CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
PH
Applicant
-and-
Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tracy Foster
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 (“JO”) in the Application. She opposes the removal of JO from her home by the Respondent. The Applicant also filed a second Application on the same date (CA25-0165) 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 Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory also attended the videoconference on JO’s behalf.
5At the case management conference, the Respondent took the position that the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB because JO was placed with the Applicant by way of a customary care placement. At that time, no documentation outlining JO’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. Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory 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. Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory 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
10Section 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 JO was placed with the Applicant under customary care and provided a copy of the long-term customary care agreement dated May 28, 2018 and signed by the Applicant.
13In her reply to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant did not address or dispute that JO was placed with her under a customary care agreement.
14For the Application to be eligible for review by the CFSRB, JO must be in extended society care. The Respondent confirmed that there is no Extended Care Order. JO 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