CS v. Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell, 2025 CFSRB 160

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CS Applicant

-and-

Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster

Date: November 07, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 160

Indexed As: CS v Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell (CYFSA s.192)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CS, Applicant Elissa Gamus, Counsel

Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell, Respondent Anais Paré-Chounard, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”). The Applicant seeks a review of the Respondent’s decision to not place two children, (“MM1” and “MM2”) with her for adoption. MM1 and MM2 are siblings.

2In the Application, the Applicant contends that she was prepared to adopt both MM1 (who she fostered from February to May 2024) and MM2. She asserts that instead of advocating for sibling placement or exploring alternatives, the Respondent allowed the children to be separated.

3The first day of the hearing was held on July 28, 2025. At that hearing, two preliminary issues were brought forward. The parties agreed to engage in the mediation process first and asked the CFSRB to address the preliminary issues at the conclusion of the mediation process. The issues are: whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to the child MM2, and whether the CFSRB can and/or should request the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”).

4Following an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, the CFSRB directed the preliminary issues be determined through written submissions.

5The Respondent provided submissions on September 12, 2025 (“September 12 Submissions).

6The Applicant requested an extension for her submissions on two occasions, and both requests to extend the time were granted. The Applicant’s responding submissions were extended to October 14, 2025, and the Respondent was provided the option to reply by October 24, 2025.

7The Applicant provided responding submissions on October 14, 2025 (“October 14 Submissions). The Respondent replied to the Applicant’s submissions on October 24, 2025 (“October 24 Submissions”).

ISSUES

8The issues are:

a. Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to the child MM2, who was placed for adoption with another family?

b. Can and should a request be made for the involvement of the OCL?

RESULTS

9I find that the CFRSB does not have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to the child MM2.

10I am not satisfied a referral to the OCL is appropriate in these circumstances.

ANALYSIS

Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to the child MM2?

11I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions regarding MM2’s adoption. In determining this issue, I reviewed the legal test for the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.

12Section 192(4) of the Act sets out:

If a society receives an application to adopt a child and, at the time of the application, the child had been placed for adoption with another person, the applicant is not entitled to a review of the society’s decision to refuse the application.

13The Respondent submits that Section 192(4) of the Act is “unequivocal” that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction. It states that “the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to revisit [MM2’s] adoption placement as MM2 was placed in adoption probation on May 9, 2025.”

14In her October 14 Submissions, the Applicant takes the position that “being placed for adoption is not the same as adoption probation.” The Applicant further asserted that there was no evidence provided to indicate that the placement was registered as is required under the legislation.

15In response to the Applicant, the Respondent provided a copy of the Registration of Placement of a Child for Adoption form dated May 18, 2025. The form names MM2 and indicates that she was placed for adoption on May 9, 2025. The Respondent also noted that MM2 has been in the care of her foster-to-adopt parents since June 9, 2023 and her adoption probation started on May 9, 2025.

16The CFSRB would only have jurisdiction over the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to MM2, if she had not been placed for adoption. I find that MM2 was placed for adoption on May 9, 2025. As such, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over to review the Respondent’s refusal of adoption of MM2.

17In addition to submissions regarding placement on adoption probation, both parties also provided multiple submissions regarding the Respondent’s process regarding providing notice for MM2’s adoption and whether the Applicant made an expression of interest in adopting MM2. However, given my finding that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to MM2, it is unnecessary to determine these issues.

Can and should a request be made for the involvement of the OCL?

18Since I have found that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction with regards to the Respondent’s decisions pertaining to MM2, the decision on whether a request for the OCL’s participation in this matter can only pertain to MM1, who is around eighteen months old. Given MM1’s age, I find it is inappropriate in this case.

19In its September 12 Submissions, the Respondent submitted:

• that the Applicant has not provided specific reasons for asking that the OCL provide legal representation to the child;
• that the OCL’s website outlines that the OCL “represents the interests of a child under the age of 18 in matters and court cases in Ontario involving…child protection.” The website specifies that the OCL “[does] not… decide what is in a child’s best interest.”
• that the Act clearly enounces the circumstances in which the OCL will provide legal representation to a child, and that there is no section in the Act mandating OCL involvement under Section 192 matters;
• that Rule 26.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure denotes the parties to the Application, and that the child, and therefore the OCL, is not identified as a party to Section 192 proceedings. The Respondent asserts that the CFSRB’s Rule 29.2 sets out that the role of the CFSRB is to decide “what action is in the best interests of the child;” and
• that the children are not of an age where they would be represented by the OCL.

20In her submissions, the Applicant takes the position that the CFSRB’s Rule 26.1(d) states that “any other person the CFSRB determines is necessary to decide all of the issues in a review,” and that could include the OCL. The Applicant submits that the OCL’s role is not as an adjudicator, but one of “providing direct and independent evidence and/or submissions on behalf of their client, the children.” The Applicant cites KF and RF v Children's Aid Society of Hamilton, 2018 CFSRB 10 as a previous Section 192 matter in which the OCL was involved. The Applicant further submits that the children have not had adequate representation thus far and MM1 would benefit from independent counsel.

21In its October 24 Reply Submissions, the Respondent reiterates that the Applicant has not provided any particular reason for why the OCL should be involved and has not explained how the OCL would be of assistance to the “trier of the facts.” The Respondent asserts that “there is no reason why MM1, at such a young age, should have legal representation.”

22The Applicant argues that the CFSRB has the discretion to add another person to a hearing. As set out under Section 192(10), the CFSRB has the discretion to add a person as a party, if in its opinion, it is necessary to do so to decide all the issues in the review.

23In the context of a hearing under Section 192 of the Act, the CFSRB must make determination of the best interests of a child as defined by Section 179(2). Subsection 179(2)(a) states the CFSRB must:

consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.

24The OCL’s website refers to appointing an OCL lawyer in the context of children’s aid society matters …where a child may require representation notes that it will do so provided and “the child is old enough to express views and preferences.”

25First, I will address the Respondent’s argument that there is no section in the Act mandating OCL involvement under Section 192. Historically the CFSRB has referred matters to the OCL, and it is within the OCL’s purview to accept or decline involvement. In the past the CFSRB has, on occasion, requested the involvement of the OCL in matters involving the children’s aid society falling under Section 192 of the Act (“Decision to Refuse to Place Child or to Remove Child after Placement”) and Section 109 of the Act involving the removal of foster children. Examples of these include KF and RF v Children's Aid Society of Hamilton, 2018 CFSRB 10 (as cited by the Applicant) and JS v Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo (CYFSA s.109), 2023 CFSRB 54. In these cases, where the OCL’s role was engaged, the children were 6 years old and 10 years old respectively.

26The role of the OCL is to represent children. The Applicant asserts the role of the OCL is “providing direct and independent evidence and/or submissions on behalf of their client, the children.” However, any submissions made by the OCL would be based on the child’s expressed views and wishes. Therefore, a child must be old enough to express these. In the case of MM1, she is too young to be able to express her wishes and preferences.

27Given MM1’s age, I find that it is inappropriate for the CFSRB to request the involvement of the OCL to represent MM1.

ORDER

28The hearing will continue in regard to the child, MM1, only.

29The CFSRB will not request the involvement of the OCL in this matter.

30By November 14, 2025, parties are directed to provide their availability for a one-hour hearing between November 24 and December 5, 2025. The purpose of the hearing is to:

• provide directions about evidence and witnesses;
• set timelines for document disclosure and submission of witness statements;
• set a date or dates for continuation of the hearing;
• deal with any other necessary procedural matters.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

31Pursuant 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 on-line. 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