CG v. North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, 2025 CFSRB 36

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CG Applicant

-and-

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: March 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 36 Indexed As: CG v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CG, Applicant Self-represented

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Sonia Migneault, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”). The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

2The Applicant was approved as a foster parent in November 2023 and provided respite care for a seven-month-old child who was in the care of the Respondent (the “Child”).

3The Applicant was approved by the Respondent as an adoptive family on April 4, 2024.

4On April 15, 2024, the Applicant received an email from her Adoption Worker asking her to complete a form called a “Profile Summary of Adoptive Family”. The Adoption Worker explained in the email that this form was used for “selection meetings when we have children available.” The Applicant testified that she had been asked in the past to update her profile when she was being put forward as a potential adoptive parent for a child who had become available and assumed that this was once again the case.

5A meeting took place on May 3, 2024, to select a family to place the Child with while awaiting for the Child to become available for adoption (the “Selection Meeting”).

6The Applicant was advised by the Respondent that her name was in fact put forward as a potential adoptive family for the Child at the Selection Meeting, but that she was ultimately not selected as the chosen family. She alleges that, among other things, there was a lack of information, policies, procedures, and transparency around the process.

7At an October 16, 2024, Pre-Hearing, five separate complaints were identified.

8A full-day oral hearing was held by videoconference on February 21, 2025.

9Prior to this Application, the Applicant filed a formal complaint with the Respondent and attended an Internal Complaints Review Panel meeting on June 17, 2024 (“ICRP Meeting”). She received a summary letter of the meeting on June 24, 2024 (“ICRP Letter”).

ISSUES

10The five issues for determination are whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests for the following complaints:

1. its decision not to place the Child with the Applicant as a “foster-with-a-view” placement in April or May 2024;
2. its failure to advise the Applicant of the Selection Meeting held for the Child, that she was being presented, and that she was not chosen;
3. its decision regarding the selection criteria deeming a two-parent chosen family a more appropriate fit than her family and how the chosen family can better meet the Child’s special needs;
4. why a list of recommendations arising from the ICRP Meeting was not shared with her; and
5. its failure to provide all written policies related to the Respondent’s adoption, foster-with-a-view, and foster care processes when she requested them.

RESULT

11In respect of Issue 1, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision not to place the Child with the Applicant as a “foster-with-a-view” placement in April or May 2024. However, the reasons were not sufficient to allow her to understand why and how the decision was made.

12In respect of Issues 2 to 5, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with sufficient reasons for its decisions, largely after the Applicant brought forward her Application, and these complaints are dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests?

13The material and submissions relied upon by the Applicant includes various email communications with Respondent Workers, the formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Review Panel (the “Panel”) Application, the ICRP Letter, and her testimony of her recollections of discussions during meetings with Respondent workers. Amongst others, the meetings relied upon are:

1. May 24, 2024, telephone meeting between the Applicant and Sylvie Gravel, Adoption Worker for the Respondent;
2. June 3, 2024, 2024 telephone meeting between the Applicant and Angie Gignac, Service Manager for the Respondent;
3. July 17, 2024, Microsoft Teams meeting between the Application and Josee Belanger, Director of Services for the Respondent.

14The materials relied upon by the Respondent include the ICRP Letter as well as a letter from the Respondent to the Applicant dated February 10, 2025 that addressed the five issues confirmed after the Pre-hearing and in which the Respondent attempted to provide reasons for most, if not all, of the Applicant’s complaints (“February 10 Letter”). The Respondent similarly relies on the testimony of the same Respondent workers as the Applicant as to the recollection of the discussions during the three meetings.

Issue 1 - The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with sufficient reasons for its decision not to place the Child with the Applicant as a “foster-with-a-view” placement

15The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for its decision to not place the Child with her as a “foster-with-a-view” placement.

16The Respondent’s submissions are three-fold: a) there is no formal “foster-with a view” program, and it advised the Applicant as such; b) it is precluded from providing the Applicant with information about why she was not selected over the other family as it would breach privacy legislation and requirements; and c) regardless, it has provided the Applicant with as much information and reasons as allowable under relevant privacy legislation and requirements.

17Ms. Gignac testified that she explained over the phone to the Applicant on June 3, 2024, that the Respondent did not have an exclusive foster-with-a-view program, but it did provide that option to prospective adoptive parents. Josee Belanger testified that the on July 17, 2024, the Applicant again voiced that she was unclear on whether fostering with a view was a Society program or not. Ms. Belanger explained to the Applicant that the Respondent does not have a foster with a view program, rather, it is an option that an adoptive parent could opt into.

18At the hearing, Respondent Counsel clarified that at the time of the Selection Meeting, the Child was not available for adoption so a foster with a view program option, even informally, was not offered to the Applicant. The Selection Meeting was held to determine where to place the Child while waiting for the Child to become available for adoption.

19It is understandable why the Applicant would be confused by the reason provided to her that there was no official “foster-with-a-view” program when in practice, it appears that the Selection Meeting was in fact determining a placement with a view for adoption, albeit not through a formal program. As such, I do not believe that this answer provided enough clarity to the Applicant to understand the decision on this basis alone.

20The Respondent further argues that it was precluded from providing the Applicant with the information that she wanted, or in the alternative, it provided everything that it could.

21According to the Applicant’s evidence presented, Ms. Gravel shared that the Applicant was not chosen as the preferred family for the Child as the Child’s “needs were too great.” The Applicant challenged the rationale and basis for this determination. Ms. Gravel confirmed the Applicant’s general recollection during her oral testimony. The February 10 Letter reiterates this, stating, “Ms. Gravel also advised you that [the Respondent] had to consider the level of high needs of the child and determine who could best meet those needs”.

22Ms. Gignac confirmed that she did not have any recommendations for the Applicant to increase her chance of being selected as an adoptive parent and that there were no concerns about her capacity or training. Her profile was presented as she was seen as a good match for the Child. Ms. Gignac stated that the Respondent had to consider the level of needs of the Child and determine who could best meet those needs. Ms. Gignac also advised that she could not provide information about the family that was ultimately chosen as she was restricted by privacy legislation. The Applicant was also informed in the ICRP Letter that information may be limited due to privacy requirements.

23In her Application and evidence, the Applicant has been very clear that she is looking for clarification on what more she could have done or changed to have increased her chances of being selected as the chosen family for the Child or another child in the future. She detailed multiple other selection meetings where she had been presented and not selected as the chosen family for other children. Her requests at this point were to better understand the process of how a family is selected to be the adoptive parent for a child who is available for adoption, understand why she is not being selected, and know what she might be able to change or improve on. She is specifically seeking clarification of whether the fact that she is single is a contributing factor. Instead, the “reasons” the Respondent provided for why the Applicant was not selected as the family for the Child was that the Child’s needs were too great and that there was nothing that she needed to change for future children.

24In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at paragraph 13, 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.

25In this matter, I agree with the Applicant that the reasons provided were not sufficient for her to understand the decision made about how families are selected as adoptive parents and why she has not been successful at being selected. The Respondent argues that it cannot provide further information without breaching the privacy of another family or the Child. However, general information such as the factors the Respondent considers in determining the best interests of a child and how various factors may be weighted in different situations can be provided without breaching any privacy concerns. Information of this nature would allow the Applicant to understand the types of factors that are taken into consideration when deciding how to best meet an individual child’s needs and help her to understand the ultimate decision with respect to the Child.

26I find that the Respondent has failed to provide the Applicant with sufficient reasons on why she was not selected as the chosen family for the Child.

Issue 2 - The Respondent provided the Applicant reasons for why it did not advise her that a selection meeting was being held for the Child, that she was being presented, and that she was not chosen.

27The Applicant alleges that her family profile was presented for the Child at a Selection Meeting she had no knowledge of. She further alleges that the Respondent failed to provide reasons for why she was not told about the meeting, that her profile would be presented, or that she was not chosen.

28The Respondent concedes that they did not advise the Applicant of the Selection Meeting in advance or that her profile was being presented. However, it argues that it provided reasons for these decisions after the meeting occurred and that she was ultimately not chosen.

29The Applicant testified that Ms. Gravel, disclosed to her during their call on May 24, 2024, that the Selection Meeting had in fact taken place, that the Applicant’s profile was submitted and that she was not chosen. This conversation was confirmed by the oral testimony of Ms. Gravel. She also testified that waiting to inform prospective adoptive parents until after a selection meeting is held is normal practice.

30Further, Ms. Gignac’s evidence at the hearing, which went unchallenged, was that during her meeting with the Applicant she explained that prospective adoptive parents who are not a child’s caregiver or care provider are generally not advised of a selection meeting or who will be presented as a matter of practice. Rather, each of the prospective families have one Respondent representative at the meeting (their Adoption Worker).

31This information was reiterated to the Applicant in the February 10 Letter.

32Based on the above, I find that the Applicant was provided with reasons for the decision to not tell her about the Selection Meeting, that her profile would be presented prior to the meeting occurring and that she was not chosen.

Issue 3 - The Respondent was precluded from providing reasons for its decision regarding the selection criteria deeming a two-parent chosen family a more appropriate fit for the Child and how the chosen family better met the Child’s needs.

33The Respondent concedes that they did not provide reasons regarding why a two-parent family was chosen for the Child and how that family could better meet the Child’s special needs. Rather, they provided reasons to the Applicant why they could not provide the information requested.

34Ms. Gignac advised the Applicant on June 3, 2024, that she could not provide information as to the qualifications of the other candidates. The ICRP Letter informed the Applicant that privacy legislation and requirements may also limit what information can be provided.

35Further, the February 10 Letter states “the selection criteria at the May 3, 2024, selection meeting was based on the needs of the child. [the Respondent] cannot share any further information without disclosing, without authority, the personal information of the child and of the chosen family.”

36I am persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions on this issue. The concern here is very different than the complaint above. Whereas the previous concerns asked about qualifications about the Applicant herself, this one is specifically seeking information about another family and how they compare to the Applicant. This cannot be provided without divulging private information about the chosen family.

37I find that although the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons why another family was chosen, they were precluded from doing so.

Issue 4 - The Respondent provided reasons for why a list of recommendations arising from the ICRP Meeting was not shared with her.

38The ICRP Letter summarized the ICRP Meeting and provided approximately four recommendations. The Applicant alleges that there were many more recommendations made by the Panel that were only provided to the Respondent, but the Respondent has refused to provide them to her. The Applicant complains that the Respondent has not provided a reason for why she has not been provided with the complete list of recommendations that the Panel made.

39The Respondent concedes that it received additional recommendations from the Panel than what has been provided to the Applicant in the ICRP Letter. Those recommendations included enhancing policies and communication. The Respondent has not provided those additional recommendations to the Applicant. The Respondent argues that they have advised the Applicant of the reasons for why they did not provide these additional recommendations.

40According to the evidence of Ms. Belanger, the Applicant has not been provided with a copy of the additional recommendations made by the Panel as the recommendations do not pertain to her directly or to her interests. However, on July 17, August 1, and August 26, 2024, Ms. Belanger informed the Applicant of the Respondent’s intention to implement the recommendations made by the Panel, including those relating to internal matters.

41The February 10 Letter reiterated that the Applicant was provided with the ICRP Letter which provided the recommendations made by the ICRP that related directly to her and added that the Applicant was not entitled to receive internal communications and memorandums relating to operational issues, the subject of other recommendations.

42I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons why it did not provide the additional Panel recommendations to her.

Issue 5 - The Respondent provided reasons for its alleged failure to provide the Applicant with all written policies related to the Society’s adoption, foster-with-a-view, and foster care processes when requested.

43The Applicant alleges that she has requested copies of various policies from the Respondent on multiple occasions. She has yet to receive any.

44The Respondent concedes that they have not provided the Applicant with all of the requested policies, but argues that, where a policy was not provided, it has provided her with reasons why it has not.

45The Respondent submits that for many of the items requested by the Applicant, the Respondent simply does not have a policy for it. Specifically, there is no policy for foster-with-a-view or for adoption selection criteria. On July 17, 2024, Ms. Belanger advised the Applicant that there was no policy on adoption criteria or a foster-with-a-view program.

46This was reiterated in the February 10 Letter. This letter added that the Applicant would have received all the policies related to the foster care process when she first opened her home as a foster care provider. I note that Ms. Belanger also testified that she shared with the Applicant that the Respondent will be creating and implementing new policies in accordance with recommendations from the Panel with an expected completion date of end of year 2025.

47I find that the Respondent provided reasons for its failure to provide the Applicant with requested policies.

CONCLUSION

48In respect of Issue 1, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not place the Child with her as a “foster-with-a-view” placement, however, those reasons were not sufficient to allow her to understand the process of how a family is selected to be an adoptive family to a child, understand why she is not being selected, and know what more can be done she can do in the future. I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient reasons for all other complaints.

ORDER

49The Application is upheld in part.

50Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for its decision not to place the child with the Applicant as a “foster-with-a-view” placement in April or May 2024. The reasons must provide a sufficient explanation of the process of how an adoptive family is selected, the various factors that are considered when determining the best interests of a child during selection meetings, and how those factors are weighed, so that the Applicant can understand how these decisions are made.

51The remainder of this Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

52Pursuant 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.

53Dated at Mississauga, March 20, 2025.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley Member