RG v. Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2026 CFSRB 6

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RG Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie Date: January 05, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 6 Indexed as: RG v Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

RG, 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”).

ISSUE

2The issues before the CFSRB are:

• Issue #1: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about services sought or received from the Respondent related to neglect, punitive parenting of the Child, deprivation of food and stimulation to the Child, and the Child’s behavioural issues corroborated by professionals, and the Respondent did not provide reasons for its decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns about those services.
• Issue #2: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its decision to exclude her from planning conversations related to the Child and it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for this exclusion.
• Issue #3: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its failure to provide her with a Kinship Service Agreement during her provision of kinship care to the Child between April 2023 and August 2024 and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for failing to provide her with a KSA.

RESULT

3The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns in relation to issues #1, 2 and 3.

4The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was provided with reasons for its decisions relating to issues #1 and 2.

5The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient and timely reasons for its decisions relating to issue #3, but there are no further remedies to be provided as the information was provided in the course of this Application.

ANALYSIS

6On July 18, 2025, the Applicant filed a complaint with the CFSRB alleging systemic failure and procedural unfairness by the Respondent in managing her concerns for her grandchild (the Child) since 2017. The Child had lived with her, her husband and daughter from April 2023 as ordered by the Superior Court of Justice in an Interim Supervision Order to Kin (the “Supervision Order”) on April 11, 2023 until the Respondent placed the Child on an extended visit with his father on August 27, 2024.

7On October 23, 2025, the CFSRB determined that this matter would proceed in a hybrid format. The hearing format is primarily in writing with a video-conference hearing to allow for rebuttal evidence by the Applicant and to provide an opportunity for clarification of any issues raised in the written material. This was deemed necessary to accommodate the Applicant who told the CFSRB that she had a learning disability that made it difficult to participate.

8The Applicant provided her written submissions, consisting of an affidavit, a request for remedy, a timeline of key events as well as a list of exhibits (A to M, but no I). The Respondent provided its written submissions on November 28, 2025. These materials are all evidence before the CFSRB. The hearing was held on December 12, 2025.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Scope of available remedies before the CFSRB

9The CFSRB finds that the relief being sought by the Applicant in her submissions is outside of the jurisdiction and scope of the CFSRB’s mandate. In the Applicant’s Request for Remedy, the Applicant requests the following from the CFSRB.

1. Find that the Respondent failed to comply with its statutory and procedural obligations under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and applicable Ministry Directives governing Kinship Service placements.

2. Acknowledge the harm and distress caused by these failures, including the lack of a formal Kinship Service Agreement, inconsistent communication, and the unsafe handling of the Child’s placement and removal.

3. Direct the Society to:

a. Provide a written apology acknowledging the procedural and emotional harm caused to the Applicant and her family;

b. Review and correct its internal practices for documenting Kinship Service Agreements and ensuring caregiver safety planning;

c. Provide the Applicant with a full and accurate accounting of financial reimbursements and payments made during the kinship placement;

d. Confirm completion of this review to the Ministry (MCCSS) within 90 days.

4. Recommend that the Ministry consider a broader review of CAS Ottawa’s handling of kinship files and its compliance with the Ministry’s Kinship Service Directive CW-005-23.

10In her affidavit, the Applicant also requests additional relief, including a directive that the Respondent correct its records and compensate or reimburse caregivers in similar circumstances in accordance with CW-005-23.

11Section 120(7) of the Act sets out the limited scope of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear complaints related to services sought or received from the Respondent:

After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

12The CFSRB therefore does not have jurisdiction to provide the relief as requested by the Applicant. To be clear, the CFSRB does have jurisdiction to determine whether the Respondent failed to hear her concerns and failed to provide reasons, and, if so, to direct the Respondent to provide reasons.

13The CFSRB also notes that, through mediation, the parties would have had greater flexibility in negotiating remedies, not limited by legislation. For example, the parties could have agreed to an apology letter.

ANALYSIS

Issue #1: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about services sought or received from the Respondent related to neglect, punitive parenting of the Child, deprivation of food and stimulation to the Child, and the Child’s behavioural issues corroborated by professionals, and the Respondent did not provide reasons for its decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns about those services.

14The Applicant submitted that she sought trauma-informed services for the Child, but that there was shifting communication and contradictory decisions from the Respondent. In her affidavit, she writes that she asked for a Kinship Service Agreement and that she made this request in writing by email on May 26, 2023. This request is item 8 of 9 in her email that was attached as exhibit C to her affidavit. She submits that without that contract, her family lacked the written terms, consistent funding and legal protections required under the Act.

15According to CPIN records that were in Exhibit A to the Applicant’s affidavit, on April 17, 2023, a Respondent worker met with the Applicant and her family and reviewed “finances”. The notes include reference to $1000 for a start up fund, $250 quarterly payments, temporary care allowance and Canada Child Tax Benefit.

16The May 30, 2023 CPIN notes show that the Applicant had expressed frustration about the support from the Respondent. There is reference to information on the website indicating that the Respondent provides funding for kids, and that a worker noted that with Kinship, there are some supports via quarterly funds, start up funds, but a child tax application needs to be completed. The worker further explained that the Respondent was there to support the Applicant and her family in accessing services and navigating the system.

17The Applicant testified that she asked for all communications to be in writing. In exhibit G of the Applicant’s affidavit, there is an email dated July 30, 2025 in which she writes:” As I have previously advised the Children’s Aid Society, I require all communications in writing due to documented disability accommodations related to anxiety and learning disabilities.” The CFSRB was not referred to any earlier documentary evidence of a request for written communications.

18The CFSRB notes that the Applicant asked the Respondent to send emails to her, her husband and her daughter at the same time so that they would be on the same page. This request for emails to be sent to all three was made in an email dated May 26, 2023 (in Exhibit C of the Applicant’s affidavit). This request is not a request that all communications be in writing. It is a request that, if an email is sent, it should be sent to all three family members. The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s wish to have all communications in writing, during the time the Child was in the Applicant’s care, is not clear in the documentary evidence. Because of this, it may be that the Respondent did not fully appreciate the importance of having communications in writing for the Applicant.

19The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s allegations in regard to issue #1 are without merit. According to its submissions, the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s care and that is evidenced by the Respondent commencing a Protection Application and removing the Child from the father’s care.

20The CFSRB agrees with the Respondent that their April 11, 2023 Application for Child Protection (Exhibit #1 of their submission) is evidence that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns. On page 7 of the Application, the Respondent indicates that the Applicant, her husband and daughter had “called the Society in the past, with regards to the treatment [the Child] receives from his parents”.

21As to whether the Respondent provided reasons for its decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns, the Respondent submits that there was continued communications with the Applicant and refers to the contact logs provided as exhibits to their submissions.

22The CFSRB finds that the contact logs do provide reasons regarding decisions made. For example, the May 8, 2024 log indicates that the Applicant wanted the Respondent to cancel the father’s access visits with the Child and that the Respondent discussed “how we cannot cancel them, as a plan ongoing, given the court order and the need to assess how [the father] is doing in visits”.

23The CFSRB finds that the written evidence shows that decisions were communicated to the Applicant, often in writing through email exchanges or documented in writing, such as the Supervision Order. For example, in a June 8, 2023 email to the Applicant, a Respondent worker writes that the Respondent is not funded for psychotherapy services, but that she would advocate strongly to provide as much support and funding as possible. The worker sent this email to the supervisor as well to see if there was anything else that could be provided in terms of support, or any potential avenues for funding. This shows that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about support, that the Respondent had financial constraints in this regard, and this was communicated in writing.

24The Applicant’s material and testimony at the hearing show that she did not fully appreciate her role following the Supervision Order and the extent of support that the Respondent could provide. She also referred to her learning disability as a reason for using different formats for this hearing. The Applicant felt that the Respondent did not communicate the reasons for its decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns about services she sought from the Respondent.

25The CFSRB finds that to determine if reasons were provided to the Applicant, the method of communication is important, and in this matter, the evidence does not clearly show that the Respondent had been notified of the Applicant’s need for accommodation (for clearer communications, in writing). In addition, the CFSRB notes that the Applicant had counsel around the time of the Child’s placement with her, who provided some explanations. Her husband and daughter could also have assisted in having communications clarified by the Respondent. The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions about services sought or received from the Respondent.

26Finally, in regard to the Applicant’s request for a Kinship Service Agreement, that issue is reviewed below under issue #3. The issue of funding and reimbursement for costs related to the Child, including trauma-informed services, are also reviewed under issue #3.

Issue #2: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its decision to exclude her from planning conversations related to the Child and it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for this exclusion.

27The Applicant submits that she did not know when the decision was made to place the Child with the father. In her affidavit, the Applicant writes that the breakdown of the Child’s placement occurred after repeated requests for support went unanswered.

28The May 2, 2025 CPIN notes also relate concerning behaviours on the part of the Child. The Worker writes that she told the Applicant that “the Permanency Plan at this point was a return to (the father’s) care” which would mean to increase levels of access for the father moving forward.

29According to CPIN notes, at a meeting on May 8, 2024, the Applicant and her daughter voiced their concerns about the Child’s father and the need for the Respondent to support them and to cancel access visits. The notes show that they were upset when the Respondent worker told them that they had to try to keep access on the schedule.

30The Applicant said that during a home meeting in late August 2024 about promised respite funding, she was told that no respite would be provided, despite previous assurances. She submits that she was unwell at the time, her husband had taken time off work to care for the Child, she could not afford urgent dental care for herself, and the Child had been physically aggressive. In her written submissions, the Applicant writes that she needed to regulate when she was informed that there would be no respite. CPIN notes from that visit indicate that the Applicant had yelled and slammed doors. According to the same notes, after the worker left, the Applicant’s daughter explained to the worker that the Applicant was still “raging,” and referred to it as “autism rage”. This led to a safety plan with the daughter taking the Child outside the home for the night. The Applicant said that she was told that the Child would be placed in foster care but the next day she was told that the Child had been returned to his father on an extended visit.

31The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s allegations in regard to this issue are without merit. According to their submissions, the Respondent heard the Applicant about the future care of Child and the decision to return the Child to his father was made based on the Applicant’s request to have the Child removed from her care.

32The Respondent submits that the Applicant assumed that the Child would be placed in foster care and that the relationship between the Applicant and the Respondent broke down when the Respondent placed the Child with the father. The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant herself requested to be excluded from planning conversations and referred to an email dated September 4, 2024. In this email, the Applicant wrote that once it was clear to her that the Respondent would return the Child to his father, she said that the Respondent could take the Child, and the Respondent should stop using her by wasting her time.

33The CFSRB find that the Respondent was able to demonstrate that the Applicant was heard to the extent she wanted to be heard. The CFSRB finds that exhibit H of the Applicant’s affidavit includes an email from the Applicant dated September 3, 2024 in which she relates various injuries arising from caring for the Child as well as other challenges. The CFSRB notes that the Applicant provided substantial evidence of the injuries she sustained, for example under exhibit M of her Affidavit, there are photographs of these injuries. There is also evidence of the Child’s aggressive behaviour with others such as in exhibit L. She ends with “The solution: you all said that it was to send him back to [the father].”

34In the response from the Respondent on the same date, a worker writes that she understood how hard it was on the Applicant’s household to care for the Child and the reason the Child was removed on August 25th was because the Applicant requested that he be removed from her care on that date. While the Applicant may not agree with the decision, the CFSRB finds that this constitutes reasons from the Respondent for its decision to place the Child with the father and not to involve the Applicant any further.

Issue #3: The Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its failure to provide her with a Kinship Service Agreement during her provision of kinship care to the Child between April 2023 and August 2024 and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for failing to provide her with a KSA.

35The Applicant submits that the Respondent told her that supports would be available once the placement of the Child stabilized. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent provided sporadic, limited financial support, including occasional quarterly $250 clothing payments, a one-time $1000 payment (start-up for a bed, mattress, dresser) and partial reimbursement for camps or therapy. She submits that in the Respondent’s CPIN record, the payments are qualified as “Kinship Service – Non-Contract – Rate 0.00.” She writes that despite this, there was no formal Kinship Service Agreement (KSA) between her and the Respondent. She submits that without such an agreement, she lacked the support that is provided with such an agreement. She also found that the absence of predictable support made it difficult to budget for the Child’s needs.

36The Applicant writes that she requested a KSA in writing on May 26, 2023. She said that she received a “Kinship Placement Letter” on May 30, 2023 which was actually an Outcome Plan used by the Respondent to outline responsibilities and that Kin were not funded. She submits that this practice was out of step of the ministry’s policy Directives (CW-004-23 and CW-005-23) which require a Children’s aid society to formalize and fund kinship service placements.

37The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s allegations in regard to this issue are without merit. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant had complained that she was not provided with a KSA. However, the Respondent’s position is that there is no KSA provided when a Child is placed with kin under a Supervision Order. A KSA is only provided when the Child is placed with the Kin as an “in-care” arrangement (i.e., when the Kin acts as a foster home).

38This third issue appears to be at the crux of much of the Applicant’s complaints. In reviewing the submissions, the CFSRB deemed it necessary to have the Respondent clarify the nature of the Applicant’s role and responsibilities in relation to the Child while in her care. This required an explanation about Kin Service versus Kin in Care. The Respondent referred to a summary on the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies website:

“How is kinship care different from kinship service?

“Both kinship care and kinship service are programs that allow Children and youth to be placed in the care of people they know, usually members of their extended family or community support group. The decision to pursue a kinship care placement rather than kinship service is typically driven by the protection needs of the Child. The key difference between these two programs is that a Child or youth cared for by a kinship service caregiver is not deemed to be in care. A kinship service family participates in a screening assessment that explores the family’s ability to meet the safety and well-being needs of the Child. A kinship service family is eligible for financial support from various Ontario government support programs. A kinship care provider is a caregiver who, like a licensed foster caregiver, is required to attend a provincially mandated pre-service training program and participate in a home study. Kinship care families receive the same financial and emotional support from a Child welfare agency as foster families.”

39The Respondent referred the CFSRB to sections 38 to 44 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 which apply to a kinship service (the type of arrangement in the Applicant’s situation), and to sections 125 to 132 applies to a kin in care arrangement (Placement of Children in foster homes).

40The Respondent submitted that where a Child was placed in a foster home, the Child remained under the care of the children’s aid society. Section 132 of the Regulation provides for a foster care service agreement which sets out respective roles as well as support services and financial arrangements for the care of a Child.

41The Respondent submitted that where a Child is placed with family members through a kinship service, the Respondent does not provide financial assistance, except through discretionary funding that may be available. While the Respondent submits that it does not have any financial obligation to reimburse family members for any expenses, there are special funds available that may be applied to some medical care or other special circumstances. The Respondent submits that because the funds are discretionary, that may explain why workers told the Applicant that they had to ask their supervisor if the Applicant could be reimbursed for some of the expenses for the Child, such as for trauma-informed services, that she incurred or hoped to pursue.

42The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant was not a kinship care provider, that she was not a caregiver who, like a licensed foster caregiver, is required to attend a provincially mandated pre-service training program and to participate in a home study. From the evidence in this matter, notably the Order, the CFSRB finds that the Applicant, her husband and daughter were in a kin service arrangement, and not a kin in care arrangement. The Respondent’s counsel explained to the Applicant in an email of October 16, 2025 that is included in Exhibit G of her affidavit that “there is no Kinship Agreement, as you describe it” and that the provisions of the Act that she cited in her October 13, 2025 email did not apply and have also been repealed.

43The Respondent submits that in the present case, the arrangement is represented in an Outcome Plan and in an Order of Supervision. The Respondent further submits that the various regulations and policies that the Applicant references in her correspondence and submissions are not applicable to her situation. The Respondent further submits that this was explained to her verbally. The Respondent included the 30-day Outcome Plan (period covered: April 11, 2023 to May 3, 2023) attached as Exhibit 4 to their written submissions and the Temporary Supervision Order of April 11, 2023 as Exhibit 5. The Plan provides an overview of the Child’s situation, including that the Child is placed with the paternal grandmother, paternal step-grandfather and paternal aunt, that the Supervision Order is for 6 months, that there are significant concerns about the Child’s mental health and behaviours, that the family members are worried about the Child, have incorporated various services and strategies to manage these behaviours and that they cannot clearly state whether they would be able to present a permanent plan for the child. This document does not refer to financial responsibilities.

44The CFSRB notes that the CPIN notes of May 30, 2023 indicate that the worker provided a copy of the Outcome Plan. This is consistent with an email exchange between the Applicant and her lawyer on June 5, 2023 (exhibit C of the Applicant’s affidavit). The Applicant writes that she received an “Agreement”. Her lawyer explains that “Although this document is titled “Agreement” it is actually and Outcome Plan.” The CFSRB also notes that the Applicant’s lawyer further explains in this email that the Applicant is financially responsible for the Child and that she is not entitled to reimbursement or funding from the Respondent.

45The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was provided with an Order and had the benefit of her lawyer’s advice. The CFSRB further finds that the evidence suggests that that the Applicant asked about a KSA when the Child was first placed in her care and that the Respondent clearly communicated the reason a KSA was not necessary only after the Applicant’s role as kin in service had terminated.

ORDER

46The CFSRB finds that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s concerns in relation to issues #1, 2 and 3.

47The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was provided with reasons for its decisions relating to issues #1 and 2.

48The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was not provided with sufficient and timely reasons for its decisions relating to issue #3, but there are no further remedies to be provided as the information was provided in the course of this Application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

49Pursuant 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, January 05, 2026.

Lise Henrie

Lise Henrie Vice-Chair