CT v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2025 CFSRB 145

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CT

Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster

Date: October 16, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 145

Indexed As: CT v The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CT, Applicant

Self-Represented

The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Respondent

Wayne Herter, 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 August 12, 2025 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) is comprised of 8 main Terms, one of which has three parts (i.e., Terms 1a, b, and c); and two of which have two parts (i.e., Terms 3a and b and Terms 4a and b). The Agreement includes an implementation date of September 10, 2025, and a non-compliance date of September 17, 2025.

BACKGROUND

3On the evening of September 10, 2025 (the implementation date), the Applicant emailed the Respondent (“September 10 Email”), copying the CFSRB, stating she had not received a written response from the Respondent as set out in the Agreement. The Applicant also noted she had not received her disclosure from the Respondent.

4On the morning of September 11, 2025, the Respondent emailed the Applicant (“September 11 Email”), copying the CFSRB, its letter in response to the Agreement (“September 10 Letter”). In the September 11 Email, the Respondent explained that it had attempted to send the letter on the evening of September 10, 2025, but it had experienced technical difficulties. Included in the email string, was an email the Respondent sent to the CFSRB on the evening of September 10, 2025 (with the September 10 Letter attached), noting that it was experiencing technical difficulties in emailing the same to the Applicant.

5On September 12, 2025, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB (“September 12 Email”) copying the Respondent alleging non-compliance and requesting the following relief:

1. A finding of non-compliance (timeliness and substance).
2. Direction for sworn, detailed answers identifying who decided what, when, the indicators applied, investigative steps, and the records relied on.
3. Orders for full disclosure and reliable service on me going forward.
4. If needed, set the matter down for hearing at the earliest date.

6On September 16, 2025, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB (“September 16 Email”), copying the Respondent, expanding on the submissions regarding her allegations of non-compliance. The September 16^th^ submissions are 42 pages in length, and in some cases, combine or do not refer to specific Terms from the Agreement.

7Later, on September 16, 2025, the CFSRB sent the parties a letter indicating that the Respondent may respond to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance in her September 11 Email and September 16 Email by September 23, 2025.

8On September 23, 2025, the Respondent sent a letter via email to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant (“September 23 Letter”) in response to the Applicant’s non-compliance allegations.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

9During mediation, the Respondent offered to check with its disclosure department regarding the status of the Applicant’s request for disclosure of her CPIN Notes. This did not form part of the Agreement.

10In her September 10 Email, the Applicant alleges that she had not received any response from the Respondent or disclosure department to date despite following up. In paragraph 5 above, point 2 seeks that the CFSRB order “full disclosure and reliable services on me going forward.”

11Part X (Personal Information) of the Act gives the Information and Privacy Commissioner jurisdiction over issues dealing with access to personal information in the files of a children’s aid society. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to make such Orders. In its September 23 Letter, the Respondent notes that “it continues to process the Applicant’s request through its disclosure department.”

12In Paragraph 5 above, at point 2, the Applicant seeks for the CFSRB to direct “sworn, detailed answers identifying who decided what, when, the indicators applied, investigative steps, and the records relied on.” These remedies are outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. Additionally, in her September 16 Email, the Applicant requests other various remedies which are also outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. Section 120(7) of the Act sets out the remedies available to the CFSRB after reviewing a complaint:

a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

e) dismiss the complaint; or

f) make such other order as may be prescribed. (This refers to orders prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other orders have been prescribed within the Regulations).

13Essentially this decision will review whether the Applicant received sufficient reasons in response to her questions. The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent.

14In reviewing the details provided to the Applicant by the Respondent in its September 10 Letter, 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.”

15In its September 23 Letter, the Respondent replies to the Applicant’s general allegations that its responses are “conclusory and generic.” The Respondent submits that “facts, dates and decision makers are not essential requirements for assessing the Respondent’s compliance with the questions posed in the Settlement Agreement.” As per J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society referenced above, sufficient reasons may require a more fulsome response depending on the context, in order to provide sufficient information for a parent to understand why or how decisions were made. Additionally, I note that some of the answers in the Respondent’s September 23 Letter are not written in plain language, and the Respondent should be mindful that the audience receiving the reasons for its decisions may not be familiar with the documents, procedures and internal jargon of the society.

16The remedy sought in Paragraph 5, at point 4, is not available to the CFSRB. The Applicant and Respondent agreed to a binding Agreement through mediation and this Application will therefore not proceed to a hearing.

ISSUE

17The issues are:

• Has the Respondent complied with Terms 1a, b and c; 2; 3a and b; 4a and b; 5; 6, 7 and 8 of the Agreement?

• Did the Respondent comply with the Implementation Date of the Agreement?

RESULT

18I find that that the Respondent has not complied with the following Terms of the Agreement: 1c; 3a and b, 4a and b; 6; and 7.

19I find that the Respondent has complied with Terms 1a and b, 2 and 5 of the Agreement.

20I find that the Respondent partially complied with Term 8 of the Agreement.

21I further find that the Respondent did not comply with the Agreement’s Implementation Date, but with an explanation.

HEARING FORMAT

22Rule 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.

23Based 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.

ANALYSIS

Terms 1a, b and c of the Agreement have not been met

24Term 1 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

1. The Applicant alleges that between 2009 and 2011, she requested that the Respondent obtain a Parental Capacity Assessment (“PCA”) of her, but the request was denied on multiple occasions?

a) Why were the requests allegedly denied?

b) What would precipitate the Respondent initiating a PCA?

c) Given that the Applicant did not receive a PCA, how did the Respondent determine the Applicant’s mental health issues?

a) Why were the requests allegedly denied? / b) What would precipitate the Respondent initiating a PCA?

25The Respondent’s September 10 Letter described that a decision to fund a PCA is dependent on a number of circumstances, including whether the matter is before the Court. The Respondent submits that it did not believe a PCA was required to determine how to “ameliorate the child protection concerns,” that the matter was before the Court, and that the Applicant was represented by counsel. The Respondent states the Applicant agreed to the Court dispositions without requesting a PCA, despite the option being open to her to request that the Court order one.

26The Respondent stated that a PCA could be requested if the case management team determined that a multifaceted review of caregivers and the children through an external expert was required to identify the child protection concerns and ways to ameliorate them.

27In her September 16 Email, the Applicant states that the Respondent did not provide a sufficient explanation, and that by responding that she should have pursued a Court Order despite the fact that she was a youth at the time, is shifting its responsibility. She further submits that by failing to identify who denied her requests, when, and on what grounds, she was denied meaningful reasons.

28I find that the Respondent has answered parts a) and b) of Term 1. The Respondent submits that its decision is dependent on a “number of circumstances,” including being before the Court where “the Applicant agreed to the dispositions without requesting a PCA” despite being represented. The Respondent also stated a PCA could be requested by the case management team if they believed an external expert was required. Although the Applicant believes the Respondent shifted its responsibility, it is not the role of the CFSRB to judge the actions taken by a society, only whether it provided reasons for its decisions. I find that the Respondent has explained why it decided to not request a PCA.

c) Given that the Applicant did not receive a PCA, how did the Respondent determine the Applicant’s mental health issues?

29In its September 10 Letter, the Respondent stated that it “observes and receives reports from the individual and/or community members to determine if the individual’s ‘mental health’ is a factor in the identified child protection issues.”

30The Applicant asserts in her September 16 Email that Respondent workers are not psychiatrists or psychologists and as such are not trained or authorized to make diagnostic determinations. She further states, the Respondent “used these unqualified impressions as a substitute for a [PCA] and more importantly, as part of the rational (sic) for removing my children.”

31While the role of the CFSRB is not to determine the clinical validity of the Respondent’s decisions, I find that the Respondent has not provided a sufficient answer to help the Applicant understand how it determined the Applicant’s mental health issues. The answer is vague and there is no specific information or reference to reports by workers, the Applicant, or third parties with regards to how the Respondent assessed the Applicant’s mental health issues.

Term 2 of the Agreement has been met

32Term 2 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

2. In March 2019, the Applicant allegedly reported to Respondent worker WB, concerns about the children’s father, who resided with the paternal grandparents and the children, including punching holes in walls and parental alienation?

a) Was an investigation conducted with regards to the reported concerns with her children? If not, why?

33In the September 10 Letter, the Respondent provides: “An investigation was conducted and utilizing the Eligibility Spectrum and the Child Protection Standards the Society determined that the reported concerns did not support a more intrusive engagement with the family.”

34The Applicant’s September 16 Email states, “A meaningful answer requires disclosure of the investigative steps actually taken – who was interviewed, whether home visits occurred, what collateral evidence was gathered, and how those findings were analyzed. None of that was provided.”

35I find that the Respondent provided an adequate answer to this question. There is no indication that consent was provided by the parties who were being investigated, which thereby limits the Respondent’s ability to provide more specific details; however, the Respondent directly answered that there was an investigation resulting in no further involvement by the Respondent.

Terms 3a and b of the Agreement have not been met

36Terms 3a and b of the Agreement set out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

3. In May 2025, the Applicant allegedly called worker MC, and later her supervisor MD, to report concerns about the Applicant’s daughter’s suicidal ideation, access to sharps and medications in the paternal grandparent’s home, her daughter’s running away, and concerns with potential human trafficking of her daughter.

a) Was an investigation completed? If not, why?

b) Was there a safety assessment of the paternal grandparent’s home completed by the Respondent? If not, why?

a) Was an investigation completed? If not, why? / b) Was there a safety assessment of the paternal grandparent’s home completed by the Respondent? If not, why?

37In its September 10 Letter, the Respondent responded that the reported concerns became the subject matter of a Violence, Threat and Risk Assessment (“VTRA”) initiated by the schoolboard. The Respondent participated in the meeting. The Respondent states that prior to the VTRA meeting an investigation was not initiated because the reported information did not meet the Eligibility Spectrum to open an investigation. The referral was subsequently classified as a community link and service was completed through these means.

38In terms of a safety assessment, the Respondent states that because the VTRA established a community approach, the criteria for such an assessment was not triggered.

39In her September 16 Email, the Applicant submits that the Respondent concluded that an investigation was not initiated because the matter was disposed of as a “community link.” She further submits that no indicators from the Eligibility Spectrum are cited and there was no analysis provided by the Respondent.

40Additionally, the Applicant asserts that the Respondent does not provide a justification for not completing a safety assessment, despite her daughter’s access to risks within the home.

41In its September 23 Letter, the Respondent takes the position that the Applicant’s submissions on this Term are based on the Applicant’s disagreement with the Respondent’s decisions, and that reasons have been provided. It notes that the decision is “directed by the Respondent’s trained and authorized child protection staff in applying the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards.”

42I find that the Respondent has not provided a sufficient response. The CFSRB does not review the actions of the Respondent but determines if the Respondent has provided a sufficient explanation for the reasons for its decisions so a parent may understand. The Respondent submits that the referral was classified as a “community link,” and indicated an investigation was not warranted based on the Eligibility Spectrum. More meaningful reasons would include 1) an explanation of what a community link is, how that would trigger a “service,” and what that service might be; 2) how the Respondent evaluated the child’s risk under the Eligibility Spectrum, 3) why the Respondent determined the Applicant’s concerns did not rise to the level to require an investigation.

Terms 4a and b of the Agreement have not been met

43Terms 4a and b of the Agreement set out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

4. On May 25, 2025, a Violence Threat / Risk Assessment (“VTRA”) meeting to discuss the Applicant’s daughter took place involving representatives from the Respondent, the Applicant’s daughter’s school, Pathstone, Indigenous well being, police, and school and hospital social workers. Various concerns were identified regarding her daughter including being at high risk of human trafficking and suicidal ideation and self harm.

a) Did this meeting result in investigation by the Respondent? If not, why?

b) What would precipitate an investigation by the Respondent?

a) Did this meeting result in investigation by the Respondent? If not, why? / b) What would precipitate an investigation by the Respondent?

44The Respondent submits that the VTRA did not trigger an investigation, and the referral was “disposed of by applying the Eligibility Spectrum and the Protection Standards as a community link.” The Respondent further states that an investigation would be triggered if the referral met the requirements of the Eligibility Spectrum.

45As per the Applicant’s submissions in Paragraph 39 above, the Respondent did not expand on any analysis of why it did not conduct a review based on its application of the Eligibility Spectrum.

46I find that the Respondent did not provide sufficient reasons in response to this Term. As outlined in Paragraph 42 above, the Respondent can help the Applicant understand the reasons for its decisions by expanding on the how it used the Eligibility Spectrum to evaluate whether an investigation was warranted. The Respondent may also explain how investigations and community links are intertwined with the use of the Eligibility Spectrum and Protection Standards and the Respondent’s decision making.

Term 5 of the Agreement has been met

47Term 5 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

5. Minutes of the VTRA meeting provided to the Applicant indicate, “[the Applicant’s daughter’s] parents are presently hesitant to engage [with the Respondent]”. The children’s father’s current partner is referred to as the child’s parent despite her not having custody or decision making.

a) Was the Applicant consulted in terms of the Respondent’s involvement?

48The Respondent responded that it did not consult with the Applicant, and that it did not initiate the VTRA meeting. The Respondent submits that it has no authority to conduct a VTRA meeting. Additionally, the Respondent notes that it did not take the Minutes of the VTRA meeting, so the reference to the father’s current partner is beyond the Respondent’s scope.

49The Applicant submits that labeling the father’s partner as a parent undermines her legal status as a mother. She further submits that regardless of who convened the VTRA the Respondent has an independent statutory duty to consult her when decisions affect her daughter’s care and safety.

50I find that the Respondent provided a sufficient response to the child’s father’s partner being referred to as the “parent.” The Respondent did not take the Minutes of the meeting, and therefore had no role in this error. I further find that the Respondent provided a sufficient response with regards to whether it consulted the Applicant about the meeting. Although the Applicant may disagree with the Respondent’s answer, it has explained its reasons for not consulting her.

Term 6 of the Agreement has not been met

51Term 6 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

6. In June 2025, the Applicant alleges that she reported to the Respondent that her daughter threatened suicide or running away should she return to her father’s home.

52The Respondent responded that this reported information was considered and evaluated based on the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards. It was determined that no further intervention was warranted because the matters were being addressed by the caregivers.

53The Applicant submits that she was not consulted about the disclosure or informed about how the Respondent evaluated it. She further indicated that the Respondent provided no information regarding why it declined to investigate a psychiatrist’s disclosure of physical abuse and who made a decision not to investigate.

54In its September 23 Letter, the Respondent submits that the Applicant’s submissions are based on her disagreement with the decision rather than being provided written reasons.

55I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 6. The answer provides no details with regards to how the Respondent came to the decision that no further intervention was required, or whether steps had been taken to ensure the safety of the Applicant’s daughter outside of that it was being addressed by “the caregivers.”

Term 7 of the Agreement has not been met

56Term 7 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

7. In July 2025, the Applicant’s daughter’s psychiatrist allegedly reported concerns to the Respondent regarding the Applicant’s daughter’s disclosure that her father’s partner hit her.

a) Was this investigated and were the concerns verified?

57The Respondent responded that this reported information was considered and evaluated based on the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards. It was determined that no further intervention was warranted because the matters were being addressed by the caregivers.

58In its September 23 Letter, the Respondent submits that the Applicant’s submissions are based on her disagreement with the decision rather than being provided written reasons.

59I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 7. The response provides no details about how the Respondent decided not to investigate, or how the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards were applied to come to its decision.

Term 8 of the Agreement has been partially met

60Term 8 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

1. Does the Respondent take the children’s Indigenous heritage into consideration when investigating? If so, how is this considered, and what steps are taken?

61In its reply, the Respondent states that it does take the child’s indigeneity into consideration and “its treatment is considered in light of the information provided, the ability to establish a connection to an indigenous community and the level of engagement that community is willing to engage in.”

62The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s answer is generic, and provides “no evidence of what was actually done in [her] daughter’s case. No names of Indigenous service providers, no record of outreach attempts, no timelines, and no supports identified.”

63I find that the Respondent partially complied with Term 8. In opposition to the Applicant’s allegation of non-compliance of this term, the Agreement did not request information specific to her child, nor is the Respondent required to provide evidence. However, the Respondent only provided cursory information, and did not provide any details as to how it would engage an Indigenous community or specific steps it would take through this engagement.

The Implementation Date of Agreement was not met

64As described above in paragraph 4, the Respondent did not provide its September 10 Letter to the Applicant until the morning of September 11, 2025. However, as noted, the Respondent did attempt to deliver the Letter to the Applicant on September 10 but was prevented from doing so due to technical issues. This was explained to the Applicant in the Respondent’s September 11 Email.

65The Respondent submits in its September 23 Letter that on September 10, 2025, it delivered an apology with written reasons for the delay in serving the letter, and that on September 11, 2025, the [Applicant] agreed the documents were served.

66I find that although there does not appear to be an apology contained in the Respondent’s September 10 Email or September 11 Email, an explanation for the delay was offered to the Applicant. Since the Applicant did receive the materials, albeit one day late, there is no further relief I can order, and no further Order is made.

ORDER

67By November 6, 2025, the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant which includes the following information:

Term 1c:

• What specific information did the Respondent rely upon to assess the Applicant’s mental health.

Term 3:

• A description of what a community link is, how that would trigger a “service,” and what that service might be.

• How the Respondent evaluated the child’s risk under the Eligibility Spectrum.

• Why the Respondent determined the Applicant’s concerns did not rise to the level to require an investigation.

Terms 4a and b:

• How the Respondent used the Eligibility Spectrum to evaluate whether an investigation was warranted.

• How investigations and community links are intertwined with the use of the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards and the Respondent’s decision making.

Term 6:

• How the Respondent came to the decision that no further intervention was required.

• Whether there were steps taken to ensure the safety of the Applicant’s daughter, outside of that it was being addressed by “the caregivers.”

Term 7:

• How were the Eligibility Spectrum and Child Protection Standards applied by the Respondent?

Term 8:

• How would the Respondent engage an Indigenous community in a situation such as with the Applicant’s daughter, and what specific steps it would take through this engagement.

68The CFSRB’s file is now closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

69Pursuant 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.

Tracy Foster

Tracy Foster

Member