LB v. Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 1

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LB

Applicant

-and-

Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand

Date: January 02, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 1

Indexed As: LB v Sarnia-Lambton Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible for review pursuant to section 120(4)5 of the Act, “allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.”

3In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the CFSRB had previously found an Application filed by the Applicant’s spouse to be ineligible (CA24-0056). In that decision, the CFSRB determined that the Applicant, as a foster parent, was providing a service, and not seeking or receiving a service. The Respondent submitted that for the same reason, the present Application should be found ineligible for review.

4The CFSRB requested submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Application is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.

5The Respondent submitted that it is relying on the earlier decision, and section 15(2) of the Act to argue that the current Application should be found ineligible. The Respondent reiterated that the CFSRB found the previous Application to be ineligible for review because foster parents provide a service, and do not “seek or receive” services from a society, as is required to be eligible. The Applicant did not provide submissions.

ISSUE

6Is the present Application eligible for review?

RESULT

7The present Application is eligible for review.

ANALYSIS

8Section 120(1) of the Act states that it pertains to complaints regarding “services sought or received” from a society. In some previous eligibility decisions, the CFSRB has found that a foster parent does not “seek or receive services,” but rather, “provides” a service. As such, the CFSRB has found applications from foster parents, including CA24-0056 as referenced above, to be ineligible for review. However, upon review of the relevant provisions in the Act, there appears to be no provision that precludes foster parents from seeking services.

9Section 2 of the Act defines “service,” as:

(a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family

(b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family

(c) a service related to residential care for a child

(d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family

(e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

(f) counselling for a child or the child’s family and

(g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community.

(h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

(i) a prescribed service, (“service”)

10The definition of “service provider” in section 2 excludes foster parents:

“service provider” means,

(a) the Minister

(b) a licensee

(c) a person or entity, including a society, that provides a service funded under this Act, or

(d) a prescribed person or entity

but does not include a foster parent; (emphasis added)

11While some previous decisions from the CFSRB have held that foster parents are providing a service rather than seeking or receiving one, I note the Act’s definition of service provider specifically excludes a foster parent. Foster parents, according to the Act, are not considered “service providers”.

12Also in section 2 of the Act, “foster care” is defined as the provision of residential care to a child, by and in the home of a person who,

(a) receives compensation for caring for the child, except under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 or the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and

(b) is not the child’s parent or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption under Part VIII (Adoption and Adoption Licensing),

and “foster home” and “foster parent” have corresponding meanings;

13According to the definitions set out above, the legislation does not exclude foster parents from seeking services for the children in their residential care. Part (c) of the interpretation of “service” specifically lists “a service related to residential care for a child.”

14Section 120(4) of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB including at section 120(4)4, “Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)”. Section 15(2) sets out:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

This section of the Act clearly excludes foster parents, who are not children, young persons, or their parents. The Respondent relies on section 15(2) of the Act to submit that the Application should be found ineligible for review by the CFSRB. However, the Application was not found eligible for review under this section of the Act.

15Section 120(4)5 of the Act, sets out that “[a]llegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests,” may be reviewed by the CFSRB. This section does not require that the complainant be either a child, young person, or their parent. The Application was found eligible pursuant to this section.

16The present Application described that the Applicant repeatedly sought specific services from the Respondent for the children, relating to the children’s emotional wellbeing. For example, the Application sets out:

For months, we repeatedly requested support for K and our other children, given the emotional toll of repatriation. K has experienced significant anxiety, nightmares, and academic struggles, which we believe should have been prioritized. Despite her visible distress, our requests for her worker to engage directly with her were often ignored or dismissed, with responses indicating the worker was “too busy”. The children’s well-being should have received dedicated attention.

The Applicant stated that she sought services from the Respondent to assist the children with emotional support while they were transitioning from their foster home, where they had lived for a long time, to their biological mother. The Application describes “services” that were “sought” by the Applicant that relate to those listed as (b), (c), (f), and (g), in the definition of “service” in section 2 of the Act. The Application sets out, “Since the summer, we have been advocating for K to receive emotional support to process these complex feelings,” and demonstrates explicitly the services sought by the Applicant.

17The Applicant also described how she believed the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests. She described a “lack of transparency in decision making” by the Respondent, a lack of reasons provided for “a sudden acceleration of the repatriation timeline”, and “inconsistent information regarding our role and undermining comments,” in the Respondent’s decisions. These are examples provided by the Applicant of decisions made by the Respondent that affect her interests as a foster parent.

18The CFSRB determines the eligibility of each Application on a case-by-case basis. The circumstances of this current Application led me to distinguish it from my earlier determination. This is because the “services sought” from the Respondent were explicitly described and fit clearly within the listed “services” set out in section 2 of the Act. The previous rationale, that foster parents provide a service, and do not seek or receive services, did not apply in the circumstances set out in this case. As noted above, foster parents are specifically excluded from being considered “service providers” under section 2 of the Act.

19Not every Application filed by a foster parent is eligible for review by the CFSRB pursuant to section 120(4)5. It must be clear from the Application that it pertains to “services sought or received” from a society and must also convey allegations that reasons were not provided by the society that affect the Applicant’s interests. In the Application before me, both these criteria were demonstrated.

ORDER

20The Application is eligible under s.120(4)5 of the Act.

confidentiality order

21Pursuant 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.