CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SS Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: March 03, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 27 Indexed as: SS v Family and Children’s Services and Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).
2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on February 18, 2026.
3The Respondent submitted their Response on February 25, 2026.
4Within the Application and Response, the parties have submitted emails, letters, pamphlets and correspondence which summarized various meetings.
5Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.
ISSUE
6The issue drawn from this Application is: did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide her reasons regarding why they spoke to her son, who was 15 years old at the time, about a Voluntary Youth Service Agreement (“VYSA”), without her involvement or an investigation?
RESULT
7The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons.
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant alleges that she has not been heard or provided reasons as to why the Respondent spoke with her 15-year-old son and provided him with information about a VYSE. She argues that she was not notified prior to this meeting, and there was no investigation or verification of risk which should have precluded her.
9The Applicant alleges the Respondent has breached their statutory duty, is guilty of gross negligence, misfeasance, and multiple human rights violations. As a result, she requests the CFSRB to investigate the Respondent’s conduct; order corrective, family -centred planning; require formal clarification be sent to schools; mandate training for the Respondent; provide injunctive relief and financial compensation.
10The Respondent submits that it has in fact provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard as well as with written reasons for the decisions that it made. It seeks a full dismissal of the Application.
11An application deemed eligible under sections 120(4) 4 and 5 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only whether an Applicant was given an opportunity to have her concerns heard, and she was provided with reasons for decisions that affect the Applicant’s interest. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include a review of the alleged breaches the Applicant seeks and are listed in paragraph 9 above. Similarly, the CFSRB 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.
12If the CFSRB finds that the Respondent failed to meet its obligations under section 120(4) 4 or 5, the remedies that can be provided are limited to ordering the Respondent to provide written reasons for a decision. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to provide the remedies being sought by the Applicant as listed in paragraph 9 above.
13In determining whether the Respondent met it obligations under section 120(4) 4 and 5, the CFSRB must consider whether the Respondent took steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicated this to her so that she felt her concerns were taken seriously (P.O. v. Family and Children Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38), and provided a meaningful explanation about decision that affected her interests, providing sufficient detail to allow her to understand why and how a decision was made (JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8).
14For the reasons listed below, I find that the Respondent did in fact provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and was provided with sufficient written reasons.
ISSUE
15On January 6, 2026, a Case Processing Worker (“CPW”) of the Respondent’s met with the Applicant’s son for the purpose of a safety assessment at the home of an unrelated adult caregiver. During this meeting, the CPW left the adult caregiver a brochure that spoke of a VYSA, a VYSA contract and a Kinship package. The Respondent’s response indicates that it attempted to contact the Applicant via telephone after this meeting but was unsuccessful.
16On January 13, 2026, the Applicant had an initial meeting with the CPW to discuss the Applicant’s concerns. The Respondent’s Response indicates that the Applicant provided many documents, including notices from her son’s schools, photographs, text messages, as well as in depth explanation of her concerns. The Applicant also explained the situation which led to her son electing to stay at a friend’s house rather than at home with the Applicant’s and the fact that she felt the actions taken by the CPW on January 6 had stripped her of her parenting rights and ability to parent her child. This concern is confirmed in the Application of the Applicant.
17On January 14, 2026, the Applicant emailed the Respondent with a formal complaint requesting a further meeting. This email was provided in the Applicant’s Application and provides a detailed overview of the January 13 meeting, the answers that were provided to her and the questions and answers that were left unanswered by the Respondent. The email also listed 7 different remedies that the Applicant wanted to discuss. The Respondent replied via email the next day to schedule the meeting.
18An in-person meeting took place on January 22, 2026, with the Applicant, the CPW’s Manager, and the Respondent’s Director of Service. Next steps were agreed upon, including referrals to programs, school meetings, file review, the provision of a written response and the option for another in-person meeting.
19Another meeting occurred on January 28, 2026, to discuss further concerns that the Applicant had for her son.
20In a follow up letter to the Applicant from the Respondent on February 4, 2026, a summary of the discussion and answers to sixteen separate requests/ concerns from the January 22, 2026, was provided, including: what specific policy or provision of the Act staff relied on when providing information about VYSA to her son, when it is appropriate to provide this type of information to a minor and why was she not consulted before this information was provided to her son. The letter also provided information to the Applicant on how to escalate the complaint.
21A further meeting took place on February 12, 2026, with the Applicant, a CPW and the adult caregiver in the home where the Applicant’s son was staying. Goals and next steps were discussed.
22I find that the Respondent has provided multiple opportunities for the Applicant to have her concerns heard with various staff and in multiple formats. Further, written reasons were provided in a manner which would have allowed the Applicant to understand why a decision was made to meet with her son on January 6 and provide the information they did.
CONCLUSION
23I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard and was provided reasons.
ORDER
24The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
25Pursuant 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