DB v. Family and Children’s Services of York Region, 2025 CFSRB 101

BETWEEN:

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of York Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon

Date: August 06, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 101

Indexed As: DB v Family and Children’s Services of York Region (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

DB, Applicant

Bronwyn de Jong, Representative

Family and Children’s Services for York Region, Respondent

Alison Moonsie-Mohan, 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”).

2At the May 20, 2025, pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement is comprised of five terms (Terms 1 – 5). It includes an implementation date of June 30, 2025, and a non-compliance date of July 7, 2025.

3On June 26, 2025, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, alleging the Respondent had not complied with the Settlement Agreement (Applicant’s June Email).

4On July 14, 2025, the Respondent emailed the CFSRB, copying the Applicant, with submissions in response to the Applicant’s June Email. This included the Respondent’s letter to the Applicant dated June 13, 2025, responding to the Settlement Agreement (Respondent’s June 13 Letter) and E-mails from the Respondent to the Applicant.

AUGUST 5, 2025, NON-COMPLIANCE VIDEOCONFERENCE

5The CFSRB held a non-compliance videoconference on August 5, 2025, at which the parties made oral submissions further to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance.

6During the non-compliance videoconference, the Applicant agreed that the Respondent had complied with terms one, two and four of the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, the Applicant agreed that: the Respondent had attempted to convene a family planning meeting (Term 1); the Respondent had attempted to refer the Mother and the Child to their Family Intervention Team (Term 2); and the Respondent had provided the Applicant with disclosure of the records they were entitled to under Part X of the Act.

7The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had not complied with the third and fifth terms (Terms 3 and 5). The Respondent submitted that it had complied with these terms and relied on its correspondence filed with the CFSRB, including the Respondent’s June 13, 2025, letter.

ISSUE

8The issue is:

a. Has the Respondent complied with Terms 3 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement?

RESULT

9The CFSRB finds that the Respondent has complied with Terms 3 and 5 of the Settlement Agreement.

ANALYSIS

Term 3

10Term 3 of the Settlement Agreement is as follows:

The Respondent shall provide the Applicant with written information regarding the standard drug testing methods employed by the drug testing facility the Mother is using no later than June 19, 2025.

11In its June 13 Letter, the Respondent noted that the Family Service Supervisor JD had continuously attempted to speak with Life Labs representatives over the phone since May 20, 2025, as well as by completing a contact form through the service providers website, however, had been unsuccessful in speaking with anyone. The June 13 Letter includes a description of drug testing based on Life Labs’ website, explaining that they use an approved five-part chain-of custody form and collection kit and that collections follow a strict medical/legal process with highly trained staff to ensure specimen validity. The June 13 Letter pointed the Applicant to additional information on the service provider’s website and explained that the mother of the child had shared they were willing to have the Applicant attend a drug testing appointment with her in the future.

12At the non-compliance videoconference, the Respondent explained that while making their inquiries with Life Labs they had learned that their processes had changed, and they were no longer doing rigorous screening. The Respondent acknowledged this had been a gap. The Respondent child protection worker AC stated that they shared the information about unsupervised urine screening with the Applicant by telephone on July 2, 2025.

13The Applicant stated that the information provided in the Respondent’s June 13 Letter was completely wrong and that the urine screening was completely unsupervised. The Applicant stated that their representative obtained this information by attending a Life Labs site on June 20, 2025.

14I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with information regarding the standard drug testing methods employed by the drug testing facility the Mother is using.

15While the Respondent’s June 13 Letter did not provide complete information, the child protection worker provided additional information during a telephone conversation with the Applicant on July 2, 2025, approximately two weeks after the June 19, 2025, date prescribed in the Settlement Agreement. I find that sufficient information was provided in relation to Term 3.

16Thus, I find that the Respondent effectively complied with Term 3 of the Settlement Agreement.

Term 5

17Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement is as follows:

The Respondent shall meet with the Mother and the Child no later than June 19, 2025 to discuss and support the Child returning to counselling/therapy.

18The Respondent’s June 13 Letter stated that the mother of the child had confirmed that the Child continues to engage in counselling services. The child protection worker AC stated at the videoconference that the Society obtained this information from the mother on May 21, 2025. CS further stated that on June 27, 2025, she had a further conversation with the mother and obtained her consent to speak to the therapist. CS stated that the therapist reported that the Child had last attended in May 2025 and would not be attending over the summer in keeping with the Child’s wishes. CS said that she shared this information with the Applicant on July 2, 2025.

19The Applicant stated that the Respondent had not provided enough information with regard to Term 5 in their June 13 Letter but acknowledged that the additional information provided by CS was helpful.

20I find that the Respondent has discussed and supported the Child returning to counselling/therapy.

21Thus, I find that the Respondent complied with Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement.

ORDER

22The Application is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Pursuant 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, August 06, 2025.

Karynn von Cramon

Member