CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JJ and VB Applicants
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sonya Vellenga Date: March 06, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 30 Indexed as: JJ and VB v The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
JJ and VB, Applicants Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Respondent Self-represented
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 January 05, 2026, prehearing, the parties reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) is comprised of 5 main terms. Term 2 was declarative in nature and did not require a response from the Respondent. The Agreement includes an implementation date of February 5, 2026, and a noncompliance date of February 9, 2026.
3The Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant and the Respondent on January 30, 2026. The letter dated January 29, 2026 (“January 29 Letter”) was in response to the Agreement.
4On February 09, 2026, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB (“February 09 Letter”), copying the Respondent. In her February 09 Letter, the Applicant appeared to allege non-compliance with the Agreement. Specifically, the Applicant stated that “in several areas, the explanations do not fully address my concerns or do not accurately reflect what occurred, and I am seeking some clarification”. The Applicant did not refer to which terms she believed were not complied with however, the Applicant provided enough information in her February 09 Letter to determine which terms she is referencing with respect to non-compliance.
5Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure outlines that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. A review in writing is an efficient and expeditious approach when no additional evidence is needed for me to decide the matter. Based on the correspondence provided to the CFSRB by the Respondent and the Applicant I found that I could decide the issue of non-compliance in writing, without a further videoconference.
ISSUE
6The issue is: Has the Respondent complied with Terms 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement?
RESULT
7The CFSRB finds that the Respondent has complied with Terms 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement. As such, the Application is closed as settled.
ANALYSIS
Term 1
8Term 1 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining: How the parent’s history is considered in the investigative process, and that the Respondent will review the audio recording in its totality and will re-visit the request for a correction and will provide reasons for the decision upon this review.
9In the January 29 Letter, the Respondent detailed how the parent’s history is considered in the investigative process. The Respondent referenced the Ontario Child Protection Standards (2026) in their reply.
10In the January 29 Letter, the Respondent stated that they reviewed the audio recording again in its totality and that it is their opinion that the “information contained in the file had been recorded based on professional views and opinions and made in good faith (and that the information is a) product of skilled analysis and judgement”. The Respondent asserted that they will not correct their files on this basis.
11In the February 09 Letter, the Applicant denied disclosing sexual assault trauma and requested that the Respondent identify the specific portion of the audio recording the Society is relying on for this professional decision.
12The request to identify the specific portion of the audio recording was not identified in Term 1 of the January 5 Agreement.
13I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 1.
Term 3
14Term 3 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant providing clarity and reasons regarding the allegation of harm and the use of a tablet and a description of how historical events and new investigations are separate and distinct from each other.
15In the January 29 Letter, the Respondent detailed how the historical allegation regarding the use of a tablet as a tool to commit harm was considered in the new investigation.
16The Respondent noted that the “tablet incident” was not “added and verified as there was no information to suggest there was a current risk”.
17In her February 09 Letter, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide answers as to “how the disclosure was assessed or why it was not addressed more directly”.
18The Respondent did note in the January 29 Letter that the child “did not report any current concerns”. It is evident from this statement that the child was interviewed. Furthermore, it is evident from the January 29 Letter that the Society held a ‘verification conference’ in which the information was assessed, and a decision was made.
19While the Applicant rejects the Respondent’s decision to consider the information as historical given that it was newly raised with the worker, I find that Respondent has provided an answer in their January 29 Letter that meets their obligations under this term.
20Furthermore, the Applicant identifies that she believes that additional information is required from the Respondent as to how investigative material is “evaluated”. I find that the Respondent provided an answer in their January 29 Letter that complies with their obligation as outlined in Term 3.
Term 4
21Term 4 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide information on the Society’s approach to investigations regarding young children under the age of two and will identify factors that are considered when determining the frequency of contact during an investigation.
22In the January 29 Letter, the Respondent detailed how they approach investigations regarding young children under the age of two. The Respondent stated that this policy requires this level of contact “during the investigation”. The Respondent also noted that “Any departure from the Society’s policy is made with supervisory consultation and documented in the record with clear clinical rationale for that decision”.
23In their response, the Respondent listed the factors that are considered during this investigative phase and stated the following: “The Child Protection Worker is required to see the family minimally once every 2 weeks during the investigation in order to ensure that the infant has a safe sleep arrangement, assess any formal and informal supports the family has, consider the involvement of additional supports such as a Public Health Nurse, explore any concerns regarding domestic violence in the family, administer screening tools as needed and facilitate a community conference (meeting) if required”.
24In her February 09 Letter, the Applicant alleged that the Society did not follow the two weeks contact policy and that she had an infant in her home under 24 months.
25I find that the Respondent met their obligations in Term 4 as they outlined the level of contact required during the investigative phase and the factors considered. It appears that the Applicant referenced her experience of ongoing service in her February 09 Letter: “Some workers attended regularly, while others did not”. Term 4 of the Settlement Agreement did not specify that the Respondent provide information regarding the frequency of contact with young children beyond the investigative phase.
Term 5
26Term 5 of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent shall provide information to the Applicant regarding the status of the Society’s investigation (allegations of sexual harm), the verification decision and the reasons for the decision.
27In the January 29 Letter, the Respondent provided information regarding the status of the Society’s investigation, the verification decision and the reasons for the decision.
28In her February 09 Letter, the Applicant noted that she is “struggling to reconcile those positions”. On the one hand, the Respondent identifies that the Society has closed its investigation and did not verify sexual abuse by a primary caregiver and on the other hand, according to the Applicant, the “evidence was still under review by police and forensics”.
29While I appreciate that the Applicant finds the two service directions, that of the Society and that of the Police, to be conflicting, I also note that the CFSRB does not have the authority to compel the Society to speak for the Police. The Respondent does note that the “Society and the police are 2 independent entities, each with their own internal policies and subject to different statutory requirements and burdens of proof”. Furthermore, the Respondent identifies that the “police have a duty to report any child protections concerns they become aware of during the course of their investigations”.
30I find that Term 5 of the Agreement as set out in the Settlement Agreement dated January 5, 2026, has been met.
CONCLUSION
31Term 2 did not require a response from the Respondent and that for the reasons set out above, I have concluded that the Respondent met its obligations under the remaining terms of the settlement agreement. Having found that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Agreement, the Application must now be closed.
ORDER
32The Application is closed as settled.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
33Pursuant 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.
Dated, March 06, 2026.
Sonya Vellenga
Sonya Vellenga
Member