GT v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2025 CFSRB 144

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GT Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: October 16, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 144 Indexed As: GT v The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

GT, Applicant Alishia Lavallie, Paralegal

The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Respondent Megan Talbot, 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 July 16, 2025 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement. The Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) is comprised of three main terms, one of which has five parts (i.e., Terms 1a, b, c, d and e) and three subparts (i.e. Term 1e i, ii and iii). The Agreement includes an Implementation Date of September 5, 2025, and a Non-Compliance date of September 12, 2025.

3The Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant on August 15, 2025 (“August 15 Letter”) in response to the Agreement.

4On September 12, 2025, the Applicant’s representative emailed the CFSRB (“September 12 Email”), copying the Respondent, alleging noncompliance, but did not indicate which terms specifically had been breached. In her email, the Applicant’s representative also asked, “what measure can be taken against [the Respondent], including but not limited to costs.” The Applicant did not provide a copy of the Respondent’s August 15 Letter in response to Term 1 of the Agreement.

5Later, on September 12, 2025, the CFSRB emailed the parties and advised the Respondent that it may respond to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance by September 19, 2025.

6On September 19, 2025, the Respondent sent a letter (“September 19 Letter”) in response to the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Respondent’s August 15 Letter, as well as copies of various correspondence between the Applicant and the Respondent.

7On September 24, 2025, the CFSRB sent an email to the Applicant requesting that she indicate which specific term(s) of the Settlement Agreement she believed the Respondent had failed to comply with, and an explanation of why she believes the Respondent did not comply.

8On September 25, 2025, the Applicant’s representative emailed the CFSRB and the Respondent, a letter dated September 24, 2025 (“September 24 Letter”). The September 24 Letter responds to the Respondent’s September 19 Letter and expands on the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance but does not directly refer to what specific terms were not complied with in the Agreement.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

9As noted in paragraph 4 as set out above, the Applicant seeks that the CFSRB “advise what measure can be taken against the Respondent, including but not limited to costs.” Ordering financial compensation is outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. Section 120(7) of the Act limits the remedies available to the CFSRB after reviewing a complaint as follows:

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. (This refers to orders prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other orders have been prescribed within the Regulations).

10Additionally, this Application resulted in a binding settlement. The purpose of this inquiry is to decide whether the parties complied with the terms as outlined on the Agreement. The CFSRB will not look at issues outside of the terms defined in the Agreement.

ISSUE

11Although the Applicant has not indicated specifically which term(s) she believes were not complied with, however, based upon the Applicant’s allegations, I have determined the Applicant is alleging non-compliance with Terms 1b, 1c, 2 and 3 of the Agreement.

12The issue is:

Has the Respondent complied with Terms 1b, 1c, 2 and 3 of the Agreement?

RESULT

13I find that the Respondent has complied with Terms 1b and 3 of the Agreement.

14I find that the Respondent has partially complied with Term 1c of the Agreement.

15I find that that the Respondent did not comply with Term 2 of the Agreement.

HEARING FORMAT

16Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure outlines that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference.

17Based on the submissions of the Respondent and the Applicant, I find that there is sufficient evidence before me to decide the issue of non-compliance in writing, without a further videoconference.

ANALYSIS

Terms 1b of the Agreement has been met

18Terms 1b and 1c of the Agreement set out that the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant outlining:

1b) Provide a definition of what is considered a Place of Safety and what is involved in being designated a Place of Safety.

1c) Would the Applicant be considered a Place of Safety under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act ss.74(1) and 74(4)a? If not, why not?

19The Respondent’s August 18 Letter offered the following response to the Term 1b):

“Pursuant to section 74(4) of the CYFSA a person’s home is a place of safety for a child if:

(a) the person is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community; and

(b) a society or, in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, a society or a child and family service authority, has conducted an assessment of the person’s home in accordance with the prescribed procedures and is satisfied that the person is willing and able to provide a safe home environment for the child.”

20The Respondent’s August 18 Letter submitted the following with regards to Term 1c):

The Applicant would not be considered a place of safety as the children were not removed from the care of a parent/caregiver/guardian under Part V of the CYFSA, and the children at no time entered the Society’s care (emphasis added). In addition, no assessment was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedures set out in Section 45 of O.Reg 156/18 as the children were voluntarily placed in the care of the Applicant by their parents and the Society completed a Kinship Assessment after the placement had occurred.

21The Applicant’s representative provides only a vague disagreement with the Respondent’s response to Terms 1b and 1c, and does not indicate why the Applicant believes the Respondent did not comply. In her September 24 Letter, the Applicant’s representative states that it is “very clear in the Order that the children were placed in [the Applicant’s] care under Section 74 of [the Act]. The Applicant’s representative continues, “The [Respondent] is again making their own interpretation of the definition “place of safety.”

22The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Respondent’s decisions or substantive actions it may have taken, but rather focuses on the quality of communication between the Respondent and the Applicant.

23I find that the Respondent has complied with the Term 1b of the Agreement. It provided a clear definition of a “place of safety” as defined in the Act.

24I find that the Respondent partially complied with Term 1c of the Agreement. Although the Respondent indicates that under s. 74(1) and 74(4)a of the Act the Applicant would not be considered a place of safety because “the children were not removed from the care of a parent/caregiver/guardian,” it does not direct the Applicant to where the Act states this is a requirement for these sections, nor provide an explanation for how this is a requirement under Part V of the Act.

Term 2 of the Agreement has not been met

25Term 2 of the Agreement states:

2. Between September 2 and September 5, 2025, the Respondent shall arrange to meet with the Applicant to discuss the information provided in the above-noted letter.

26In her September 12 Email, the Applicant’s representative stated “[the Respondent] failed to hold a meeting during the week of September 2 to September 5, 2025, and notes that her office first received an email from the Respondent on September 8, 2025. She further notes that due to the lateness of the Respondent’s email, the Applicant and her representative’s schedules would not permit a meeting until October.

27In its September 19 Letter, the Respondent submits that it interpreted Term 2 of the Agreement that a meeting be arranged, not necessarily conducted, between September 2 and 5, 2025. It further states that it attempted to reach the Applicant by telephone on Friday, September 5 and left a voicemail which was not returned. On Monday, September 8th the Respondent emailed the Applicant and her representative with proposed meeting dates for September, requesting alternate meeting dates should the proposed ones not be acceptable. Later, on September 8th, the Applicant emailed the Respondent indicating she was unavailable before the week of September 22nd, but did not propose any further dates.

28In her September 24 Letter, the Applicant’s representative asserts that the Applicant received a voicemail from the Respondent on September 5th, but only a phone extension with a request to return the call was left on the message; no name, phone number or reason for the call were provided. The Applicant believed it was her Respondent worker calling and the Applicant communicated with her worker via text that day. The Applicant’s representative also states that the Respondent’s September 19 Letter failed to mention that Applicant had indicated that she would need to confirm her representative’s availability before she could propose alternate dates. The Applicant’s representative further noted that any communication regarding the Agreement should have gone through her office.

29I find that the Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Term 2 of the Agreement. The meeting was to be arranged and conducted between September 2 and September 5, 2025, which was the reason that Term 1 of the Agreement was set for August 18th. The Respondent attempted to contact the Applicant by the last date indicated in Term 2, but communication about the meeting was lacking.

30In its September 24 Letter the Respondent advised it remains willing to meet with the Applicant and her representative. Since the Respondent confirmed it is still willing to meet the Applicant and her representative, there is no further relief I can order, and no further Order is made.

Term 3 of the Agreement has been met

31Term 3 of the Agreement states:

3. Between September 2 and September 5, 2025, the Respondent shall, if requested by the Applicant, provide information on applying for the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP). The Respondent shall offer to assist with application process with the Applicant.

32In her September 12 Email, the Applicant’s representative stated “[the Respondent] failed to provide the ICRP information to the Applicant despite the fact the Applicant had “made it very clear she wished to do so.”

33In its September 19 Letter, the Respondent states that it has no record of the Applicant requesting ICRP information since the Agreement was made. The Respondent also notes that it has provided this information to the Applicant previously and will provide it to her again.

34In her September 24 Letter, the Applicant’s representative again notes that the Applicant has requested for this matter to be reviewed on numerous occasions.

35I find that the Respondent complied with Term 3 of the Agreement. The Agreement states that the Respondent is to provide the information about applying for an ICRP on the Applicant’s request. The Applicant and her representative have not provided evidence that this information was requested since the Agreement was made. As noted in paragraph 33 above, the Respondent stated that it will provide the information to the Applicant again, and I find that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to request this information.

ORDER

36By October 27, 2025, the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant which includes the following information:

1c) Provide an explanation or reference to where the Act states that a prerequisite of sections 74(1) and 74(1)a of the Act include that the children were removed from the care of a parent/caregiver/guardian, or alternatively provide an explanation for how this is a requirement under Part V of the Act.

37The CFSRB’s file is now closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

38Pursuant 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.

Tracy Foster

Tracy Foster Member