CR v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2026 CFSRB 75

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CR Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: May 11, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 75 Indexed as: CR v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the "Act").

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the "CFSRB") found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on April 22, 2026.

3The Respondent submitted its Response on May 4, 2026.

4Within the Application and Response, the parties have submitted emails, a letter, multiple videos, court documents, and Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) notes.

5Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB's Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.

ISSUE

6The issues drawn from this Application are:

a. Did the Respondent ensure a meaningful opportunity to be heard before making and communicating findings of verified or not verified for the concerns listed in the closing letter;

b. Did the March 30, 2026, closing letter provide adequate reasons for the verified and not verified findings;

c. Did the Respondent consider contrary evidence in its 2024 note and December 4, 2020, endorsement; and

d. Were the March 2026 risk-assessment materials inconsistent or factually unreliable in ways that required explanation before file closure.

RESULT

7The Respondent provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard but did not provide sufficient reasons in the closing letter. It is outside the CFSRB's jurisdiction to consider the evidence which was relied upon during the Respondent's investigation, or which formed the basis of its decisions.

ANALYSIS

8The Respondent has been involved with the Applicant since 2021. On August 28, 2025, the Applicant brought new concerns to the Respondent, which resulted in the Respondent opening a file and a new investigation.

9On March 30, 2026, the Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter which outlined the concerns that were raised and investigated and provided the verification decision for each (the "Closing Letter"). The concerns identified were: the child's exposure to conflict, the child's mother's mental health, and the child's mother's alleged use of physical discipline.

Did the Respondent ensure a meaningful opportunity to be heard before making and communicating findings of verified or not verified for the concerns listed in the Closing Letter

10The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide an opportunity to have his concerns heard prior to making or communicating findings. Specifically, he alleges that he was not heard prior to making the findings of verified or not verified for each concern and closing the file.

11The Respondent argues that it did in fact hear the Applicant's concerns. It further submits that it offered the Applicant an opportunity to reach back out after it provided the Closing Letter if there were questions, which the Applicant did not do.

12In assessing whether the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard, I have considered the analysis set out in P.O v Family and Children Services of Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38. At paras 13 – 14, the CFSRB states that the purpose of 120 4 (4) and (5)

reflects the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

13The Respondent points to two meetings and multiple emails where the Applicant's concerns were heard. On September 3, 2025, the parties discussed the Applicant's concerns which initiated the investigation, as well as additional concerns the Respondent had. A second meeting was held on February 18, 2026, to discuss the investigation, but the Respondent submits that the Applicant was not focused on the current investigation but preoccupied with previously investigated events which were not relevant.

14The emails provided as evidence by the Applicant show questions posed by the Applicant about the investigation and concerns he had being answered by the Respondent.

15Although the Applicant may not be satisfied with the number of opportunities provided, the answers to his questions, or the amount of involvement into the investigation he was granted, I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to voice his concerns.

Did the March 30, 2026, Closing Letter provide adequate reasons for the verified and not verified findings

16The Applicant submits that the Closing Letter provided insufficient reasons for why findings were verified or not verified, resulting in closing the file. The Applicant argues that in order to be sufficient, the reasons must contain specifics such as sources relied upon, criteria applied, source materials and notes, the reasoning path from evidence to conclusion.

17The Respondent submits that it did in fact provide sufficient reasons and provides the Closing Letter as evidence.

18In determining whether the Respondent met it obligations under section 120(4) 5, I must consider whether the Respondent took steps to address the Applicant's concerns and communicated this to him so that he felt his concerns were taken seriously (P.O. v. Family and Children Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38), and provided a meaningful explanation about decisions that affected his interests, providing sufficient detail to allow him to understand why and how a decision was made (JG v Windsor Essex Children's Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8).

19In reviewing the Closing Letter, some evidence and the grounds which formed the verification for the concern of exposure to conflict was provided in the Closing Letter. Specifically, the Closing Letter states that the ground for the verification is an argument that was had during access transfer and the child's knowledge of some adult matters. Statements from the child are cited as evidence of the latter. Only the final determination of not verified was provided for the remaining concerns. Additionally, there is no explanation given in the Closing Letter why the file is being closed, especially as multiple concerns were verified.

20In reviewing the email correspondence, there is no explanation for the final decisions made, only updates or explanations around the investigation itself.

21The standard which the Respondent must meet to show that the reasons provided were sufficient does not require detailed reports into the full investigation, the provision of transcripts of interviews, or full listing of sources. The Respondent must however provide enough information that would allow the Applicant to understand how and why a decision was made.

22I find that insufficient reasons and explanation were provided in the Closing Letter as it did not provide an explanation of the Society's role or actions taken to investigate, timing, how/why it reached the conclusion it did, and how/why it decided whether to keep the file open for ongoing monitoring versus closing it.

Did the Respondent consider contrary evidence in its 2024 note and December 4, 2020, endorsement; and were the March 2026 risk-assessment materials inconsistent or factually unreliable in ways that required explanation before file closure.

23An application deemed eligible under sections 120(4) 4 and 5 of the Act, is limited to reviewing only whether an Applicant was given an opportunity to have his concerns heard and was provided with reasons for decisions that affect his interest. The CFSRB's jurisdiction does not include a review of how an investigation was conducted or what evidence was used to come to a decision. Similarly, the CFSRB jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society's general practices or how those decisions were applied or carried out. Concerns about a society's general practices are not ones contemplated by the Act.

24As such, it is outside of the CFSRB's jurisdiction to review or provide a decision as it relates to the evidence used in the Respondent's investigation and decision.

25Similarly, I can not make a finding on whether the risk-assessment materials were inconsistent or unreliable. However, as it has been found above that sufficient reasons were not provided, provision of those reasons should provide the clarity the Applicant is seeking in understanding the evidence used and how it was considered.

CONCLUSION

26I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard but was not provided sufficient reasons for the verification decisions outlined in the Closing File or for the reason the file was closed.

ORDER

27The Application is upheld in part.

28Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons. The Reasons will include the Society's role or actions taken to investigate, the timing, and how/why it reached the conclusion it did for the following concerns:

a. the child's exposure to conflict,

b. the child's mother's mental health,

c. the mother's use of physical discipline, and

d. why it decided to close the file.

confidentiality order

29Pursuant 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.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley

Member