CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MK
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tracy Foster
Date: September 03, 2025
Citation: 2025 CFSRB 121
Indexed As: MK v The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
MK, Applicant
Self-Represented
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Respondent
Vesna Benic-Mayer, 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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2At the July 7, 2025 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) is comprised of two main Terms, one of which has three parts (i.e., Terms 1a, b, and c). It includes an implementation date of August 8, 2025, and a non-compliance date of August 15, 2025.
3The Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant on July 9, 2025 (“July 9 Letter”) in response to the Agreement.
4On August 5, 2025, the Applicant emailed the Respondent (“August 5 Email”), copying the CFSRB, alleging non-compliance with regards to the Respondent’s reply to Term 1b in its July 9 Letter.
5On August 6, 2025, the Respondent emailed the CFSRB (“August 6 Email”) and the Applicant stating:
“The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (“Society”) takes the position that it has complied with the terms of the agreement reached at the pre-hearing of this matter in July 2025.”
6On August 18, 2025, following the non-compliance date of August 15, 2025, the CFSRB sent the parties a letter indicating that the Respondent may respond to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance in her August 5 Email by August 25, 2025.
7On August 25, 2025, the Respondent sent a letter via email to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant (“August 25 Letter”) acknowledging that it had replied to the Applicant’s August 5 Email in its August 6 Email. The Respondent’s August 25 Letter indicates:
We reiterate that once an investigation with the Society has concluded, there is no further role for the Society to take with reference to that particular investigation. The Society cannot share any information that was reviewed during such an investigation with any other party regarding mitigation/non-mitigation of risk by a party, as we do not have the consent of that other party to do so. Ms. Kavanaugh has access to the proper disclosure process used by the Society and has in fact availed herself of that process, to my knowledge.”
ISSUE
8The issue is:
Has the Respondent complied with Term 1b of the Agreement?
RESULT
9I find that that the Respondent has not complied with Term 1b of the Agreement.
HEARING FORMAT
10Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure outlines that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference.
11Based on the submissions of the Respondent and the Applicant, I find that there is sufficient evidence before me to decide the issue of non-compliance in writing, without a further videoconference.
ANALYSIS
12In this Application, it is undisputed that the Respondent investigated and verified allegations of post-separation conflict against both the Applicant and the father of her children.
Term 1b of the Agreement has not been met
13Term 1b (“the Term”) of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:
When an allegation is verified, what is the mechanism for the Respondent to further action or not action a concern? In the case of the verified allegation of post-separation conflict against the Applicant and the Children’s father, why was this not investigated further? Were any steps considered to be put in place to mitigate the conflict?
14The Respondent’s July 9 Letter offered the following response to the Term:
“As part of the Verification process, all facts, evidence and information regarding protective factors gathered during the course of an investigation are reviewed and analysed to determine the outcome of the investigation. Absent of consent, no further information regarding discussions with other parties, including the children can be shared.”
15In her August 5 Email, the Applicant takes the position that that the Respondent’s response to the Term “failed to adequately address the substance of this inquiry.” She submits that the response referenced the general verification process and limitations on information sharing absent consent, but did not provide specific answers to her questions. The Applicant asserts that the Respondent did not explain how it would escalate or resolve a verified allegation; it did not speak to why the verified allegation was not investigated further, and it did not indicate if any steps were considered to mitigate the conflict between the Applicant and the father of the children.
16In reviewing the details provided by the Respondent in its response, I considered J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68), 2013 CFSRB 8 at para. 13:
“…what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.”
The first question posed in the Term is: When an allegation is verified, what is the mechanism for the Respondent to further action or not action a concern?
17I find that the Respondent has not provided a sufficient response and has not answered this question directly. The Respondent’s response is general in nature. The Respondent has not provided the Applicant with an understanding of what steps it