NK v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton, 2025 ONCFSRB 96

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

NK Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: July 29, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 96 Indexed As: NK v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). This decision decides whether the Respondent has complied with a May 30, 2025 Settlement Agreement.

background

2A potential settlement agreement was drafted during a May 29, 2025 Pre-Hearing/Mediation. The Applicant requested, and was granted, time to review the draft and to potentially seek legal advice. On May 30, 2025, the Applicant signed the Settlement Agreement.

3On June 30, 2025, the Respondent emailed a four-page letter to the Applicant. The letter listed the three issues set out in the Settlement Agreement and provided an explanation of the Respondent’s decisions regarding each issue. In a July 3, 2025 letter, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent had not complied with the Settlement Agreement.

4Rule 8 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure provides that the CFSRB may conduct hearings in a variety of formats. I have decided that it is appropriate to conduct this hearing in writing as no oral evidence is required to determine the issue of compliance.

5In reaching my conclusion on the issue of compliance, I have considered the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent’s June 30, 2025 letter, and the Applicant’s July 3, 2025 letter.

issue

6Has the Respondent complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement?

result

7I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The CFSRB file is closed as settled.

analysis

8The Settlement Agreement required the Respondent to write a letter to the Applicant, by no later than June 30, 2025, explaining its decisions regarding the following three issues:

• The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for their decision to remove the Child M, the Applicant’s granddaughter, from her care.

• The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for their support of a plan to place the Child M in a group home.

• The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons for their decision not to provide her with contact information for the Child M.

9In her July 3, 2025 letter alleging non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant did not identify any items in the Settlement Agreement for which the Respondent did not provide an explanation. Instead, she repeated her assertion that the Respondent had failed in its duties with respect to her granddaughter and she requested that her granddaughter be returned to her home.

10Where the child’s mother (who is the child’s legal guardian and substitute decision maker) has made decisions with which the Applicant disagrees, such as placing the child in a group home, the Applicant believes the Respondent should have intervened. The Applicant states that it would be in her granddaughter’s best interests to live with her rather than in a group home. The Respondent’s June 30, 2025 letter explains in detail how the decision was made to move the child from the Applicant’s home to a group home and the Respondent’s limited role in that decision making. I find that this explanation satisfies the Respondent’s obligation to explain its decisions regarding the first two issues identified in the Settlement Agreement.

11The Respondent’s June 30, 2025 letter also explains how, as the child’s legal guardian and substitute decision maker, the child’s mother “is the person who decides what information about [the child] is shared and who it is shared with. What this means is that, without the permission of [the child’s] mother, the Society is not legally permitted to share information with you about [the child’s] whereabouts.” I find that this explanation satisfies the Respondent’s obligations regarding the third issue identified in the Settlement Agreement.

12Finally, the Applicant complains that the Respondent’s letter was “deliberately late” because it was received on “the very last day in June.” The letter was provided, however, by the deadline set out in the Settlement Agreement. There was no requirement to provide the letter earlier than the June 30, 2025 deadline. Thus, I find that the timing of the letter does not amount to non-compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

13The Settlement Agreement required the Respondent to provide explanations related to three concerns of the Applicant. The Respondent did so, by the required date, and in some detail. Accordingly, I conclude the Respondent has complied with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

order

14The CFSRB file is closed as settled.

confidentiality order

15Pursuant 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.