KP v. North Eastern Ontario Family and Children's Services, 2026 ONCFSRB 83

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KP

Applicant

-and-

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children's Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster

Date: May 28, 2026

Indexed as: KP v North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services

(CYFSA s. 120)

APPEARANCES

KP, Applicant

Self-Represented

North Eastern Ontario Family and Children's Services

Taylor Paquette, Legal Counsel

INTRODUCTION

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

BACKGROUND

2The Application was submitted on January 2, 2026 and a pre-hearing was held on February 10, 2026.

3At the pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application. The Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) is comprised of three main Terms (Terms 1a, 1b and 1c). Term 1a has three parts (i, ii and iii) and Term 1c has two parts (i and ii). The Agreement has an implementation date of April 10, 2026, and a non-compliance date of April 17, 2023.

4In response to the Agreement, the Respondent sent a letter to the Applicant dated March 11, 2026 (“March 11 Letter”).

On March 19, 2026, the Applicant emailed the Respondent, copying the CFSRB, (“March 19 Email) alleging that, in its March 11 Letter, the Respondent did not comply with Terms 1a i and iii, Term 1b and Term 1c i and ii. Later, on March 19, 2026, the CFSRB emailed the Applicant, with a copy to the Respondent, stating that the CFSRB would not take any actions on the non-compliance allegations until after the implementation date of April 10, 2026.

5On April 13, 2026, the Applicant resent the allegations of non-compliance to the Respondent and the CFSRB. On April 23, 2026, the Respondent sent a letter to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant, taking the position that it had fully complied with the terms of the Agreement and alleged that the Applicant was advancing issues that were outside the scope of the mediated Agreement.

6The CFSRB held a videoconference on May 19, 2026 (‘May 19 Videoconference”) to determine whether the Respondent had complied with the Agreement.

ISSUE

7The issue is:

• Has the Respondent complied with Terms 1a i and iii, Term 1b and Terms 1c i and ii of the Agreement?

RESULT

8After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments during the videoconference, I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1a i and iii. I further find that the Respondent did not comply with Term 1b and Terms 1c i and ii of the Agreement.

ANALYSIS

9In considering whether sufficient reasons for decisions made by the Respondent were provided to the Applicant in response to the Agreement, I considered JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at paragraph 13, wherein the CFSRB held that:

…what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making decisions to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

Term 1. By March 13, 2026, the Respondent shall provide reasons in writing to the Applicant for the Respondent’s decisions to:

a. complete assessments dated February 10, 2025, related to the Applicant and her son, A, without the Applicant’s knowledge or participation. As part of its response, the Respondent shall explain:

i. how information was obtained to complete the assessments;

10In its March 11 Letter, the Respondent states that the only assessment dated February 10, 2025 is a Strengths and Needs Assessment (“SNA”). The Respondent describes this as a standardized assessment which is required under the Ontario Child Protection Tools Manual. The Respondent notes that information for this assessment is completed “through interactions and observations throughout an investigation and through any previous child protection history.” The Respondent indicated that the Applicant was assessed as part of a family unit that was receiving services from the Society.

11In her March 19 Email, the Applicant contends that the question of how the information was obtained was not answered. She states the information in the March 11 Letter was not specific and did not include information on the interactions or observations that were relied on, what previous child protection history was considered and who was interviewed.

12In the May 19 Videoconference, the Respondent reiterated that the SNA would have been completed through interactions with family members and the history involving those matters. The Respondent further submitted that the information for an SNA comes from multiple sources, and sometimes not interviews. It noted that the SNA is automated with pre-populated questions to be completed as part of an administrative procedure to determine the strengths of an individual who is part of an investigation.

13I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1a i of the Agreement in its March 11 Letter. It provided information on its process for completing this assessment in stating: “through interactions and observations throughout an investigation and through any previous child protection history.” The Respondent expanded on how this assessment was completed during the May 19 Videoconference. The Applicant is seeking more information, but that was not part of the mediated settlement. I find that the Respondent is in compliance with this Term.

iii. how the assessments were completed by Respondent worker [AL] on February 10, 2025, when, to the Applicant’s understanding, that worker was not assigned to the relevant files on or around February 4, 2025.

14In its March 11 Letter, the Respondent stated that the assessment was completed in February 2025 by AL because she was the investigative worker assigned to the file. As such, it was required that she complete the assessment as part of the administrative component of her role. The Respondent indicated that the subsequent worker, KB, assumed carriage of the file February 24, 2025. During the May 19 Videoconference, the Respondent reiterated that the file was reassigned to KB, but AL was required to complete the administrative tasks for this purpose, and the SNA was part of these tasks.

15In her March 11 Email, the Applicant takes the position that the Respondent did not answer the question in its March 11 Letter. She asserts that she and her spouse were advised by worker KB that AL was removed from the file on February 4, 2025 and questions how, given this, AL could have completed the assessment.

16I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1a iii. It explained that the SNA was completed by AL as part of her administrative role as the file was reassigned.

Term 1b. [the Respondent’s decisions to] not interview the Applicant as part of the January 2025 apprehension of the children, D and E, when the Applicant was an adult caregiver of those children at that time and had provided her contact information to the Respondent

17The Respondent submitted in the March 11 Letter that on January 15, 2025, Child E disclosed harm while in her father and the Applicant’s home during an interview with a Respondent worker. It indicates that the same day a joint police investigation was initiated. The Respondent asserts that the Applicant and the Children’s father “repeatedly expressed they would not meet with the investigative worker AL.”

18The Applicant states in her March 19 Email that the Respondent did not provide an answer as to why interviews were not conducted with her during the investigation stage. She denies refusing to meet with the Respondent.

19At the May 19 Videoconference, the Respondent stated that the removal of the Children was an emergency and happened quickly. The Respondent further relayed that the decision on whether to interview the Applicant would have been made by a supervisor. The Respondent submitted that the supervisor on the file at the time no longer works with the Respondent, so it is unable to ascertain why this decision was made.

20I find the Respondent did not comply with Term 1b. It did not sufficiently explain to the Applicant why she was not interviewed. Although the Respondent submits that the supervisor would have been the sole decision maker in this regard and that the supervisor no longer works with the Respondent, the Respondent nonetheless should provide a reason.

Term 1c [the Respondent’s decisions to] deny the safety plan developed and discussed on January 16, 2025, as between the Applicant, her husband and Respondent worker [MR] and instead apprehend the children, D and E. As part of its response the Respondent shall explain:

i) why the Applicant and her husband were not informed that the proposed safety plan was denied before the apprehension of the children, D and E; and

ii) why the Applicant and her husband were not given an opportunity to amend the safety plan to enable the children, D and E, to remain in their care pending police interviews.

21In its March 11 Letter, the Respondent submits that the Children were not scheduled to return to their father’s (the Applicant’s husband) care until January 16, 2025. It states that it provided the Children’s father a Safety Plan to have the Children reside elsewhere until the police interviews were complete and that he rejected the Safety Plan. It indicates the Children’s father presented his own Safety Plan which included unsupervised time with E and that he was adamant that he would pick up D and E from school that day. The Respondent notes there was no joint plan developed or discussed between the Society, the Children’s father and the Applicant. At the May 19 Videoconference the Respondent stated that the Children were removed through a “technical removal,” which the Respondent explained to be an emergency situation.

22In her March 19 Email, the Applicant argues that the Respondent’s March 11 Letter did not explain why she and her spouse were not informed that their Safety Plan was not acceptable, why no opportunity was provided to modify the plan and why apprehension was pursued without further discussion. The Applicant acknowledges that her spouse rejected the Respondent’s Safety Plan but proposed an alternative Safety Plan.

23I find that the Respondent did not comply with Term 1c i and ii of the Agreement. The March 11 Letter does not answer the questions directly. The Respondent’s statement that this was a “technical removal and emergency” does not sufficiently explain its reasons. The Respondent provides a narrative for what occurred at the time of the Children’s removal; however, it did not answer specifically why the Applicant was not informed at the time that the Safety Plan proposed by the Applicant and her spouse was rejected. The Respondent also did not answer why it did not give the Applicant and her spouse an opportunity to amend the alternate Safety Plan they proposed.

SUMMARY

24After having reviewed the response and allegations of non-compliance, I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 1a i and iii. The Respondent did not comply with Term 1b and Term 1c i and ii.

ORDER

25I direct that by June 29, 2026, the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant responding to the following questions, providing sufficient detail for her to understand, the following:

1. In relation to Term 1b: why the Respondent did not interview the Applicant at the time of the Children’s removal.

2. In relation to Term 1c i and ii: why the Applicant and her spouse were not informed that their proposed Safety Plan was rejected and why the Respondent did not give the Applicant and her spouse an opportunity to revise the Safety Plan.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

26Pursuant 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.

Tracy Foster

Tracy Foster

Member