PH v Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 149

BETWEEN:

PH Applicant

-and-

Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services Respondent

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: October 27, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 149 Indexed As: PH v Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.109)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

PH, Applicant Self-represented

Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services, Respondent Rachelle Phillippe, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2This decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

BACKGROUND

3The Application was filed with the CFSRB on September 4, 2025. The Applicant indicated that she is a foster parent to the child (“AR”) in the Application. She opposes the removal of AR from her home by the Respondent. The Applicant also filed a second Application on the same date (CA25-0166) regarding the removal of a different child from her home.

4The CFSRB held a videoconference on September 22, 2025, to gain more information to determine if the Application is eligible for review. The CFSRB needed to understand if the Applicant received written notice of the removal of the child from her care, the timing of removal of the child from her home, the timing of the filing of the Application, and whether the child was in customary care or extended society care. The band representative from Sagamok Anishnawbek also attended the videoconference on AR’s behalf.

5At the case management conference, the Respondent took the position that the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB because AR was placed with the Applicant by way of a customary care placement. At that time, no documentation outlining AR’s placement in customary care placement had been provided to the CFSRB. There appears to be some documentation suggesting that the placement with the Applicant may have been a foster placement.

6Parties were directed to provide submissions on the questions outlined in paragraph 4. The Respondent was directed to provide submissions by October 3, 2025, and as part of its submissions to provide a copy of the customary care agreement. Sagamok Anishnawbek was invited to make submissions, but was not required to, by October 3, 2025. The Applicant was directed to provide responding submissions by October 17, 2025.

7The Respondent provided submissions on October 3, 2025. Sagamok Anishnawbek did not make submissions. The Applicant provided responding submissions on October 22, 2025.

ISSUE

8The issue is:

a. Is the Application eligible for review by the CFSRB?

RESULT

9The CFSRB finds that the Application is not eligible for review.

ANALYSIS

10 Section 109 of the Act sets out:

Notice of proposed removal

(7) If a child is in extended society care under an order made under paragraph 3 of subsection 101 (1) or clause 116 (1) (c) and has lived continuously with a foster parent for two years and a society proposes to remove the child from the foster parent under subsection (6), the society shall,

(a) give the foster parent at least 10 days notice in writing of the proposed removal and of the foster parent’s right to apply for a review under subsection (8); and

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, give the notice required by clause (a), and

(i) give at least 10 days notice in writing of the proposed removal to a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities, and

(ii) after the notice is given under subclause (i), consult with representatives chosen by the bands and communities relating to the plan of care for the child.

Application for review

(8) A foster parent who receives a notice under clause 7(a) may, within 10 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the proposed removal.

11As noted in paragraph 10, under section 109 (7) of the Act, an Application is only eligible for review if the child is in court ordered extended society care.

12In its submissions, the Respondent stated that AR was placed with the Applicant under customary care and clarified that the Applicant was an approved foster home because this is a requirement under a customary care agreement. The Respondent conceded there was no customary care agreement signed by the Applicant; however, notes that the agreement was with AR’s former caregivers and, due to an oversight, a new customary care agreement was not signed with the Applicant. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant was receiving a subsidy under customary care in relation to AR and provided copies of the service agreements.

13In her reply to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant did not address or dispute that AR was placed with her under a customary care agreement and that she was in receipt of a customary care agreement subsidy.

14For the Application to be eligible for review by the CFSRB, AR must be in extended society care. The Respondent confirmed that there is no Extended Care Order. AR was placed in customary care with the Applicant. As such, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review this Application.

ORDER

15The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

16Pursuant 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