CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
GC
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Indexed as: GC v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
GC, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent
MH, 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”).
2By way of a Decision of the CFSRB dated August 15, 2025, six issues were identified.
3A full day video hearing was held on November 4, 2025.
ISSUE
4The issue is whether the Respondent provided reasons to the Applicant for the following concerns:
a. Why did the Respondent allegedly advise the Applicant’s counsel that their intentions of placing the child with the Applicant had not changed, when documents show a decision had already been made;
b. What the Society’s definition of “kin” is, whether it has recently changed, how it defined the status of the Applicant and whether this position had ever changed.
c. Why it commissioned a report from another therapist on the Applicant’s relationship with the child when the existing therapist was fully involved in witnessing the relationship between the Applicant and the child.
d. How it defined an “out of care” placement.
e. Why the second home assessment was cancelled; and
f. Why it closed her foster care file as indicated in a letter from the Respondent to the Applicant dated August 31, 2024.
CONCLUSION
5The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was not provided reasons for issue 4a, and 4d above.
6The Applicant was provided reasons on issues 4b, 4c, 4e, 4f, above.
ANALYSIS
7The Applicant is the sister of a foster parent for the child, V.
8In June 2023, the Applicant submitted an application to the Respondent to become a foster parent. Around the same time, the Applicant submitted a separate parenting plan for V.
9The Respondent made decisions on how to proceed with both applications.
10On August 31, 2023, the Respondent sent the Applicant a letter which stated that the foster file was being closed.
11With respect to the application for V, there have been multiple court proceedings focused on the protection, care, and custody. The Applicant is a party to some of these proceedings and has been provided with disclosure related to those. The care and custody of V was decided by Justice Smith, of the Superior Court of Justice, on May 12, 2025 (collectively referred to as “the Court Proceedings”).
12An application deemed eligible under section 120(4)5 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only whether an Applicant has been provided with reasons for decisions that affect the Applicant’s interest. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices or how those decisions were applied or carried out. Concerns about a society’s general practices are not ones contemplated by the Act. The right to reasons under the Act means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests.
13In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:
… 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 decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.
Issue a) Why did the Respondent allegedly advise the Applicant’s counsel that their intentions of placing the child with the Applicant had not changed, when documents show a decision had already been made?
14The Applicant alleges that the Respondent advised her counsel that its intentions to place V with the Applicant had not changed. She has provided two separate emails from her counsel to her as evidence that she was in fact provided this information by her counsel. She submits that based on the Respondent’s internal records, and court documentation, her lawyer was intentionally misled. She alleges that in actuality, steps were being taken to place the child with another person and not with the Applicant.
15There was no evidence presented to dispute the fact that the Applicant’s counsel was told that the Respondent was still intending to place V with the Applicant. The Respondent also did not dispute that the Applicant was not told that there was a different placement for V being prepared for. Instead, the Respondent submits that it could not tell the Applicant at the time about the other placement due to privacy constraints. Further, the Respondent submits that the Applicant was eventually made a party to court proceedings where she was provided with all of the information about why and when another placement was being considered.
16I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant was eventually told why she was no longer being considered. I also find that the Respondent would have been prevented in advising the Applicant that another placement was being considered. However, that is not the issue. The question to be answered is whether the Respondent provided reasons to the Applicant on why it told her counsel that its intention was to place V with the Applicant. Even after the Applicant was provided disclosure, there has been no evidence provided to show that the Respondent provided reasons to the Applicant on why it told the Applicant’s lawyer this.
17I find that the Applicant was not provided reasons for this issue.
Issue b) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for what its definition of “kin” was, whether it had changed, how it defined the status of the Applicant and whether its position had changed?
18The Applicant alleges that she was never provided an accurate definition of “kin,” that the definition seemed to change, and that she was never provided a clear understanding of why she was once considered kin, but then that definition changed.
19The Respondent submits that it provided the Applicant with a clear explanation of what “kin” meant on multiple occasions and reasons why she was not considered kin.
20The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the Respondent applied the right definition or whether they applied it correctly.
21The Applicant points to internal documents which use the words “kin assessment” when describing the process she was undergoing, as well as a letter from the Respondent’s counsel that indicated that she was receiving his letter because she fit the definition of “parent” which now includes those who are kin caregivers and/or those who have access to the child, as evidence that she was considered kin by the Respondent and never provided reasons for why that changed.
22Respondent Foster Care Worker, N.C’s evidence was that on June 12, 2023, she had a conversation with the Applicant and discussed the definition of kin. A contact log describing this conversation provides a lengthy explanation and examples of who is considered kin. It also describes an acknowledgement from the Applicant that she understood the explanation provided.
23Respondent Child Protection Worker, M. T’s evidence was that a conversation took place on June 22, 2023, as supported by a contact log. Within the conversation, the Applicant requested to be considered kin. M.T’s evidence is that she explained the definition of kin and that the Applicant would not be considered kin.
24I find the evidence of the Respondent’s employees clear. The Respondent has provided the Applicant with the definition of kin on multiple occasions, and the reasons why she was not considered kin.
Issue c) Was the Applicant provided reasons by the Respondent for why it commissioned a report from another therapist on the Applicant’s relationship with the child when the existing therapist was fully involved in witnessing the relationship between the Applicant and the child?
25The Applicant argues that V had a long-standing relationship with an Equine Therapist. The Equine Therapist had witnessed the Applicant’s relationship with V and could have spoken with first-hand knowledge of the relationship. Despite this, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent commissioned a report from another therapist to provide an opinion on her suitability as a foster parent. The Applicant argues that she was not provided reasons for why the Respondent made this decision.
26The Respondent submits that the Equine therapist is not a registered psychotherapist. The report that the Applicant takes issue with was done by a registered psychotherapist who was seeing V and was submitted for the Court Proceedings. Regardless of why a report was commissioned, the Respondent submits that V was not in the Applicant’s care at the time, and so there was no obligation for it to tell the Applicant that a report was being commissioned, by whom or why. Further, given V was not in the Applicant’s care, that information was protected by Part X of the Act.
27The Applicant has provided, as part of her documentary evidence, an affidavit by a worker of the Respondent for the Court Proceedings. Within this affidavit, the worker outlines the role of the psychotherapist, why she was providing a report, and the recommendations contained in the report.
28I agree with the Respondent. The information being requested was personal information. Part X of the Act establishes the rules that service providers must follow in relation to the collection, use, disclosure and managing of personal information. The decision to retain a therapist, and the reasons for which it did so, would not have been appropriate to share with the Applicant. And even if that were not so, the Applicant was provided with the reasons for why the Respondent commissioned the report as part of the disclosure required in the Court Proceedings.
29I find that the Applicant was provided with reasons for this issue.
Issue d) Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with its definition of an “out of care” placement?
30The Applicant argues that the central question for this issue is what does an out of care placement mean and does that category even exist in law. She submits that a Respondent worker, R.F advised her that an “out of care” placement was like fostering but without renumeration. When she asked for further clarification, R.F told her to ask her lawyer. Her evidence was that when she asked her lawyer what this meant, the Applicant’s lawyer did not know, increasing the confusion.
31The Respondent argues that the Applicant was in fact provided with a definition of “out of care” placement and has conceded to such.
32Again, the role of the Board is not to determine whether a decision was made correctly or incorrectly. In this case, whether the Respondent improperly used the term “out of care” placement. Rather, the CFSRB’s jurisdiction is narrowly focused on whether a definition and explanation were provided in a way that would allow the Applicant to understand why and how decisions were made.
33The Applicant feels she was provided with multiple different definitions and explanations of what her official classification or designation was in relation to V. It is true that within the documentation provided, there are both references to kin assessments and out of care assessments, which seem to be from where the Applicant’s confusion stems.
34As I have determined above, the Respondent provided clear explanation to the Applicant that she was not kin. In fact, there were multiple attempts to explain as well as examples to illustrate clearly what was meant by the word kin and kin assessments. Given the level of explanation provided, I would have expected the same guidance in describing what the Applicant’s actual classification was and type of assessment she would need to undergo. This explanation would have been crucial to allow her to understand not just why she was not considered kin, but why the assessments were proceeding under a different classification and what that meant.
35The Respondent has provided no evidence that there was any attempt to explain the Applicant’s relationship or assessment process after she expressed confusion and asked for clarification.
36As such, I find that the Applicant did not receive a definition for what was meant by an out of care assessment that was sufficient enough to allow her to understand the decision that was being made.
Issue e) Was the Applicant provided with reasons by the Respondent for why the second home assessment was cancelled?
37The Applicant alleges that she was not provided reasons for why a second home assessment was cancelled.
38The Respondent submits that a reason was provided. In the alternative, the Applicant was provided with reasons in the form of the disclosure.
39On August 14, 2023, R.F emailed the Applicant to reschedule an assessment stating that “something had come up.” The following day, the Applicant emailed R.F to gain clarity on whether rescheduling would cause any issues. R.F responded that it would not be a problem to move the meeting until later the next week. A second assessment was never scheduled. The Applicant’s evidence is that she did not find out why this assessment was cancelled until she received disclosure for the Court Proceedings.
40I agree with the Applicant. “Something came up” is not adequate to allow the Applicant to understand the decision to reschedule the assessment. However, as conceded in her testimony, the Applicant found out the reason why the meeting was cancelled when provided with disclosure in connection with the Court Proceedings. Given this, there are no further remedies that can be provided.
f) Was the Applicant provided with reasons for why the Respondent closed her foster care file as indicated in a letter from the Respondent to the Applicant dated August 31, 2024?
41The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not provided her with reasons for why her foster care file was closed.
42The Respondent submits that the Applicant has been provided reasons.
43On August 29, 2023, Respondent Foster Care Worker, M.S wrote to the Applicant stating, “given you are currently in the process of an assessment with [R.F] we will not be pursuing the foster care assessment”. M.S sent a second email on September 6, 2023, stating “given the Society can’t pursue with two assessments at once, it has been decided that the Foster care assessment file would be closed.”
44I find that the Respondent provided reasons for the closure of the foster care file.
ORDER
45The Application is upheld in part.
46Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with:
a. Detailed written reasons for why it advised the Applicant’s counsel that its intentions of placing V with the Applicant had not changed; and
b. Written explanation for how it defines “out of care” placement.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
47Pursuant 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.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member