CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CR
Applicant
-and-
Bruce Grey Child and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Henry Pateman
Indexed as: CR v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
CR, Applicant
Self-Represented
Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, Respondent
AM, 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 February 5, 2026, pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and settled. The Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) is comprised of one Term, consisting of six parts (i.e., Terms 1a and b). The Agreement includes an implementation date of March 4, 2026, and a non-compliance date of March 11, 2026.
3The Agreement resulted in both parties alleging non-compliance with the Agreement by the other party.
4On February 18, 2026, the Respondent emailed the CFSRB, copying the Applicant. In the email, the Respondent alleged non-compliance with Term 1(f) of the Agreement.
5On February 19, 2026, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, responding to the allegation of non-compliance.
6On March 9, 2026, the Applicant emailed the CFRSB, copying the Respondent. In the email, the Applicant alleged non-compliance with Term 1 of the Agreement.
7On March 10, 2026, the CFSRB emailed both parties advising of the Applicant's non-compliance allegation and that the Respondent may respond, in writing, by March 17, 2026.
8A similar email was sent to both parties on March 12, 2026, advising of the Respondent's allegation of non-compliance. Noting that the Applicant had already responded to the allegations on February 19, 2026, the CFSRB provided the Applicant the opportunity to provide any further submissions, in writing, by March 17, 2026.
9On March 23, 2026, the CFSRB advised both parties via email that all allegations of non-compliance, including their respective responsive submissions, had been received and that no further requests for submissions would be made.
ISSUE
10The issue is two-fold:
Has the Respondent complied with Term 1 of the Agreement?
Has the Applicant complied with Term 1(f) of the Agreement?
RESULT
11I find the Respondent has not complied with Term 1 of the Agreement.
12I find the Applicant has not complied with Term 1(f) of the Agreement.
HEARING FORMAT
13Rule 8.1 in the CFSRB Rules of Procedure outlines that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference.
14Based 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
Applicant’s allegation of non-compliance
15In reviewing the Applicant’s non-compliance submissions, several issues were raised. These issues were as follows:
a. The March 6 panel materially departed from the agreed ICRP review by substituting a new external-review process.
b. The panel went outside the agreed scope by reviewing pre-November 17, 2023, material and by broadening the proceeding.
c. The section 129 reasons are still not compliant.
d. The recommendation about informing both parents and possible disclosure was outside the panel's authority.
e. The March 6 decision did not cure the original process defect; it repeated it in a different form.
16Within their submissions, the Respondent addresses, in part, the above issues, stating,
‘The Applicant, in his written submissions of non-compliance, also raises other concerns/issues that BGCFS does not believe relate to compliance with the Settlement Agreement. For example, the Applicant suggests that there was non-compliance in relation to “complaint review, not free-standing merits process”, expressed concerns in relation to section 129, and expressed concerns regarding recommendations made by the ICRP panel, for example, in relation to Part X. The Society is of the position that these are concerns outside of the Settlement Agreement and cannot be addressed as part of the non-compliance process.’
17In reviewing the Agreement of February 5, 2026, only issue (b) will be considered for any decision of non-compliance. All other issues fall outside of the scope of the Terms of the Agreement and appear to address the Applicant's concerns about outcomes and procedural matters.
18Term 1 (“the Term”) of the Agreement sets out that the Respondent will establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) to review the Applicant’s concerns with respect to his involvement with the Respondent commencing November 17, 2023. No facts or issues predating November 17, 2023, will be reviewed.
19In his submissions, the Applicant noted that during the proceedings, the ICRP Panel’s decision of March 6, 2026, expressly lists the October 4, 2023, ICRP response letter among the Society materials reviewed by the panel.
20The Respondent’s March 17, 2026, email offered their response to the Term and allegation:
‘The position of BGCFS is that it has not fully complied with the Settlement Agreement in relation to the period that will be reviewed, given that it mistakenly provided to the ICRP panel a single document, the ICRP response letter dated October 4, 2023, which was authored prior to November 17, 2023.’
Term 1 of the Agreement was not met.
21I find that the Respondent has partially complied with Term 1. The Respondent did establish an ICRP process within the agreed timeframe, but in doing so, provided documentation to the ICRP Panel outside the agreed-upon time frames as indicated in Term 1. The Respondent noted that the provision was completed in error.
Respondent’s allegation of non-compliance.
22In reviewing the Respondent’s non-compliance submissions, the allegations of non-compliance involve Term 1(f), which sets out that the Applicant will refrain from sending further material to the Respondent with respect to the complaint.
23In their submissions, the Respondent noted the Applicant sent two separate emails with respect to the complaint on February 16, 2026, one at 8:02 a.m., and a second sent to Society staff at 9:04 a.m. The Society is of the position that this is in breach of Term 1 (f) as the emails (and the attachments) are related to the complaint.
24The Applicant sent two separate emails to two separate entities of the Respondent on February 16, 2026. The emails contained the same information in the same format and included information relating to the complaint the Applicant intended to present during the ICRP process, including evidence to be offered and the ICRP panel obligations and authorities.
25In his response to the CFSRB dated February 19, 2026, the Applicant provided the following information:
a. Term 1(f) (“refrain from sending further material … with respect to the complaint”) must be read with the other implementation terms: the Panel’s independence and disclosure, the requirement of advance review “in totality,” the meeting format (including the Applicant’s 20-minute presentation), and the requirement to provide written results within 14 days. Read harmoniously, Term 1(f) is best understood as preventing ongoing supplementation of the evidentiary record, not preventing reasonable communications necessary to implement the settlement-ordered process.
b. The “ICRP Presentation” and related email text emphasize settlement-ordered and statutory obligations (independence, advance review, intelligible written reasons) and state that the document is intended to assist the Panel and does not introduce new evidence. The materials also recognize the confidentiality framework and describe the script as prepared for the ICRP meeting.
Term 1(f) of the Agreement was not met.
26I find that the Applicant has not complied with Term 1(f). The Applicant sent two separate emails to two different entities of the Respondent on February 16, 2026, and he admits to sending the emails, albeit with an intended purpose.
Remedies available to the CFSRB
27Under section 120(7) of the Act, the CFRSB has limited jurisdiction. The CFSRB may order a society to provide written reasons for a decision or dismiss the complaint. The 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.
ORDER
28As the remedies available for complaints filed under section 120 of the Act are limited to providing reasons, there is no further action to be taken.
29The CFSRB’s file is now closed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
30Pursuant 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.
Henry Pateman
Henry Pateman
Member