CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
GC
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: GC v Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
GC, Applicant
Self-represented
Ottawa Children’s Aid Society, Respondent
Mark Hecht, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, SO 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”).
2The CFSRB concluded on January 8, 2024, that the following allegation was eligible to proceed:
- The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects their interests.
3The Applicant put forward a plan for a child (the Child), who was a foster child placed with the Applicant’s sister (the Foster Parents). The Respondent conducted an assessment and did not approve the placement.
4In its Response to the Application, the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application on two grounds. First, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant was not a service recipient, and second, that the subject matter of the Application was before the Court.
5The CFSRB determined in a decision dated June 10, 2024, that the Applicant was a service recipient, and that the complaints set out in the Application were not related to the protection application before the Court and, therefore, concluded that the CFSRB had jurisdiction over the Application.
6A pre-hearing occurred on July 16, 2024.
7The CFSRB held the Application in abeyance until the conclusion of the protection hearing.
8The child protection hearing concluded in April 2025 and the decision was issued on May 9, 2025.
9The Respondent has submitted that the issues set out in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report of July 16, 2024, were before the court in the April 2025 trial and that, therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.
ISSUES
10Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues that were before the court in April 2025?
RESULT
11I find that Issues 1 i, ii, iii, iv, vii and xi were before the Court in the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025 and are not separate and different.
12I find that Issues 1 v, vi, viii, ix, and x were not before the Court in the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025 and are separate and different.
13I find that Issue 2 was not before the Court in the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025 and is separate and different.
14I find that Issue 3 is not an issue to be decided by the CFSRB.
ANALYSIS
15Section 120(8) of the Act states that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court.
16The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
17In reaching my decision I reviewed the Respondent’s submissions (Respondent’s Submissions) dated July 3, 2025, which included the Affidavit of child protection worker MT (MT’s Affidavit) and the Reasons for Judgment of Justice M. Smith dated May 12, 2025 (Reasons for Judgement), as well as the Applicant’s submissions (Applicant’s Submissions) dated July 21, 2025, which included Exhibit A, an email exchange between the Applicant and the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Services Workers May 14 – 16 2025 (the OCSWSSW email); Exhibit B, Contact Log of LC dated September 19, 2023 (September 2023 Contact Log); Exhibit C, Letter from MH to the Applicant dated August 11, 2023 (August 2023 Letter) and Exhibit D, excerpts of the Reasons for Judgement.
Issues Identified July 16, 2024
18At a Pre-hearing on July 16, 2024, the Applicant identified the following thirteen (13) issues associated with her complaint:
1.The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide reasons for decisions relating to the following issues:
i. What resources were referenced in the Out of Care (Caregiver) Assessment? Were existing CPIN notes referred to as part of the Assessment as well as statements made by the Applicant during the interview with worker RF?
ii. What information was relied upon to determine the Applicant was not transparent as reported in the Out of Care (Caregiver) Assessment?
iii. What information was relied upon when assessing the Applicant’s relationship with the child’s biological father?
iv. Why did worker RF state “[the Applicant] could provide permanency for [the child]” as a strength and then later report it as a concern?
v. In June 2023, after the Applicant started the out of care placement process, did the Respondent advise the Applicant’s counsel that their intentions of placing the child with the Applicant had not changed, but it was taking longer, when documents show a decision was already made?
vi. What is the Society’s definition of “kin” and has this recently changed? How do you define the status of the Applicant, and has this position ever changed?
vii. How did the investigation of the Applicant’s sister affect the Applicant’s Assessment?
viii. Why did the Society commission a report from another therapist on her relationship with the child when the existing therapist was fully involved in witnessing the relationship between the Applicant and the child?
ix. How does the Respondent define an Out of Care placement?
x. Why was the second Home Assessment cancelled?
xi. The Applicant discussed several inaccuracies with worker RF who completed the Assessment and requested these revisions be made. Why were these corrections refused?
The Applicant received a letter from the Respondent dated August 31, 2024, signed by foster care worker MJS and foster care supervisor PC indicating that the Applicant and her partner’s foster care file was closed. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons why the foster care file was closed.
The Applicant received a letter dated August 11, 2023, signed by MH, counsel for the Respondent, stating that she was “currently a caregiver for the child”. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons for the inconsistency between this letter and the Respondent’s subsequent challenge to the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear her complaint alleging the Applicant “was not a service recipient” of the Respondent.
19I will deal with each of these issues as follows.
Allegation the Respondent did not provide reasons for decisions relating to the following eleven issues:
i. What resources were referenced in the Out of Care (Caregiver) Assessment? Were existing CPIN notes referred to as part of the Assessment as well as statements made by the Applicant during the interview with worker RF?
20The Reasons for Judgement state at Para. 41 that “much of the evidence led by (the Applicant) at trial was not about her plan. (The Applicant’s) focus was primarily about the manner in which the out of care assessment was completed and how she was treated, including, amongst other things…(iv) the report did not reflect a true representation of what was told to the Society.”
21I cannot determine from the Reasons for Judgement whether the Out of Care (Caregiver) Assessment was filed at trial, though it is implied that it was. I also cannot determine whether these two questions were asked during the trial. MT’s Affidavit states that the Applicant had been added as a Party to the Court proceedings and had fully participated, including at trial, which included the Applicant cross-examining all the Society witnesses. These witnesses included RF, the Caregiver Assessor. MT’s Affidavit states that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
22The Applicant’s Submissions included a chart that she prepared (the Chart). I note that the Chart does not accurately restate the issues/questions set out in the Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024, and, therefore, is difficult to assess or to rely on.
23The Chart states that the question, “Were internal documents (CPIN/disclosure) used in assessment?” was not answered in the Respondent’s Submission or the Reasons for Judgment and states “No mention of what documents were reviewed”.
24This, though, is not the question. The question is whether this issue was before the Court during the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025. Based on the foregoing, I find that it was.
ii. What information was relied upon to determine the Applicant was not transparent as reported in the Out of Care (Caregiver) Assessment?
25The Reasons for Judgement state, “I do not accept (the Applicant’s) explanation regarding the transparency issues that arose during the out of care assessment.” The Reasons for Judgment go on to list three examples, including lack of transparency related to the Applicant’s references; a discrepancy regarding the vulnerable sector check regarding the Applicant’s partner; and the Applicant’s failure to report mental health issues.
26The Applicant’s submissions do not address this issue nor does this question appear on the Chart.
27Given the foregoing, I find that this issue was before the Court during the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025.
iii. What information was relied upon when assessing the Applicant’s relationship with the child’s biological father (the Father)?
28The Reasons for Judgement state at Para. 12 that the Father filed a comprehensive affidavit during the trial. The Reasons for Judgement state, “(the Father) was not challenged during cross-examination, and I found him to be a credible and reliable witness.” The Reasons for Judgement go on to state, “I am not satisfied that (the Applicant) encouraged the relationship between (the Child) and her father. When (the Child) was in foster care, she was resistant in having a relationship with her father. (The Father’s evidence is that when (the Child) was being driven to their visits by (the Applicant), (the Child) started to become reluctant to see him, which had not occurred in the past. After (the Child) was removed from foster care and placed with (Kin), (the Child) was much happier seeing (the Father) and she was more at ease. The evidence establishes that there was a drastic change in (the Child’s) behaviour towards (the Father) after she was placed with (Kin). I do not find this to be a coincidence.”
29The Applicant’s submissions do not speak to this question, other than the Chart, which states, “Ruling mentions a strained relationship but gives no source. Submission is silent.” I do not find this persuasive. I am confident that the comments and findings in the Reasons for Judgment were based on evidence at trial.
30I do not find it necessary or reasonable to provide any private details about the Father in this Decision. The Applicant heard these private details at the trial.
31Given the foregoing I find that this issue was before the Court during the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025.
iv. Why did worker RF state “(the Applicant) could provide permanency for (the child)” as a strength and then later report it as a concern?
32It is clear from the Reasons for Judgement that the assessment of the Applicant was an iterative process. The Reasons for Judgement state, “In July 2023, (the Respondent) contacted (the Applicant) and asked if she would like to present a plan for (the Child) because there had been a breakdown in the placement. (The Applicant) agreed and (the Respondent) started the out of care assessment process. The initial plan was the assessment be completed in September 2023. (The Respondent) met with (the Applicant) and (her Husband) on three occasions. (The Respondent) did not approve the placement for several reasons.” The Reasons for Judgement list these reasons as:
The Applicant not being transparent as to the identities of references.
When the Child lived in the foster home she called the Applicant “mummy” and her Husband “dad”.
The Father did not support the placement and he believed that the Applicant spoke negatively about him to the child.
The Applicant’s Husband was a frequent visitor at the foster home and participated in the Child’s care without having advised the Respondent.
The Applicant failed to act protectively towards the Child when living with the foster home and a protection investigation into the foster home resulted in verification of adult conflict.
33The Chart states, “Why did providing permanency shift from strength to concern?” and states that this was not answered in the Respondent’s Submission or the Reasons for Judgement, going on to state, “No explanation for shift in opinion”.
34I am satisfied that the Applicant was provided an explanation for this shift at the trial and, therefore, that this issue was before the Court during the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025.
v. In June 2023, after the Applicant started the out of care placement process, did the Respondent advise the Applicant’s counsel that their intentions of placing the child with the Applicant had not changed, but it was taking longer, when documents show a decision was already made?
35I could find no reference to this question in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
36In the Chart this question is characterized as, “Why did CAS mislead your lawyer about placement intentions?”. The Applicant states in the Chart that this question was not answered in the Respondent’s Submissions or the Reasons for Judgement and states, “Deception is not acknowledged”.
37Given the foregoing I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
vi. What is the Society’s definition of “kin” and has this recently changed? How do you define the status of the Applicant, and has this position ever changed?
38Again, I could find no reference to this question in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
39The Chart states that the question about whether the definition of “kin” had changed was not answered and states, “No discussion or policy reference”.
40Given the foregoing, I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
vii. How did the investigation of the Applicant’s sister affect the Applicant’s Assessment?
41The Reasons for Judgement state at Para. 67 that the Applicant denies having observed any incidents of domestic violence between the Foster Parents, and she denies having failed to protect the Child during adult conflict. One of the reasons the Respondent did not approve the placement with the Applicant noted in the Reasons for Judgement is that the Applicant failed to act protectively towards the Child when living with the Foster Parents.
42The Reasons for Judgement go on to state, “I am not satisfied that (the Applicant) was unaware of the domestic conflict between (the Foster Parents), as well as the (Foster Parent’s) behavioural issues. (The Applicant) failed to protect (the Child) from adult conflict.”
43The Applicant’s only submission on this issue is in the Chart, which notes the question as, “Why were you held accountable for your sister’s issues?” and says that this was not answered in the Respondent’s Submissions or the Reasons for Judgement.
44Based on the foregoing, I find that this question was before the court during the child protection proceeding that concluded April 2025.
viii. Why did the Society commission a report from another therapist on her relationship with the child when the existing therapist was fully involved in witnessing the relationship between the Applicant and the child?
45I could find no reference to this question in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
46The Chart states that this question was not answered, and that no rationale was provided.
47Given the foregoing, I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
ix. How does the Respondent define an Out of Care placement?
48I could find no reference to this question in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
49This question was not addressed in the Chart, remembering that the Chart does not mirror the issues set out in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
50Given the foregoing, I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
x. Why was the second Home Assessment cancelled?
51I could find no reference to this question in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
52Again, this question was not addressed in the Chart, or the Applicant’s submissions.
53Given the foregoing, I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
xi. The Applicant discussed several inaccuracies with the worker RM who completed the Assessment and requested these revisions be made. Why were these corrections refused?
54The Reasons for Judgement state at Para 41, “much of the evidence led by (the Applicant) at trial was not about her plan. (The Applicant’s) focus was primarily about the manner in which the out of care assessment was completed and how she was treated, including, amongst other things, the following: (i) there were many factual inaccuracies in the out of care assessment report and the Society was not prepared to amend the report.”
55This question was not addressed in the Chart, or the Applicant’s submissions.
56Given the reference in the Reasons for Judgement I am satisfied that this issue was before the Court during the child protection proceeding that concluded in April 2025.
The Applicant received a letter from the Respondent dated August 31, 2024, signed by foster care worker MJS and foster care supervisor PC indicating that the Applicant and her partner’s foster care file was closed. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons why the foster care file was closed.
57I could find no reference to the issue of a closed foster care file in the Reasons for Judgement or the Respondent’s Submissions, other than the blanket statement in MT’s Affidavit that the Applicant received answers to the same questions outlined in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated July 16, 2024.
58The Chart states that this question was not answered and that the closure was stated by not justified.
59Given the foregoing, I am not satisfied that this issue was before the Court.
The Applicant received a letter dated August 11, 2023, signed by MH, counsel for the Respondent, stating that she was “currently a caregiver for the child”. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons for the inconsistency between this letter and the Respondent’s subsequent challenge to the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear her complaint alleging the Applicant “was not a service recipient” of the Respondent.
60It is true that in its Response to the Application, the Respondent challenged the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application on two grounds, including that the Applicant was not a service recipient. The CFSRB determined in a decision dated June 10, 2024, that the Applicant was a service recipient. The Respondent is entitled to raise jurisdictional arguments. It is circular at best to then demand the jurisdictional arguments be made an issue within the confines of the Application. Therefore, this issue is being removed from consideration.
ORDER
61The following issues shall proceed to a hearing:
A. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide reasons for decisions relating to the following issues:
In June 2023, after the Applicant started the out of care placement process, did the Respondent advise the Applicant’s counsel that their intentions of placing the child with the Applicant had not changed, but it was taking longer, when documents how a decision was already made?
What is the Society’s definition of “kin” and has this recently changed? How do you define the status of the Applicant, and has this position ever changed?
Why did the Society commission a report from another therapist on her relationship with the child when the existing therapist was fully involved in witnessing the relationship between the Applicant and the child?
How does the Respondent define an Out of Care placement?
Why was the second Home Assessment cancelled?
B. The Applicant received a letter from the Respondent dated August 31, 2024, signed by foster care worker MJS and foster care supervisor PC indicating that the Applicant and her partner’s foster care file was closed. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons why the foster care file was closed.
confidentiality order
62Pursuant 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 15, 2025.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member