CM and WR v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2026 CFSRB 46

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CM and WR Applicants

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: March 27, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 46 Indexed as: CM and WR v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

CM and WR, Applicants Self-represented

JH, Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent 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”).

2On March 13, 2026, the CFSRB determined that the Applicants’ allegation that the Respondent has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicants was eligible to proceed pursuant to section 120(4) of the Act, which states that a society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).

3Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure directs that the CFSRB will either make its decision based on an application and response or decide to hold a hearing within twenty days of determining eligibility. I find that I have sufficient information before me to render a decision in this matter based on the application and response.

4The Applicants were being assessed as potential kinship caregivers for five children who are in the care of the Respondent. The Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (Oxford CAS) was conducting the kinship assessment

ISSUE

5The issue is whether the Respondent has refused to proceed with the Section 119(1) complaint made by the Applicant.

RESULT

6I find that the Respondent should not have refused to proceed with the section 119 complaint made by the Applicants and order that the Respondent notify the Applicants and establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) within 7 days of the date of this order. Additionally, the Respondent shall provide a date and time for meeting with the ICRP within 21 days of the date of this order.

ANALYSIS

The Applicants Received a Service

7The Respondent has explained to the Applicants that their complaint is not eligible for an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) because they did not seek or receive service from the Respondent. I disagree.

8The Applicants submit that they were contacted by the Respondent regarding a kinship placement for five children April 2, 2025, and that they attended a Family Group Conference on June 26, 2025. The Respondent submits that Oxford CAS conducted its’ first home study visit at their home on October 31, 2025.

9The Applicants submit that they were introduced to the children, two other siblings, and the children’s biological parents by the Respondent on October 18, 2025, and had access visits with the children on November 1, 2025, and January 8 and 9, 2026, facilitated and supervised by the Respondent.

10The Applicants submit that they attended a planning meeting for the children with the Respondent and Oxford CAS on November 5, 2025.

11The Applicants submitted text from an email sent to the Respondent on February 11, 2026, which states, “We have dedicated our time, taken time off work, been very flexible with our schedules to meet visits and meeting appointments. We have and continue to show our willingness to work as a team with the CAS with all of the meetings, phone calls and appointments we have attended, throughout the year…We have also attended all training sessions that we have been asked to including the Trauma Informed Care: Supporting Children and Youth…”

12The Respondent submits that Oxford CAS advised them that the Applicants’ home assessment was completed and had been approved on January 16, 2026. The Respondent submits that on the same date the Applicants were spoken to regarding overnight access starting with the eldest child for the weekend of January 23, 2026. Arrangements were also made for the 4 other children to attend a separate overnight visit on the weekend of January 30, 2026. The Applicants agree with this account and submit that in a meeting with the Respondent on January 16, 2026, they were advised to buy beds for the children and to set up their rooms, which they did, including decorating the rooms for the children.

13The Applicants submitted an Affidavit that the Respondent filed in their child protection proceeding, which stated that as of January 16, 2026, the Applicants’ home assessment had been completed and that they had been approved, with no child protection concerns being identified.

14The Respondent submits that their child protection worker MD spoke with Applicant CM on January 27, 2026, to remind her to attend court on February 2, 2026. The Respondent submits that, although the Applicants confirmed that they would attend court, they failed to do so as promised on February 2, 2026.

15The Respondent submits that they met with the Applicants and Oxford CAS on February 4, 2026, to discuss the Applicants’ failure to attend court. The Respondent submits that the Applicants identified areas of concern that had occurred during their weekend visit with the children. The Applicants agree but submit that they felt like their concerns were misunderstood.

16The Applicants submit that following the meeting they sent two emails to the Respondent, but did not hear back until February 10, 2026, when they received letters from both the Respondent and Oxford CAS saying that the Applicants were no longer approved for the kinship placement.

17The Respondent submits that they met with Oxford CAS on February 6, 2026, at which time Oxford CAS advised the Respondent that they were no longer approving the Applicants as a placement. The Respondent submits that they supported this decision.

18The Respondent submits that on February 10, 2026, they sent the Applicants an email with attached letters, one from the Respondent and one from Oxford CAS advising the Applicants of the decision to not approve their home and suggesting a meeting to discuss. The Respondent filed a copy of the letter they sent to the Applicants.

19Section 119(1) of the Act states that a person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society.

20Subsection 120(1) of the Act states that a person may complain about a service they sought or received from a society and that complaint may be made to either the society or the CFSRB, or both.

21For a complaint to be eligible for review by the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act, an Applicant must meet two threshold tests. First, an Applicant must demonstrate that they have sought or received a service, as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society or Indigenous child and family well-being agency. Once that is established, then the CFSRB must determine whether the Applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.

22Section 2(1) of the Act defines “service”:

(a) a service for a chid with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,

(b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

(c) a service related to residential care for a child,

(d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

(e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

(f) counselling for a child or the child’s family,

(g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

(h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

(i) a prescribed service. (This refers to services prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other services have been prescribed within the Regulations).

23The CFSRB has found that an individual being investigated by a children’s aid society is in receipt of a service: SD v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120), 2023 CFSRB 6. In that case, the CFSRB found that the services at issue are set out in the Child Protection Standards, which are prescribed by O. Reg. 156/8 and that these services, therefore, fall within the definition of a “prescribed service” in section 2(1)(i) of the Act.

24Similarly, I am satisfied that a kinship service is by its very nature a service for a child. S. 94(4) of the Act state, “before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2) (d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to make an order under clause (2) (c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community.” This is, indeed, a service to a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family and a service for a child or the child’s family. The services at issue are set out under section 40 of O. Reg. 156/18 which applies if a society proposes or is apprised of a plan to pace a child with a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community before placement and prescribe the services required for placement. I am satisfied that these services fall within the definition of a “prescribed service” in section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

25The Respondent made initial contact with the Applicants, asked that they attend planning meetings, arranged for them to be assessed by Oxford CAS, facilitated and supervised introductions to the children and arranged and supervised access. They recommended training for the Respondents and made other recommendations to them regarding the care of the children. Based on these facts I conclude that the Applicants have demonstrated that they sought and received a service from the Respondent.

The Respondent Did Not Address the Applicants’ Complaint

26On February 11, 2026, the Applicants sent an email expressing their concerns with the Respondent’s decision, which states, “If this is the final decision we are absolutely heartbroken. We ask you fully review and reconsider your decision as the statements said in your letters are not correct.”

27The Applicants submit that they filed a Formal complaint to the Respondent requesting an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) on February 16, 2026, which the Applicants attached to their application. That complaint details the history of the Applicants’ involvement with the Respondent and SMCYFS and states that they felt that they had been misunderstood at the meeting which occurred on February 4, 2026, which led to the rejection of them as kinship care providers. The Applicants state in their complaint that they would like their kinship assessment to be reviewed and to be reinstated as kinship caregivers for the children.

28The Applicants filed a letter from the Respondent to them dated March 6, 2026 which states, “on February 27, 2026 we received your request for an Internal Complaints Review Panel…For a complaint to be eligible for review under section 119(1) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017, you must have sought or received services and the complaint must be related to those services. Unfortunately, the complaint is not about services you have sought or received from Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, rather service that you received from Oxford Child and Family Services. To clarify, we are providing service to the children and our role with you was to help you understand the children’s needs…therefore we are unable to proceed with your request for an ICRP. We understand that our response may not satisfy your complaint and you have the right to complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board.”

29I have found that Applicants both sought and received a service from the Respondent. I further find that their complaint directly relates to that service. Therefore, the Respondent was obliged to deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation as set out at section 119(2) of the Act.

30O. Reg. 156/18 provides that if the complaint is eligible for review the society shall establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) and shall notify the complainant in writing, providing a date and time for meeting with the ICRP.

ORDER

31The Respondent shall notify the Applicant and establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) within 7 days of the date of this order and shall provide a date and time for meeting with the ICRP within 21 days of the date of this order.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

32Pursuant 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.