CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CA Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: October 14, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 143 Indexed As: CA v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)
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”). The Application was filed on August 27, 2025.
2The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible for review under section 120(4)5 of the Act, on September 5, 2025.
3The CFSRB granted the Respondent’s request for a two-week extension to file its Response. The Respondent sent its Response on September 29, 2025, and provided an Amended Response on October 1, 2025.
4Under Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB may make a decision based on the Application and Response within 20 days of determining eligibility. Pursuant to Rule A4.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB may vary or waive the application of any rule or procedure. Due to the extension granted to the Respondent, this decision is being made outside the 20-day timeframe, but as soon as was feasible, once the CFSRB received the Response.
ISSUE
5Did the Respondent fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects the Applicant’s interests?
RESULT
6The CFSRB finds that through the Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) process, the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions. The Application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The Applicant is the child’s grandparent. In her Application, the Applicant provided a brief explanation of her complaint, which was summarized in the Respondent’s Response:
a. It was determined she and her spouse should have been offered respite care
b. That the child was placed by the Respondent with a person determined not to be the child’s biological father, where she continues to reside while a different Society determines the child’s placement
c. The Applicant and her spouse would like the child in their permanent care for safety reasons
d. The Applicant and her spouse would like to investigate their daughter’s statement to the Respondent that the child should not be put in the Applicant’s care, because of a risk of abuse.
8This Application was filed following the Respondent’s internal review of the Applicant’s complaint pursuant to section 119(5) of the Act.
9The Applicant included in her Application to the CFSRB the letter of complaint she sent to the Respondent. That letter conveyed many of the same concerns as set out in the Application.
10Under section 120(5) of the Act, the CFSRB is limited to review whether the Respondent provided an Applicant with reasons for its decisions that affect the interests of the Applicant. Under section 120 of the Act the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to order the Respondent to investigate (item “d”, in paragraph 7) or direct the Respondent to place a child in the permanent care of her grandparents (item “c”, in paragraph 7).
11The Applicant included in the Application the Respondent’s letter of November 12, 2024, with the subject line “Outcome of October 29, 2024 ICRP Meeting.” That letter explained that it “carefully considered the information that you shared at the October 29, 2024 meeting,” reviewed the electronic notes from case workers, and concluded that the Respondent had not communicated clearly in numerous ways with the Applicant as a kin caregiver.
12Through the ICRP process, the Respondent acknowledged its communication with the Applicant as a kin caregiver needed improvement and acknowledged its “missteps”. The Respondent explained the reasons for its decisions, which were related to the limitations of the role of kin caregiver, which the Applicant was not sufficiently informed about from the beginning. The Respondent explained that the Applicant’s role as kin caregiver was more limited than she understood it to be.
13The November 12, 2024 letter explained that “The ICRP acknowledges that although the involved Workers did give you some information about your daughter’s right to information about your granddaughter, you had not been given clear and sufficient information regarding your limited rights as voluntary kin caregivers, or about your daughter’s right to veto any kin planning.” The letter of November 12, 2024, set out the ICRP’s recommendations, which included better communication with kin caregivers, and accurate information about what voluntary placement means, more collaboration between Family Service Workers and Kin Service Workers and providing more information to families about what voluntary kin planning means and how it differs from foster care. The letter also summarized the Applicant’s concerns in a way that demonstrated she was heard and that the Panel actively listened to her concerns.
14In its Response to the Application, the Respondent included a “2025 Kinship Services Caregivers Resource Guide” which, the Respondent submitted, was drafted and implemented because of the recommendations set out above. The Resource Guide was created as a result of the Applicant’s problematic experience with the Respondent.
15The CFSRB considered what “sufficient reasons” entails in its decision J.M.. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68), 2014 CFSRB 72 (“J.M.”). In that decision, the CFSRB set out at para. 20:
Sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timelines and the level of detail provided. A person must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow her to understand why and how the decision was made.
16I conclude that the Respondent provided the Application with sufficient reasons for its decisions pertaining to the Applicant’s limited role in determinations regarding the placement of the child. The ICRP process involved hearing and listening to the Applicant and providing her with an explanation that allowed her to understand why and how the Respondent’s decisions were made. While the Applicant may not agree with the Respondent’s reasons for its decisions, the CFSRB may only review whether reasons were provided.
17As a result of hearing the Applicant’s concerns, the Respondent made recommendations to improve its service to kin caregivers and implemented these recommendations. I find the ICRP decision provided the Applicant with reasons for the decisions that affected her interest. That decision acknowledged that it had not communicated clearly with the Applicant, explained what it understood to be the source of the communication problem on its end, and further explained how it planned to do better going forward.
ORDER
18The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
19Pursuant 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, October 14, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand Vice-Chair