direct evidence presented by either party from the Child of her views and wishes.

72All three witnesses testified that the Child had a strong and positive connection with the Applicants and the Child’s siblings.

73Evidence from both parties indicated that the Child was well-cared for in the Applicants’ home prior to removal and was part of an integrated family unit consisting of the Applicants, the Child and the Child’s three older siblings. The household also includes Co, D., four dogs, two cats and a lizard.

74TR described the Child as having a strong bond with all three siblings. The Child and the twins are close in age and love to play together, with the Child enjoying mimicking the twins’ “toddler attitude”.

75On visits that the Applicants have facilitated between the siblings since the Child’s removal, TR stated that the Child “lights up” when she sees the Applicants and the Child’s siblings.

76The Child’s Child and Youth Worker with the Respondent, Gail Fitzpatrick (“Ms. Fitzpatrick”), described the Child as presenting as “happy, well-adjusted and social” both prior to removal from the Applicants’ care and in her current placement.

77When the Panel asked the Applicants and Ms. Fitzpatrick whether they thought the Child’s wishes would be to return to the Applicants’ care or be placed with a new family, all agreed that, if able to express wishes, the Child would wish to return to the Applicants’ care.

78Ms. Fitzpatrick testified that the Child had good interactions with the Child’s family and stated, “Obviously [the Child] would like to stay where [the Child] is, what [the Child] knows, with what [the Child] knows and with her siblings.”

79Both Applicants expressed opinions similar to that of Ms. Fitzpatrick, that the Child would want to be returned to their household to be with the Child's family.

80Reviewing the evidence from a child-centric position, the Panel finds that the Child’s views and wishes, as ascertained from the Child's non-verbal cues, behaviours and emotional responses, would be for the Applicants to proceed with the adoption application. The Applicants, the Child, and the Child’s siblings are an established family unit. The Child was happy and well-adjusted and had been well-cared for in the Applicant’s home. While the age and stage of the maturity of the Child means that she cannot verbally articulate her wishes, the acknowledgement by both the Applicants and the Respondent Society Worker that the Child would “obviously” wish to be back in the Applicants’ household and the reference by all parties to both the Applicants and siblings as being the Child’s “family”, underscore the appropriateness of the Panel attributing greater weight to this factor than it may otherwise do. Accordingly, the Panel gives moderate weight to the Child’s wishes and preferences.

First Nations, Inuk, or Metis Child: Subsection 179(2)(b)

81There was no evidence before the Panel that the Child is First Nations, Inuk or Métis. Accordingly, no weight was given to this factor.

Other Relevant Circumstances: Subsection 179(2)(c)

82Under subsection 179(2)(c) of the Act, the CFSRB must consider any other circumstance that it considers relevant, including several factors enumerated under this subsection.

83The enumerated factors under subsection 179(2)(c) are not an exhaustive list, but those which may be particularly meaningful to a consideration of a child’s best interests at the stage of adoption under Part VIII of the Act. The applicability of these discretionary factors to a particular case must be rooted in the assessment of the evidence (See the Divisional Court decision in JE and KE).

84In this case, another relevant circumstance is PARNIP’s verification of an unexplained injury – maltreater unknown and the Respondent’s reliance on this verification and PARNIP’s recommendation that the Child is not returned to the Applicant’s care in refusing the Applicants’ adoption application. The Panel must consider the relevant facts arising from these circumstances, in addition to the other evidence adduced at this hearing, in determining the Child’s best interests.

85The Panel has considered the enumerated factors listed under subsection 179(2)(c) of the Act as well as the other relevant circumstances in this case, being the Respondent’s reliance on PARNIP’s verification of physical harm to the Child.

The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs

86JR testified that the Child had some physical issues regarding balance and the use of the Child’s legs. JR stated that the Applicants were concerned because the Child did not prioritize the use of the Child’s legs. JR noted that the Child relied on the army crawl. To address the concern, JR took steps, including helping the Child stretch and engaging in activities that encouraged leg movement. To address the Child’s falling from sitting issue, JR would ensure the Child was in a soft area and catch the Child if they fell. JR also testified that he would demonstrate proper falling techniques to the Child. JR described getting on the floor with the Child and physically showing the Child how to move.

87JR indicated that TR was largely responsible for making appointments for the Child.

88TR testified that, when the Child first arrived in their home, the Child had a head tilt and inward-pointing feet. Prior to the Child being placed with the Applicants, TR had arranged for the Child to be accepted as a patient of the Applicants’ family physician. TR described taking steps to investigate the Child’s health issues, including mentioning the head tilt and inward-pointing feet to the Respondent’s workers, doctors, and a physical therapist. TR was advised that these issues would hopefully resolve with time. TR described placing the Child with the Child’s head the opposite way of the tilt and using a rolled-up blanket to support the Child’s head.

89TR testified that multiple professionals saw the Child at Neo Kids in Sudbury, Ontario, including a physiotherapist for physical therapy, and a doctor. TR testified that she was given worksheets with exercises to assist the Child in getting up and down more properly instead of falling over. TR testified that they would work on the specified exercises 1-3 times each day, for as long as the Child allowed. The Child would become frustrated with the exercises at the time. TR testified to massaging the Child to assist with the Child’s mobility.

90At the last appointment at Neo Kids before the discovery of the elbow fracture, TR noted pincer grasp and focus issues. Neo Kids showed TR a few tricks to improve the Child’s grip and coordination.

91TR testified that she took the Child to every appointment personally rather than relying on the assistance of the Respondent in taking the Child to these appointments. TR testified, “[the Child] was seen as our child. I wanted to do all of these things with [the Child].”

92Given the Child’s young age while in the Applicant’s care, the Child did not yet participate in any extracurricular activities. JR indicated that the Applicants had planned to enroll the Child (as they did the twins) in a parent-tot gymnastics class when the Child was of age.

93TR testified that O is enrolled in piano lessons and on a waitlist for vocal lessons. Previously, O was enrolled in dance lessons. TR indicated it is her intention to enrol all the children in music, depending on their interests.

94TR testified that O and the twins have both been enrolled in the tall and small gymnastics program, and that her intention is for the Child to be enrolled in gymnastics as well.

95It is apparent that JR and TR were committed caregivers who understood the Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and were providing the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. The Panel gives significant weight to this consideration.

The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

96The Child and Youth Service Worker from the Respondent, Ms. Fitzpatrick, was first assigned to the Child in April 2024. This was prior to the Child’s placement in the Applicants’ home.

97Ms. Fitzpatrick testified that the Child had suffered birth trauma and was in the NICU for treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome for approximately one month following birth. As a result, the Child received physical therapy to address low muscle tone, and there were delays noted in her physical development.

98Outside of the March 2025 incident, Ms. Fitzpatrick identified no concerns in relation to the Applicants’ care of the Child either before or after the incident and characterized her observations of the family as very positive. In a contact log from a virtual visit on February 13, 2025, Ms. Fitzpatrick observed “lots of very affectionate interactions, [the Child] making great eye contact with both caregivers, touching there [sic] faces, smiling and cuddling in. No concerns.”

99Furthermore, in her viva voce testimony under cross-examination, Ms. Fitzpatrick confirmed, in reference to the February 13, 2025 contact log, that the Applicants “were meeting all of [the Child’s] medical needs, all of [the Child’s] socio-emotional needs” and that the Respondent “had no concerns the entire time, even the day of the injury”.

100Regarding the Child’s current needs, Ms. Fitzpatrick indicated that the Child has, in the past, received physical therapy to address low muscle tone and delays in physical development and is progressing well. Ms. Fitzpatrick stated that the Child is now walking, climbing, imitating words and using 1-2 word sentences. Ms. Fitzpatrick observed that, at present, there are no ongoing noticeable ill effects of the Child’s birth trauma.

101Both Applicants provided evidence in relation to the Child’s developmental needs that they addressed while the Child was in their care, as noted above. Specifically, JR and TR identified a head tilt, inward-pointing feet, low muscle tone, an exclusive reliance on an “army crawl”, and pincer grasp issues for which medical professionals were consulted. TR testified that she attended all medical appointments with the Child to address these issues.

102Regarding the Child’s future needs and care, both Applicants indicated that they were aware that the Child may require ongoing or additional supports in the future to address a potential Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and were committed to meeting the Child’s needs long term. TR stated that they were willing to care for the Child into adulthood should that be necessary.

103TR testified that she has an education in child development, has worked in residential child/youth treatment facilities, and has been a child protection worker.

104It is undisputed that the Applicants did an exemplary job in meeting the Child’s needs while in their care. With respect to current needs, based on the Applicants’ attentive past care of the Child’s needs and their contemplation and readiness to deal with future needs that the Child could present should the adoption proceed, the Applicants are well-positioned to meet same. On the other hand, the Respondent offered no evidence regarding an alternate adoption plan, so there is no way to assess how that hypothetical plan could meet the Child’s needs. The Panel gives significant weight to this consideration in favour of the Respondent proceeding with the Applicants’ adoption application.

The child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage

105Ms. Fitzpatrick described the Child’s cultural and linguistic heritage as “Canadian” and English-speaking. She noted that the Applicants’ family is of a similar culture. This cultural match is reinforced by the presence of the Child’s siblings in the same home, while cultural diversity is shared through the twins’ Metis heritage and TR’s Indigenous heritage.

106The Applicants also live in a community that has a high proportion of French speakers. Both shared that their plan is for the Child to attend French immersion like the twins will be when they start school.

The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case

107The Child has now been out of the Applicants’ care for more than one year and has been in foster care rather than an adoptive home her entire life.

108The Child was removed from the Applicants’ care pending the outcome of the investigation into the March 2025 injury. Delays in obtaining the results of medical testing meant that the Respondent did not advise the Applicants until February 2026 that the Respondent would not be moving forward with the Child’s adoption plan. Once the Applicants received written confirmation of the Respondent’s decision not to proceed with the Applicants’ adoption plan for the Child, the Applicants applied to the CFSRB for review of the Respondent’s decision.

109Ms. Fitzpatrick testified that the Respondent has been waiting on the outcome of these proceedings before determining an adoption plan for the Child and that, at present, there is no specific adoption plan. Once the CFSRB proceedings are concluded, Ms. Fitzpatrick indicated that the Respondent would be moving forward with an adoption plan very quickly, potentially within a month if there was a match with a prospective family.

110Both Applicants testified that there has been regular contact (both virtual and in-person) between the Child, the Applicants and the Child’s siblings since removal to maintain the sibling connection and the connection between the Child and the Applicants.

111Given the tender age of the Child and the Child’s need for a stable and permanent environment, it is very important that timely decisions be made about her adoption.

The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family; and the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

112Considering these factors from a child-focused perspective, the Panel took direction from PD and DD v. Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, 2019 CFSRB 67 at paragraph 78, which sets out:

“Given the Child's age, level of development and lack of participation in the proceedings, the Panel has looked to objective indicators to shed light on the relationships in her life, the emotional ties they likely represent, and their significance as measured by the length of time over which any relationship has existed and the frequency and regularity of the contact with the Child. “

113There was no evidence presented of any ongoing relationships between the Child and the Child’s biological parents. The Child was placed in extended society care on or around July 8, 2025. The Child’s birth parents were noted in default. The July 8, 2025 order provides for access between the Child and the Child’s birth parents a minimum of two times per year at the discretion of the Respondent with respect to location, duration, and the requirement for supervision.

114The Child and the Child’s siblings are described as being extremely close. When the Child was in the Applicants’ care, the children would all spend days together with one or both Applicants. TR would organize Montessori-type activities for the younger children while O completed her homeschool work for the day. The children would do crafts together and play outside. The twins are one year older than the Child. The Child loves playing with the twins, as they are so close in age, and will often copy their behaviour. JR testified that, since the Child’s removal, both twins have expressed missing the Child and, given their young age, have expressed confusion as to why the Child is no longer living in the Applicants’ home.

115O came into the Applicants’ care as a preteen and both Applicants stated that, given a tumultuous early childhood and history of trauma, O places great importance on family. O treats the Applicants as her parent, and both Applicants testified that O misses the Child and has been deeply affected by the division of the siblings. TR described O as a supportive and helpful older sibling.

116Though the Child is only two years old and has a limited vocabulary, Ms. Fitzpatrick confirmed that the Child continues to present as knowing both the Child’s siblings and the Applicants despite the time that the Child has been out of the Applicants’ care. Ms. Fitzpatrick attributed this to the frequent and consistent (nearly daily while the investigation was ongoing) virtual contact and regular in-person visits (approximately 8-12 in-person visits with both Applicants and the children since the Child’s removal).

117Contact logs from Ms. Fitzpatrick prior to the March 2025 injury and the PARNIP investigation workers following the March 2025 injury provide evidence of a strong connection between the Child and the Applicants. Ms. Fitzpatrick observed in her contact log of a February 13, 2025 virtual visit that the Child “was loving the 1-1 attention from both her people” and that the Child made great eye contact with both Applicants, was touching their faces and cuddling into them.

118Ms. Lachance wrote in her contact log dated December 30, 2025, that, even after the March 2025 injury, the Child showed no sign of fear or hesitation with JR and was full of smiles and observed climbing all over [JR] during the first access visit after the removal.

119With respect to the extended biological family, the Child had occasional contact with the Child’s maternal aunt, C, and two cousins while in the Applicants’ care. TR is friends with C and facilitates contact between the siblings, their aunt and their cousins at least once per year.

120The Child also has relationships with JR’s mother, Co, and D, who, as mentioned, reside in the same household as the Applicants.

121While in the Applicants’ care, the Child’s friend and community connections were largely made through EarlyON programming that one or both Applicants regularly attended with the Child and the twins. Programming took place on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and the same families would typically attend the programs each week.

122The objective indicators show that the Child has a positive relationship with the Applicants and a secure place as a member of their family, as well as emotional ties to them and her siblings. Furthermore, the Applicants have made efforts to maintain the Child’s biological connections where possible through contact with the Child’s aunt and cousins, as well as integrated the Child into their own extended familial structure through relationships with JR’s mother and TR’s brother and his partner. The Child has also made connections with families in the community through EarlyON. The Panel attributes significant weight to this consideration.

The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

123Following the injury, the Child was moved from the Applicants’ home and separated from the Child’s three siblings and the Applicants, the Child’s only known parental figures. The Applicants have made significant attempts to maintain consistent and frequent contact with the Child. In-person visits are challenging due to the location of the Child’s current foster home, financial constraints, and poor winter weather conditions in the Applicants’ region. There have been between 8 and 12 in-person visits with the entire family since removal, in addition to weekly video visits.

124Ms. Fitzpatrick indicated that the Respondent was waiting on the outcome of this hearing before taking any further steps with respect to adoption planning. She could not confirm whether the Child’s current foster family was a prospective adoptive family. In other words, there is a possibility that the Child could be moved to an unknown third party for adoption.

125The Divisional Court at paragraph 80 in JE and KE notes that the CFSRB should not engage in the use of “reverse reasoning” in its analysis of continuity of care by focusing on whether a child could overcome the trauma of being uprooted from a family, rather than focusing on whether there is sufficient reason to impose this trauma and disruption upon a child in the first place.

126Given that the Respondent has not identified an adoption plan, there is no continuity of care present in the Child’s current placement. While returning to the care of the Applicants will necessitate another move for the Child, the Child will be reunited with the Child's parents and siblings.

Other relevant circumstance: the unexplained injury

127The Respondent concedes that there were no concerns with respect to Applicants’ care of the Child outside the March 2025 injury. However, the Respondent submits that the risk of harm found to exist by PARNIP is a sufficient reason to refuse the adoption application. Accordingly, the Panel considers this other relevant circumstance within the context of JE and KE and the Child’s best interests.

128It is not the role of the CFSRB on a section 192 Application to review the PARNIP verification decision. However, the Panel must consider the risk of harm to the Child as a relevant circumstance and weigh this along with all other relevant circumstances outlined in section 179(2) of the Act in determining whether requiring the Respondent to proceed with the adoption application would be in the Child’s best interests. Accordingly, the Panel must consider the evidence presented by both parties in relation to the March 2025 injury.

The Verification Decision

129On January 27, 2026, the Applicants received correspondence from PARNIP (“PARNIP verification letter”) advising that PARNIP had completed its investigation into the March 2025 injury and stating, “After completing a fulsome assessment of all the information obtained during the investigation, we were unable to determine how the injury occurred, if it was inflicted or a result of lack of supervision. Based on the balance of probability, we believe it would be more probable than not that the injury involved Josh given he has both the strength required and was the only adult alone that day with [the Child], including being the one with her when the injury was discovered. However, we have taken into consideration the new information shared by [O] eight (8) months later regarding the day of the injury.” The letter goes on to say that concerns about the risk of harm to the other three (3) children were not verified. Finally, the letter states, “The Society has informed Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions of our investigative outcome, along with the recommendation that [the Child] does not return to your care.”

130The Respondent subsequently advised the Applicants in a letter dated February 5, 2026, that, “After careful consideration of all the available information, the concerns were verified by PARNIP. As a result, the decision and recommendation from PARNIP was not in support of a return of [the Child] to your care…Our agency recognizes these recommendations, the verified child welfare concerns, and all other relevant information available to us and would like to formally respond in writing to advise you that we will not support your expressed interest to adopt [the Child]. The Agency will not move forward with your family plan, as it has currently been presented, and are [sic] exploring alternative adoption plans for (the Child).”

131The PARNIP verification letter was signed by Ms. Boyd and Ms. Lachance.

132No witness from PARNIP was called. The Respondent provided no explanation as to why no witnesses were called from PARNIP.

133As Ms. Fitzpatrick was not directly involved in the protection investigation, she was unclear about exactly who made the verification decision. Ms. Fitzpatrick advised that the verification was shared with her by Ms. Lachance prior to the verification meeting in December 2025 and that Ms. Fitzpatrick’s notes indicated that Ms. Lachance made the decision to remove but clarified that the decision likely would have been made by Ms. Lachance in conjunction with others at PARNIP.

134On September 22, 2025, Ms. Lachance emailed the Applicant. Ms. Lachance noted that PARNIP had “looked at deeming the investigation as inconclusive” as PARNIP was under the belief that the appointment and outcome with the endocrinologist could take an additional six months or more, and PARNIP was unaware whether that meeting would yield any definitive answers regarding the cause of the Child’s injury.

135Ms. Lachance’s September 22, 2025 email continues, “Should the outcome remain inconclusive, we would close our investigation. We have had preliminary conversations with Simcoe that should our verification remain that, and they decide to place [the Child] back into your family’s care, our agency could not complete any assessments with your family (for purposes of custody or adoption) on their behalf. This would be due to the inconclusive outcome, meaning we were not able to fully conclude without a doubt that it was not inflicted or that it was from a medical condition. I am not sure where Niijaan sits in terms of their position as they wanted to hear the outcome from the endocrinologist.”

136This email suggests an error was made by Ms. Lachance in determining that there was a verified child protection concern. The error arises from conflating two fundamentally different standards of proof. In child protection proceedings, the applicable standard is proof on a balance of probabilities, meaning that a protection concern must be found if it is more likely than not (i.e., greater than 50% likelihood). This does not require certainty, nor does it require that all alternative explanations be eliminated.

137By contrast, the approach described by Ms. Lachance to TR effectively imposes the standard used in criminal law of beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring PARNIP to be satisfied “without a doubt” that the child’s injury was not inflicted or was owing to a medical condition, before proceeding. This reverses and elevates the burden improperly in two ways.

138First, it demands near certainty instead of probability. The balance of probabilities test permits findings even where doubt remains, provided one explanation is more probable than the other. Requiring proof “without a doubt” sets an unreasonably high threshold and is inconsistent with the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.

139Second, it improperly shifts the decision-making framework. The correct question is not whether it can be conclusively ruled out that the elbow injury was inflicted, but whether, on the evidence, it is more likely than not that the Child is in need of protection. By insisting on eliminating doubt, Ms. Lachance effectively requires disproof of the protection concern.

140In the absence of witness testimony directly from PARNIP, as well as a clear answer regarding who at PARNIP made the verification decision, the Panel relies solely on the PARNIP verification letter for the explanation as to why PARNIP verified the protection concern.

141The PARNIP verification letter states as follows:

The investigation was open for an unexplained injury – maltreater unknown. After completing a fulsome assessment of all the information obtained during the investigation, we were unable to determine how the injury occurred, if it was inflicted or a result of lack of supervision. Based on the balance of probability, we believe it would be more probable than not that the injury involved [JR] given he has both the strength required and was the only adult alone that day with [the Child], including being the one with her when the injury was discovered. However, we have taken into consideration the new information shared by [O] eight (8) months later regarding the day of the injury.

Although the Society does have questions around the information not aligning with the original details maintained throughout the investigation by [JR], along with the medical professional’s belief that the children would not have the necessary strength to cause such an injury, it does add an element of doubt that would impact the clear balance of probability involving [JR] only. This is why we have verified the unexplained injury - maltreater unknown.

142Concerning O’s alternative explanation for the injury shared in November 2025, the PARNIP verification letter indicates that PARNIP questioned O’s disclosure as (a) it did not align with the original details of the investigation maintained by JR and (b) the medical professional held the “belief that the children would not have the necessary strength to cause such an injury.”

PARNIP Questions the Consistency of O’s Disclosure

143The following evidence was offered by the parties in relation to O’s disclosure of a potential cause of the Child’s March 2025 injury.

144At paragraph 66 in TR’s May 1, 2026 affidavit, she indicates that in O’s interview with Ms. Boyd on November 1, 2025, O disclosed that, on the morning of the injury, O, A and J were playing with the Child in the living room while TR cleaned up the kitchen from breakfast. O described that O was playing and gently pulling the Child by both arms and holding the Child above the wrist area. O noticed that the Child started crying, so O stopped and gave the Child a pacifier. O then looked away from the Child to ask if JR needed help with anything and heard the Child screaming. O described seeing A flinging the Child around by the arms near a shelf and hearing the Child screaming. O did not see whether the Child hit the shelf. JR asked O if everything was fine and O confirmed that it was. JR proceeded to make a bottle and bring it to the Child in the living room.

145TR testified under cross examination that, on October 10, 2025, when the PARNIP investigation was nearly at its conclusion, she asked O whether there were any other details that she remembered that O had not previously shared. TR stated that O then began to disclose details of the additional events that occurred on March 6, 2025. TR advised that she asked O to stop telling her and asked if she was comfortable disclosing the information to Ms. Bailey instead. TR stated that, as a trained child protection worker, she wanted to avoid any questioning of O’s account that may result from TR hearing O’s disclosure before the PARNIP investigation team.

146TR immediately texted Ms. Boyd, the PARNIP investigating/assessment worker.

147TR testified that O gave minimal details to her, as O was waiting to disclose the events to Ms. Boyd.

148TR indicated that Ms. Boyd initially refused to interview O given the last-minute nature of the disclosure.

149PARNIP did not interview O until November 3, 2025, as noted above. TR said that she believes that the interview only ultimately occurred because the Applicants retained legal counsel that communicated the need for PARNIP to speak with O.

150When TR asked O why she had not said anything earlier, O indicated that she did not trust the agency. O was scared that she might be removed from the Applicants' home. TR testified that the applicants were in the middle of a nasty custody battle over O, which did not conclude until July 2025, when the Applicants were granted a final order for primary care and decision-making.

151A copy of the July 3, 2025 order of Justice Lainevool was entered into evidence, confirming that the Applicants were involved in court proceedings regarding parenting time and decision-making of O, with C and the Child's biological mother being the responding parties.

152JR testified that he would play with the Child and move her by the arms and that he thought, from O and A’s perspective, if the injury occurred during the events O disclosed, the children were simply copying him while not taking the adequate care of an adult when playing with a Child.

153JR testified that, following the Child’s March 2025 elbow injury, A “wanted nothing to do with O” and A would inexplicably scream and run away when O would enter the room. J indicated that, at the time, he thought that A’s behaviour was probably due to A expressing distress at the Child’s removal from the home. However, after O’s disclosure A’s behaviour made a lot of sense to him.

154TR testified that she had seen A completely reject O after the March 2025 injury and, at the time, could not explain why. TR described A running away to A’s room to be away from O.

155TR also stated that, when both A and J were recently asked whether they recalled anything that happened with the Child, both twins indicated that “sissy” (O) swung the Child by the arms.

156TR expressed that, after O’s disclosure, she thought that A’s behaviour could be attributed to A thinking that O had done something to the Child (as O disclosed that A was copying O’s play actions with the Child)

157TR also noted that the children sometimes played roughly with the Child and required redirecting by the Applicants. With respect to O specifically, TR noted that, having lived most of her life with her grandmother, O was not used to being around younger children and was still learning the proper level of care to take when lifting the Child and playing.

158With respect to JR’s style of play with the children, TR indicated that JR had a more physical style of play with the children than she did. TR described this as JR engaging in more “roughhousing”. However, TR attributed any cautions or concerns that she would have about him playing in this way to her anxiety and fear about everything she has been through with the protection agencies rather than the thought of any genuine risk to the children presented by JR’s style of play.

159Both Applicants also spoke of changes in O’s behaviour following the incident, and prior to O’s disclosure. JR described her as appearing upset and emotional, and things that would not bother her before would bother her now.

160In relation to PARNIP’s concerns about O’s disclosure, Ms. Fitzpatrick’s understanding was that PARNIP was concerned that O’s account of the morning was offered several months after the initial injury and was inconsistent with JR’s account. Ms. Fitzpatrick’s evidence was that this was the information shared with her by PARNIP as to why PARNIP gave O’s explanation little weight.

161Ms. Lachance’s contact log dated December 30, 2025, and entered into evidence provided clarification with respect PARNIP’s concerns with O’s disclosure. Ms. Lachance wrote that PARNIP was worried about the credibility of O’s information being shared eight months after the incident, given the fact that the Applicants had numerous opportunities to provide additional details of that day.

162In the same contact log, Ms. Lachance noted that, prior to O’s disclosure, JR did not share that the Child had cried that morning and that he had gone and checked in on her. According to Ms. Lachance’s contact log, JR had maintained that the Child awoke that morning, went from crib to highchair and then from highchair back to crib. Ms. Lachance stated that JR explained that he forgot the detail of the Child’s crying due to the stress of the situation and that O’s disclosure triggered his memory. Beyond generally expressing concern about the credibility of the information based on the above, Ms. Lachance drew no conclusion on the probable cause of the Child’s injury and stated as follows:

In the end, what happened to [the Child] and by who will most likely never be known concretely. Therefore, given the fact that [the Child] while in the care of the Ronson’s sustained two significant injuries on two different occasions and is of a very vulnerable age, Nipissing Parry Sound CAS would not support [the Child] returning to the [the Applicants] care.

163Concerning JR’s lack of mention of hearing the child crying, JR testified that he did not recall hearing anything out of the ordinary with respect to the Child’s reactions that day.

164There has been no suggestion that the Child crying would be an unusual occurrence, and, based on O’s account as described in TR’s affidavit, the Child settled once a bottle was provided. The contact log from Ms. Fitzpatrick dated February 13, 2025, also references the Child vocalizing or crying when the Child needed to communicate.

PARNIP cites medical evidence that O or A could not have caused the injury

165PARNIP’s verification letter identified that O’s disclosure was questioned, in part, because of “the medical professional’s belief that the children would not have the necessary strength to cause such an injury.”

166The Respondent’s medical evidence relating to the Child’s injuries was primarily comprised of two documents authored by Dr. Michelle Ward, the physician on-call for CHEO’s Division of Child and Youth Protection, who assessed the Child’s injuries on March 10, 2025.

167Two documents authored by Dr. Anna Karwowska, the Chair of the Child and Youth Review Committee, who reviewed the Child’s case at CHEO, were also entered into evidence. The documents authored by Dr. Karwowska summarize the Child’s case status in May 2025 and September 2025. However, they do not detail the suspected injury mechanism.

168Dr. Ward’s letter dated March 19, 2025, to Ms. Boyd and Ms. Lachance of PARNIP outlined her involvement with the Child during the Child’s CHEO admission in March 2025 (“March 2025 report”) and offered Dr. Ward’s opinion on the cause of the Child’s injuries.

169Dr. Ward identified three injuries in the March 2025 report:

(a) Supracondylar fracture – physeal separation of the right distal humerus (ie fracture at the growth place at the end of the upper bone of the right arm, at the elbow) (the “elbow injury”);

(b) Sclerosis and periosteal reaction of the right tibia (i.e. signs of bone healing in the right lower leg) (“signs of bone healing in leg”); and

(c) Bruising on the inside of the right elbow

170Dr. Ward stated, “Trauma is the most common cause of fractures in children. The medical literature describes the types of fractures that commonly occur with household falls and routine activities for children. The type of elbow fracture, as seen in [the Child], is not one of these fractures.”

171Dr. Ward went on to describe the fracture location, stating, “In [the Child’s] case she is not able to pull to stand or climb furniture and has the skeleton of an 11 month old. She sustained a fracture that was in the supracondylar location (in the upper bone of the arm, just above the elbow). While this is a common location for fractures in older children, it is not a common location for a fracture in non-walking children. This is because older children have higher impact falls onto an outstretched hand (e.g. falling from monkey bars) and this type of mechanism is a classic way to cause an injury in this location.”

172Dr. Ward further stated, “No fracture type is diagnostic of inflicted trauma (ie. Injury caused through force applied by another person) however physeal separation of the distal humerus has been described in the literature to be associated with inflicted injury in many cases. This relates to the fact that this type of injury occurs in immature bone and requires forces that are not typically generated through a child’s own actions at young ages…By history, it appears that [the Child] first had symptoms after commando crawling over a metal rod on the floor and “falling”/tipping over from this position. I would not classify this as a fall per se, as it was described as her having her weight on her elbow or forearm, losing this position, and her body shifting (in an uncoordinated way) so that she was lying on the ground. This is a low velocity, low force change in position. It would not be expected that this event would cause the fracture that was seen, in the absence of an explanatory underlying medical condition.”

173Dr. Ward also reported, “[The Child] also had sclerosis and periosteal reaction in the right tibia (bone in right lower leg). These are signs of bone healing and are most commonly seen after bone injury (ie. Fracture). However, bone healing can also be seen when other problems arise such as with a bone infection or malignancy. There is no indication of any medical condition such as these on the xray or bloodwork, only bone healing is seen. No fracture is seen…Therefore, it is suspected that (the Child) previously had a fracture in the right tibia.”

174In conclusion Dr. Ward stated, “Trauma is the most likely cause of both the elbow fracture and the signs of bone healing in the lower leg. Trauma at the time of birth and trauma from medical interventions are not relevant in this case. Trauma can otherwise be self-inflicted or inflicted by another person…At this time, the elbow fracture remains unexplained. There has been no clear description of an injury event that caused immediate symptoms of the elbow fracture. There has been no clear description of an event that describes the type of mechanisms that are known to cause this type of fracture…to date there is no clear indication of such a medical condition. As a result, application of force by another individual in the manner described above (pull and/or twist of the arm) remains a possibility from a medical perspective. (The Child) also had signs of healing of her tibia. This is suspected to be related to a prior fracture. This also remains unexplained.”

175The Respondent also submitted into evidence Dr. Ward’s Clinical Notes dated November 28, 2025. Dr. Ward drafted these clinical notes in response to an email from PARNIP requesting an opinion about whether O’s disclosure could offer a possible mechanism for the Child’s injuries.

176Dr. Ward stated in relation to O’s disclosure, “The above history was not provided to me previously, it was reported to me that [the Child] had been napping until 9:30 or 9:45 am and that she had appeared well when her father got her out of her crib. It is my assumption that the history provided above by [O] describes events before the nap time. It had been reported to me that [the Child] appeared well until shortly after 10 am when she became fussy when crawling under a piece of children’s equipment…The new information provided above seemingly suggests a pull and/or twist of the arm by both [O] and [A]. The degree of force is unclear. As mentioned previously, this is an unusual injury and is through to require a significant degree of force unless a medical condition is present. Since my last latter, [the Child] has been seen by the geneticist who did not confirm a genetic condition predisposing to [the Child’s] injuries. She was also seen by the Bone Health Endocrinologist who concluded that there was “no evidence of an underlying metabolic or genetic bone disease to explain the fracture history.” Therefore, it is felt that a significant degree of force would be required to cause this injury. I am not able to determine whether the toddler would be able to use sufficient force for this. It is not clear whether the information about the older child pulling [the Child] by the arms fits the mechanism or force required to cause the elbow fracture…The timing of the suspected leg fracture is not in keeping with injury having occurred at the same time as the elbow fracture. Therefore the above description of events does not contribute to further information about this suspected injury.”

177Based on the evidence of Dr. Ward that is before the Panel, Dr. Ward did not express a belief that the children would not have the necessary strength to cause the injury. This possibility was left open. The only conclusion that Dr. Ward reached in the evidence submitted was that the Child’s injury was unexplained and had a high association in the medical literature with an inflicted injury.

178PARNIP ultimately verified an unexplained injury – maltreater unknown. As previously stated, the verification decision is not for the Panel to review. However, the Panel can consider whether the conclusions that PARNIP made to reach that decision suggest an ongoing risk of harm should the Applicants be permitted to move forward with the adoption plan.

179Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent is concerned with the risk to the Child posed by JR potentially having caused the Child’s injuries. PARNIP’s investigation questioned O’s explanation for the injury on two basis, the first being that JR’s account of that day failed to mention that he heard the Child crying in the morning prior to O’s disclosure (which occurred eight months after the injury) and the second being that PARNIP indicated that Dr. Ward believed that the children would not have had the strength to cause the injury.

180The Panel makes no finding on the veracity of O’s explanation. The Panel does, however, find that O’s disclosure provides a potential explanation for the Child’s elbow injury and that it is plausible that JR may have forgotten to mention the detail of the Child crying that morning to the PARNIP investigation team.

181With respect to the medical evidence considered as part of this proceeding, the Panel finds that it was inconclusive as to whether the children would have had the strength to cause the injury.

182The Panel finds that both O’s disclosure and the medical evidence raise enough questions about the mechanism of injury that determining JR to be a risk is speculative.

Evidence Mitigating Ongoing Risk of Harm

183As part of considering the risk of harm to the Child should the adoption application proceed, the Panel must also consider the evidence that would suggest a reduced ongoing risk of harm.

184The parties agree that there were no concerns with the Applicants’ care of the Child prior to March 2025,

185The actions of the Respondent also suggest that the Respondent did not hold a belief that there was a genuine risk of harm to the Child presented by the Applicants either before or, most notably, after the March 2025 injury.

186On May 27, 2026, over two months following the removal of the Child from the Applicants’ home, PARNIP and the Respondent jointly approved the Applicants taking the Child, O, and the twins on a five-day, overnight trip to Great Wolf Lodge in Niagara Falls in June 2025.

187The only condition of the trip was that JR’s time with all children (including the Child) would be supervised in accordance with the safety plan in place at the time, with TR, JR’s mother, Co or D to act as supervisor. Both Applicants and the children were permitted to stay in the same hotel room together.

188When Ms. Fitzpatrick was asked why the Respondent made an exception for this trip, she advised that this was because the family vacation had been previously planned and everyone was comfortable with the safety plan put in place. Ms. Fitzpatrick was unable to offer an explanation as to why the Child could not remain in the home under the safety plan, but it was acceptable for the trip.

189Ms. Fitzpatrick also provided evidence in relation to a meeting held between the Respondent and PARNIP in December 2025, immediately prior to the outcome meeting with the Applicants. In addressing discussions that occurred at the meeting, Ms. Fitzpatrick testified that there was no discussion at that meeting around any possibility of the Child returning to the Applicants’ home, either in accordance with a safety plan or otherwise. She indicated that the Respondent was hopeful up until the meeting that a medical issue would be revealed as a contributor or cause of the Child’s injury, as, if the reason for the injury was still unknown, the Respondent would be unable to return the Child to the Applicants’ care.

190Ms. Fitzpatrick’s evidence in relation to this meeting indicated that the Respondent did not engage with an analysis as to whether there was any ongoing risk of harm posed to the Child as a result of the March 2025 injury.

191Conversely, Ms. Fitzpatrick’s testimony suggests that the Respondent did not feel that there was an ongoing risk of harm but rather felt that they were compelled to remove in the absence of being able to identify the cause of injury, regardless of ongoing risk.

192With respect to a safety plan for the other three children remaining in the Applicants’ care, this safety plan was lifted in its entirety in December 2025. PARNIP verified no protection concerns with respect to the other three children.

193The Panel finds that the Respondent did not hold a belief that there was a risk of ongoing harm that could not be mitigated by a safety plan to the Child by returning to the Applicants’ care. The trip to Great Wolf Lodge offers evidence that the Respondent was content with the Child being in the Applicants’ care and staying with the Applicants in a hotel room, as long as the Applicants followed the safety plan.

The Unexplained Injury Principle Does Not Require the Denial of the Adoption Application

194The Respondent relies on the unexplained injury principle to justify the denial of the adoption application. The Panel finds that the caselaw presented by the Respondent in relation to the unexplained injury principle can be distinguished.

195The unexplained injury principle states that when injuries to an infant are of a serious nature, are unexplained, and there is no evidence of intervention by a third party, a failure by the child’s caregivers to explain the cause of the child’s injury constitutes grounds for finding a child in need of protection and for a refusal to return the child to previous caregivers. See VR v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 3508 at para 126 (“VR”)

196While the nature of the Child’s injury, a fractured elbow necessitating surgical intervention, is serious, the degree of severity of the injury is far less than the injuries in the cases presented by the Respondent applying the unexplained injury principle.

197The Panel has only considered the elbow injury when analyzing the unexplained injury principle. In relation to the Child’s apparent healing leg injury, there was no evidence offered in relation to when the injury was sustained, the circumstances in which the injury was sustained, or a potential mechanism that could have caused such an injury. The Panel assigns no weight to this information in relation to either the unexplained injury principle or in considering risk of harm to the Child.

198In VR, there were two serious injury incidents approximately three months apart. The first serious injury was a spiral fracture to the upper arm. The second incident resulted in multiple subdural hemorrhages and multi-layered retinal hemorrhages.

199In Child and Family Services of Grand Erie v VC, 2025 ONCJ 666 (“VC”), the sibling of the child in question died while in the care of the parents.

200These cases are also distinguishable from the present circumstance as the Respondent has conceded that there were no concerns in relation to the Applicants’ care of the Child either prior to or following the March 2025 injury. In contrast, in both VR and VC, the court noted concerns in relation to the parents’ care of the children beyond the injuries suffered while the children were in their care. In VC specifically, the judge noted that the injuries were highly characteristic of inflicted trauma and that the risk to the surviving children was extremely high.

201PARNIP verified no protection concerns with respect to the other three children in the Applicants’ care.

202In the present case, there was also evidence of intervention by a third party. The Child interacted with multiple people on the day of the injury, mostly notably O and A. PARNIP’s investigation also did not discount O’s disclosure altogether, although PARNIP did identify reasons to question the disclosure. Despite these questions, PARNIP found O’s disclosure credible enough to comment that it added an element of doubt with the effect that JR could not be determined to be the maltreater on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, this was the reason why PARNIP verified the protection concern of an unexplained injury - maltreater unknown.

203Given that these two cases are distinguishable from the present circumstances and that there were clear interventions by O and A, the Panel finds that the unexplained injury principle does not prohibit the Respondent from proceeding with the Applicants’ adoption application.

Conclusion

204It is in the Child’s best interests to allow the Applicants’ adoption application to proceed.

205The Child has been well-cared for in the Applicant’s home and is strongly connected to both the Child’s siblings and the Applicants.

206The Child is treated as an integrated member of the Applicants’ family unit and, since removal, the Applicants have made significant efforts to ensure that the bonds developed between them, the Child and the Child’s siblings have been preserved.

207The Applicants attended to the Child’s medical and development needs while in their care, including bringing the Child to EarlyON on a regular basis for social interaction and taking the Child to medical appointments. Both Applicants demonstrated awareness of potential future needs, including enrolling the Child in extracurricular activities and seeking specialized medical care, and indicated that they were ready to see to such needs as they may arise.

208With respect to the risk of current harm posed by PARNIP’s Verification Decision, the Panel finds that, as O’s disclosure was a potential explanation for the injury and there was evidence suggesting that the Respondent did not genuinely judge there to be an ongoing risk of harm following the injury that could not be mitigated with an appropriate safety plan, there can be little weight ascribed to the Verification Decision in relation to risk of ongoing harm.

209Most notably, Dr. Ward was able to conclude that the elbow injury was most likely caused by inflicted trauma, but was unable to identify the mechanism or the perpetrator, including ruling out O and A.

210The circumstances of this case are distinguishable from the cases cited by the Respondent where the court has applied the unexplained injury principle.

211In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not prohibited from proceeding with the adoption plan as they have argued.

Order

212The Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’ application to adopt the Child is rescinded.

213The Respondent shall take all necessary steps to proceed with the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child including forthwith arranging for the completion of an adoption home study to be conducted by an assessor or agency not already involved with this family namely the Respondent, PARNIP, Niijaansinaanik, and Ottawa CAS. A copy of this Decision is to be provided to the professional conducting the adoption home study.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

214Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the contents of the entire file relating to this Application, including this Decision, are subject to a confidentiality order. Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions, or any other documents or information obtained under the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure or in the course of this Application. Moreover, the information contained in this Decision and in the CFSRB file shall not be released to anyone other than the parties or published in any document, broadcast, or transmitted through any medium without first obtaining an order of the CFSRB or the Court.

215Notwithstanding this confidentiality order, either party may file this Decision with a Court for the purposes of obtaining an adoption order. If either party files this Decision with a Court, that party must take all reasonable steps to protect the further dissemination of this information, including requesting a confidentiality order from the Court.