AH v. The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2026 CFSRB 68

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AH Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon Date: May 05, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 68 Indexed as: AH v The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

AH, Applicant Eric Vallilee, Counsel

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Respondent Catherine Dyck, 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”).

2The Applicant is the current foster parent of a three-year-old child (the Child). The Applicant began caring for the Child on a full-time basis through an Outside Paid Resource in June 2024. Prior to that the Applicant cared for the Child on relief from 2023. The Child was placed in Extended Society Care by way of court order in October 2024. The Applicant transitioned to become a foster parent for the Respondent in April 2025, with a view to adopting the Child.

ISSUES

3The issues identified at the prehearing of January 9, 2026, are set out below:

a. The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons as to why the Respondent allegedly changed their position with regards to openness with the grandmother; from a position of no legal standing to a position of openness and required access to the grandmother.

b. The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons by way of Ministry documents, policies or research to demonstrate that openness with the grandmother was in the child’s best interests.

c. The Applicant is alleging that she was not given reasons for why the decision was made for visits with the grandmother to be unsupervised given her concerns regarding safety and the impact of these visits on the Child.

d. The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent did not provide reasons as to why they allegedly promoted openness with the grandmother over permanency with the Applicant.

RESULT

4I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons as to why the Respondent allegedly changed their position with regards to openness with the grandmother; from a position of no legal standing to a position of openness and required access to the grandmother.

5I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons by way of Ministry documents, policies or research to demonstrate that openness with the grandmother was in the Child’s best interests in a timely way, which would have been meaningful.

6I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant reasons as to why they allegedly promoted openness with the grandmother over permanency with the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

7It is important to note at the outset of this analysis that the Respondent conceded that the Applicant was not provided with adequate reasons for the decisions made that affected her interests at the time that those decisions were made by the Respondent both in its’ submissions and through the evidence of SH, the Supervisor of Resources. SH’s evidence was that thorough reasons have now been provided by way of a letter sent to the Applicant and her counsel dated February 11, 2026, signed by SH and the Respondent’s Service Director, JS. This letter was filed as Exhibit 2.

Issue A

8The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent failed to provide her with reasons as to why the Respondent allegedly changed its position with regards to openness with the grandmother; from a position of no legal standing to a position of openness and required access to the grandmother.

9The February 11, 2026 letter filed as Exhibit 2 (the letter) states that the grandmother had visited regularly with the Child and states that the Respondent did not have any protection or safety concerns with the grandmother. The letter states that the Respondent believes the Child has a longstanding relationship with the grandmother and as such a beneficial and meaningful bond with her grandmother and that should continue by way of “openness/contact”.The letter goes on to state that the Respondent was obligated to consider openness once the Extended Society care order was made under s. 185(2) of the Act.

10The letter states that when placing a child on adoption, the Respondent supports that there must be confidence that the child’s family connections are maintained post-adoption into adulthood. The Respondent submitted in the letter that given the deterioration of the relationship between the Applicant and the grandmother the Respondent did not have a high degree of confidence that the Applicant would follow through with contact between the Child and the grandmother on a voluntary basis. It states that, “Accordingly, it was necessary for the Society to shift its position from supporting an informal voluntary continuation of the relationship as arranged between AH and the grandmother, to recommending a formal openness agreement, and ultimately, making the decision to bring an openness application.”

11The letter states that the Respondent acknowledges that there was a shift over time in the Respondent’s approach to the relationship between the Child and the grandmother, both as part of the natural progression of the file, and in response to the change in dynamics between the parties involved. The Respondent states that this occurred initially when the file moved from a protection file towards permanency planning, stating, “Discussions regarding permanency planning, including openness, occurred with the Resource Worker, as this was her role to have these discussions, which is distinct from the role of the Society worker on the protection file or the child in care file.”

12The letter states, “However, there was never a shift in the Society’s position that an ongoing relationship between the children (sic) and the grandmother was in the child’s best interests and would be supported by the Society. The shift was only in how that support was manifested in response to changing circumstances.”

13The Applicant’s evidence is that in January 2025 the Respondent’s Child Protection Worker, SK, told her that access with the biological grandmother was at her discretion. An email chain between the Applicant and SK was filed as Exhibit 3.

14On January 6, 2025, the Applicant wrote the following to SK: “When I started this journey of adopting (the Child), I was open to welcoming (the grandmother) into my home to encourage a sense of openness with extended family. However, I have since reconsidered this decision. (The grandmother’s) behavior has made me feel extremely uncomfortable and unsafe. For my own well-being, I have decided that I will no longer host visits or have her in my home.”

15SK’s response on January 7, 2025, states, “I understand your position. Unfortunately, I’m not really able to dictate that (the grandmother’s) access be supervised as she is not part of my file or court order. If this is your decision, then the messaging should likely come from you. Maybe you can hold off on communicating with her for a bit…I understand soon you’ll be assigned a resource worker from CAS – as I’ve said before they may be helpful with navigating this with you.”

16The Applicant subsequently sought clarification, “Just to be clear so I fully understand your email before I send off an email to (the grandmother). You mentioned (the grandmother) is not part of your file or court order. If I let (the grandmother) know I will not be hosting visits, does that mean she won’t have visits because she is not part of the file and the CAS won’t be hosting them?”.

17SK responded with the following on January 8, 2025: “Correct – (the grandmother) is not part of the file or court order, therefore the Society has no obligation to offer her access. We just do this for grandparents/other people who are not parties and encourage care providers to continue access as we recognize family is important to the child and connections should be maintained when positive and appropriate for the child. Key words there – positive and appropriate. Again, we ask care providers to use their discretion around this and if there are access concerns, rather than eliminating access all together that they come up with a safe alternative plan. I think what you are proposing is acceptable and appropriate given the circumstances, however it is surely to really upset (the grandmother)…which you know. Of importance to note is that grandparents do not have any statutory legal rights in Ontario. There have been some cases where an OCL has sought openness for someone who is not a part (ie. Sibling). I doubt in this situation that the OCL would seek openness with anyone else as 1. (The Child) cannot express she DEFINITELY wants to see others and 2. The OCL takes their lead from the adoptive parent (you). (The grandmother) I guess could always bring forward an application in family court – anyone can do this for anything basically. But I don’t think she’d have any right to and it would likely be dismissed by the court. I hope this helps…if you have more questions around openness, it would be a good idea to consult your own legal counsel maybe to get some advice/direction. Also, again, this is where a resource worker from my agency can assist and answer more questions as they deal with openness far more often than I do!”.

18On the same day the Applicant responded, “Thanks for getting back to me, I just spoke to R and he will now be the primary point of contact for (the grandmother). R will arrange the next visit. Thank you for all your hard work! I truly appreciate your efforts in processing the adoption paperwork as quickly as possible. I know you have a lot on your plate, and I’m grateful that R has taken the lead on this to ensure (the grandmother) won’t need to reach out to either you or me directly. As you suggested, I will send a courtesy email to (the grandmother) to let her know I will no longer be facilitating visits, and I will cc both you and R. I remain firm in my decision and boundaries to prioritize the safety of myself and (the Child). Given that Shani is not part of the file, I have no further concerns.” R was a staff member of the Outside Paid Resource that the Applicant was fostering through.

19The evidence of CD was submitted by way of Affidavit (filed as Exhibit 5). CD is a lawyer who acted as agent for the Applicant in her adoption matter from approximately January 2025 to April 2025. CD attended meetings with the Applicant and the Respondent in relation to the Applicant’s adoption process.

20CD’s evidence is that an in-person meeting was held on March 31, 2025. The Respondent’s workers in attendance included SK and Resource Worker JD. CD’s evidence is that in response to the Applicant’s concerns about the grandmother’s involvement, SK confirmed an email would be sent to the grandmother that week, informing her that the Child was moving towards a more permanent placement and that she would not be able to continue with the visits, as she had previously. CD’s affidavit states, “(The grandmother) was not included in openness or access arrangements.”

21The evidence of SK was submitted by way of affidavit. SK’s affidavit states that during the March 31, 2025, meeting there were conversations with respect to the Applicant’s concerns about the grandmother. CD repeatedly asked SK to send a letter to the grandmother to advise that she would be having no further visits. SK states in her affidavit, “I did not agree to do so. When she continued to insist and to ask when they could expect this to be done, I ultimately agreed that I would speak to my supervisor about the possibility of sending a letter.”

22The evidence of Resource Worker JD was submitted by way of affidavit. JD’s affidavit states that during the March 31, 2025, meeting there were conversations with respect to the Applicant’s concerns about the grandmother. The affidavit states that CD repeatedly asked SK to send a letter to the grandmother to advise that she would be having no further visits. JD states that she recalls in response SK clearly stated that they would consult with their supervisor about whether they could send such a letter and never agreed to send such a letter.

23The Applicant’s evidence is that on April 1, 2025 the Respondent indicated to her by way of email that they still intended to send a letter to the grandmother but wanted to wait until the biological mother was served with the Notice of Intent to Place for Adoption and the 30 days had passed as they did not want the biological grandmother to cause further delays in the adoption process.

24The Applicant’s evidence is that on Friday, April 4, 2025, SK texted her that the biological mother had been served and that a letter to the biological grandmother was being prepared.

25SK’s affidavit states, “I subsequently followed up with (the Applicant) via email. At no time did I agree that the maternal grandmother was to have no further visits or that I would communicate this to her.”

26The Applicant’s evidence is that on Monday, April 7, 2025, JD advised that the grandmother was now required to be involved in the adoption in terms of visits and the Respondent had changed its’ position on sending a letter to her.

27JD’s evidence is that on April 25, 2025, she had a lengthy conversation with the Applicant in which she attempted to explain the importance of openness and family connections for the Child’s best interests and the need to find a way to move forward in repairing the relationship with the grandmother.

28CD’s evidence is that another in-person meeting was held on April 29, 2025, which again included SK and JD. JD relayed that both the grandmother and uncle expressed a desire for openness and more frequent contact with the Child. CD’s affidavit states, “The concept of openness with the biological family was discussed as a standard part of the adoption process. (The Applicant) reiterated her strong concerns about (the grandmother’s) involvement due to past challenges; (JD) emphasized that openness is in (the Child’s) best interests and suggested alternatives would need to be considered for (the Child’s) permanency placement if (the Applicant) could not support this approach, to openness as suggested by the CAS.”

29JD’s evidence in relation to the April 29, 2025, meeting is that she discussed openness as a standard part of the adoption process and emphasized that openness was in the Child’s best interests. JD’s affidavit states, “I stressed that the Society position was some sort of openness would have to occur with the grandmother. (The Applicant) responded that she felt that if she was forced to have interactions with the grandmother she may need to consider if she could continue with permanency. I advised that she needed to think about this, as openness was not optional…I was hopeful that with the Society’s support, the relationship could be repaired. I deny that I ever said or implied we were going to move the child from (the Applicant’s) home.” JD’s evidence is that she repeatedly explained that the grandmother posed no threat to the Child, who had had no regression behaviours and that access with the grandmother had always been seen as positive and that the Respondent would be remiss and doing a disservice to the Child’s best interests by not allowing some face-to-face contact with a person that she has had a consistent, meaningful and beneficial relationship with since birth.

30The Applicant has testified that she was left very confused by the Respondent’s change in position contributing to ongoing uncertainty and confusion regarding the Respondent’s expectations of her and her responsibilities.

31Much has been made of the different interpretations of what was communicated at the March 31, 2025, meeting and in the days that followed. It is difficult to reconcile the recollections of CD, JD, SK, and the Applicant. For me, though, what specifically happened at that meeting is not relevant to my determination of this issue. It is clear to me that a change in the Respondent’s position regarding the grandmother’s contact with the Child occurred between when the child protection worker SK carried the file in early January 2025 and when the file transferred to resource worker JD in April 2025.

32The Respondent’s letter of February 11, 2026 states that the change in position occurred when the file moved from a protection file towards permanency planning, stating, “Discussions regarding permanency planning, including openness, occurred with the Resource Worker, as this was her role to have these discussions, which is distinct from the role of the Society worker on the protection file or the child in care file.” I disagree. The Respondent can establish whatever roles it wishes within its organizational structure, but at the end of the day it is responsible to provide the Applicant reasons she can understand, particularly when she is basing life altering decisions, such as adopting a child, on those reasons. The evidence is that the Applicant was identified as the permanency plan by way of adoption for the Child at least by the summer of 2024 when the Applicant testified she completed her adoption home study. The Respondent provided a written letter confirming its agreement with the adoption plan which allowed the Applicant to go on a parental leave from work.

33The Respondent completed an adoption home study on the Applicant and supported her in taking parental leave. Whichever worker was dealing with the Applicant should have been explaining decisions regarding the grandmother’s contact through that lens, which should have included an explanation of the Respondent’s obligation both to consider openness and their position regarding openness well before the file transferred to the resource worker JD. That is the essence of concurrent planning.

34The obligation of the Respondent to consider the role of family members as relevant to a child’s best interests does not only begin to apply when adoption probation starts. Subsection 74(3) of the Act appears in Part V of the legislation, which deals with child protection and it states that where a person is directed to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall consider any circumstance the person considers relevant, including, the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community. It isn’t sufficient to say the grandmother was not part of the file, as SK did by way of explanation to the Applicant in the January 6 – 8 2025 email exchange.

35SK appears to endorse the restriction in access and the reasons for it in the email exchange of early January, says access is at the Applicant’s discretion, and goes so far as to provide what verges on legal advice to the Applicant, stating, “We just do this for grandparents/other people who are not parties and encourage care providers to continue access as we recognize family is important to the child and connections should be maintained when positive and appropriate for the child. Key words there – positive and appropriate. Again, we ask care providers to use their discretion around this and if there are access concerns, rather than eliminating access all together that they come up with a safe alternative plan. I think what you are proposing is acceptable and appropriate given the circumstances, however it is surely to really upset (the grandmother)…which you know. Of importance to note is that grandparents do not have any statutory legal rights in Ontario. There have been some cases where an OCL has sought openness for someone who is not a part (ie. Sibling). I doubt in this situation that the OCL would seek openness with anyone else as 1. (The Child) cannot express she DEFINITELY wants to see others and 2. The OCL takes their lead from the adoptive parent (you). (The grandmother) I guess could always bring forward an application in family court – anyone can do this for anything basically. But I don’t think she’d have any right to and it would likely be dismissed by the court. I hope this helps…if you have more questions around openness, it would be a good idea to consult your own legal counsel maybe to get some advice/direction. Also, again, this is where a resource worker from my agency can assist and answer more questions as they deal with openness far more often than I do!” It was reasonable for the Applicant to infer from this communication by the Respondent that they were not endorsing openness for the grandmother in January 2025.

36It is my view that, at the very least, the Respondent was obliged to bring the resource worker and adoption department into the communication with the Applicant at this stage to ensure that the information she was providing was in keeping with the Respondent’s long-term plans for openness and consistent with the Respondent agency’s views and policies. Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held at para 13 that: “A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how a decision was made.” The Applicant was not given sufficient information in January 2025. A meaningful explanation was not provided, given that it was not consistent with the Respondent’s position on openness.

37The letter states, “However, there was never a shift in the Society’s position that an ongoing relationship between the children (sic) and the grandmother was in the child’s best interests and would be supported by the Society. The shift was only in how that support was manifested in response to changing circumstances.” I disagree. circumstances had not changed between January and April 2025. Rather, circumstances had changed prior to January 2025 when the Applicant became fearful and uncomfortable with regard to the grandmother’s access. The Applicant communicates this clearly in her email of January 6, 2026, where she states, “When I started this journey of adopting (the Child), I was open to welcoming (the grandmother) into my home to encourage a sense of openness with extended family. However, I have since reconsidered this decision. (The grandmother’s) behavior has made me feel extremely uncomfortable and unsafe. For my own well-being, I have decided that I will no longer host visits or have her in my home.” The Applicant has maintained that position up to the hearing during which she expressed the same concerns in her evidence. What changed was the worker and the department making decisions on the case. The Respondent, though, cannot hide behind that. They are responsible for training their workers, so that they can communicate on behalf of the Respondent with a single voice in terms of permanency planning and openness and so that individuals like the Applicant can rely on what they are being told.

38I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision to change their position regarding the grandmother’s access to the Child.

Issue B

39The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons by way of Ministry documents, policies or research to demonstrate that openness with the grandmother was in the child’s best interests.

40The Respondent attached resources to the February 11, 2026 letter (Exhibit 2), including: Making Openness Work for Kids and Families Webinar – Adoption Council of Ontario; Adoption Openness FAQ; Adoption – Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies; Public Adoptions (at Ontario.ca) and Adoption Services and Supports (at Ontario.ca).

41I looked at each of these resources. They would be valuable to any individual considering public adoption in Ontario and I would think should be provided to prospective adoptive parents at the earliest possible stage in their adoption journey. They do set out considerations regarding Openness that any prospective adoptive parent should understand early on. According to the evidence, these resources were not, though, provided to the Applicant in 2024 when her adoption home study was completed and she began caring for the Child nor were they provided in January 2025 when she advised the Respondent that she was no longer comfortable facilitating visits for the grandmother. Finally, they were not provided in April 2025 when the Respondent advised the Applicant that openness with the grandmother by way of face-to-face contact was not optional.

42On May 12, 2025, the Applicant sent an email (Exhibit 4) that states, “I haven’t yet received the ministry policies regarding openness, could you please send those to me?” JD responded on May 15, 2025, “There are many sections under the CYFSA that speaks to Openness, Openness Order/Agreements and Contact that are fully accessible to you online.” That is not sufficient.

43In this instance I am of the view that the timing of the provision of resources matters. The Applicant did not receive these resources from the Respondent until February 11, 2026, after having cared for the Child for almost two years with a view to adopting her.

44I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons by way of Ministry documents, policies or research to demonstrate that openness with the grandmother was in the child’s best interests in a timely way, which would have been meaningful.

Issue C

45The Applicant is alleging that she was not given reasons for why the decision was made for visits with the grandmother to be unsupervised given her concerns regarding safety and the impact of these visits on the child.

46Limited evidence was entered by the parties in relation to this issue. I note that both parties’ evidence was that the Respondent commenced an Openness Application relating to the grandmother and the Child in December 2025 and that this Application is before the Court. Therefore, I find that the format and frequency of visits is before the Court.

Issue D

47The Applicant is alleging that the Respondent did not provide reasons as to why they allegedly promoted openness with the grandmother over permanency with the Applicant.

48The Applicant’s evidence is that a permanency plan for the Child was established in June 2023 when the Applicant submitted a letter of intent to adopt to SK and she completed her adoption home study in June 2024. The Applicant’s evidence is that the Respondent provided a written letter in June 2024 confirming its agreement with the adoption plan which allowed the Applicant to go on a parental leave from work.

49The February 11, 2026, letter (Exhibit 2) states that Part VIII of the Act requires the Respondent to consider the benefits of openness for the Child and states, “Consideration of openness is critical, both because it is prescribed in the CYFSA and because it has the potential to provide substantial benefits to many parties, but primarily to children and youth.”

50The letter states that a required competency for all Society Care Providers is to respect the importance of the child’s relationship with their family, to support the positive aspects of the relationship, and where possible, to establish a working relationship with the child’s family members. The letter states that this is reviewed at the home study level (SAFE) and in training (PRIDE) and in additional training and discussions with the Resource Worker.

51The letter states that during the home study the Applicant expressed an understanding of openness and the importance of family connections and a willingness to maintain and support those family connections.

52The letter concludes, “The Society consistently advised AH that the Society supported the child being able to have ongoing relationships with her family of origin and that the assessment of the adoption plan necessarily included a caregiver’s ability to support those relationships.”.

53CD’s evidence regarding the meeting that was held on April 29, 2025, is that JD emphasized that openness was in the Child’s best interests and suggested alternatives would need to be considered for the Child’s permanency placement if the Applicant could not support this approach to openness, as suggested by the CAS.

54JD’s evidence in relation to the April 29, 2025, meeting is that she discussed openness as a standard part of the adoption process and emphasized that openness was in the Child’s best interests. JD’s affidavit states, “I stressed that the Society position was some sort of openness would have to occur with the grandmother. (The Applicant) responded that she felt that if she was forced to have interactions with the grandmother she may need to consider if she could continue with permanency. I advised that she needed to think about this, as openness was not optional…I was hopeful that with the Society’s support, the relationship could be repaired. I deny that I ever said or implied we were going to move the child from (the Applicant’s) home.”

55On May 15, 2025 JD stated the following in an email to the Applicant (Exhibit 4): “As (SK) and I also spoke about, the adoptive family for (the Child) will need to have face to face and/or phone contact with (the Child’s) birth family, however the terms turn out to be…At this time, I cannot predict what (the Child’s) contact will be with (T, L, and the grandmother) , but there will be some form of contact, and it could take months to a year to sort this out. Which is why we cannot take the approach of “wait and see“ before committing to adopting her. If this is not something you can fulfill then we need to know your position so that we can make permanency plans for (the Child). “

56The Applicant’s evidence is that she has demonstrated a willingness to support openness with the grandmother, including through the sharing of updates and photographs. The Applicant’s evidence is that the openness she was offering did not meet the Respondent’s requirements of in person contact with the grandmother.

57The Applicant’s perception is that the Respondent has communicated that they will not support her adoption plan if she does not agree to in person contact with the grandmother. While the Respondent denies this and points to the fact that they have not removed the Child, they have stated that openness is not optional. They point back to their reasons for believing that visits are in the Child’s best interests and their evidence is that they have been consistent in this message. As I found under Issue A they have not been consistent.

58I find that the Respondent did not provide reasons for promoting openness with the grandmother over permanency with the Applicant.

Remedies

59The Respondent has conceded that the Applicant was not provided adequate reasons for the decisions that affected her interests at the time that those decisions were made by the Respondent. The Respondent has filed a letter dated February 11, 2026, which purports to provide thorough reasons to the Applicant. In other words, the Respondent has now provided detailed reasons for their decisions at issue. What remains available for the CFSRB to order?

60The Applicant’s counsel submitted in closing arguments that the February 11, 2026 letter does not fully cure the breach because it was not sent contemporaneous with the decisions that were made, rendering it less adequate and responsive. I agree and have made the following findings:

a. I find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for their decision to change their position regarding the grandmother’s access to the Child.

b. I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons by way of Ministry documents, policies or research to demonstrate that openness with the grandmother was in the child’s best interests in a timely way, which would have been meaningful.

c. I find that the Respondent did not provide reasons for promoting openness with the grandmother over permanency with the Applicant.

61I make no further Order(s).

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

62Pursuant 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.

Dated May 05, 2026.

Karynn von Cramon

__________________________________

Karynn von Cramon Member