CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
OH
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth
Indexed As: OH v The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application consists of the following complaints under section 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”):
2The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent’s staff member L.O. allegedly made various inappropriate comments to her in August 2024 after the Applicant had received her disclosure file for the purposes of becoming a foster parent and or in connection with her employment, specifically:
a. The Applicant alleges L.O. told her that she was “crazy” for showing up at the Respondent’s office unannounced and said that the Applicant would “never work in this field (childcare) again.”
b. The Applicant also alleges that L.O. also told her that she (the Applicant) “had a lot of trauma and needs to see a therapist.”
BACKGROUND
3This application was commenced on May 7, 2025.
4The Applicant’s statement of the facts which underlies her complaint is condensed and disjointed making her complaint difficult to summarize. The Applicant outlined that her employer (not identified) required her to undergo a “child welfare check”. The Applicant describes that having given permission for the check she learned that there was “a case involving me with the Children’s Aid”. Upon receiving this information, the Applicant attended at the Respondent’s offices unannounced to complain about the information contained in her file. She alleges that the Respondent’s employee L.O. made the disparaging remarks she complains of. The application does not detail the date that the Applicant attended at the Respondent’s offices or the length of time of the attendance.
5However, based on the documentation attached to the Applicant’s complaint her attendance at the Respondent’s offices occurred sometime after the employee complained of sent a request to its own Disclosure Department, copying the Applicant, and requesting that the Applicant, a “service user”, be provided with “all of her Peel CAS records.”
6The parties attend a pre-hearing mediation on June 11, 2025 but did not reach a settlement. A Pre-Hearing Mediation Report was issued on June 16, 2025 (the “June 16 Report”). The June 16 Report specified pre-hearing dates of June 16 and June 23rd each between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. This Report was provided to the parties by email.
7A Notice of Video-Conference Pre-Hearing was sent to the parties on June 16, 2025. As set out in the Pre-Hearing Report dated June 24, 2025 (the “June 24 Report”), the Applicant did not attend the hearing and when reached by telephone declined to participate because she was at her child’s graduation ceremony. At the pre-hearing, the Respondent formally raised the issue of the Child and Family Services Review Board’s (CFSRB) jurisdiction to consider the Applicant’s complaint as set out in its May 8, 2025 submissions further described below.
8The June 24th Report required the Applicant to advise the CFSRB if she wished to pursue her application by July 3, 2025 and to explain her reasons for not attending the pre-hearing on June 23, 2025. The Report further required the Applicant to make submissions regarding the issue of jurisdiction.
9The June 24th Report did not reference the Applicant’s June 23 email to the CFSRB in which she stated “I am sorry for missing Today’s hearing. I informed the lady on the pre hearing that today’s hearing would be impossible for me to attend because it is the last week of school”. She re-iterated her intention to participate in the process by a separate email of June 24 in which she stated that “I did informed the lady on the first prehearing that I cannot attend that date.” She indicated her intention to participate in the pre-hearing process by stating “This prehearing needs to be rescheduled”.
10By email dated July 7, 2025, the Applicant re-stated her reasons for not attending the June 23 pre-hearing and emphasized her intention to appear at a re-scheduled pre-hearing but she did not address the jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent.
11The Respondent first raised the jurisdictional issues in a letter dated May 8, 2025 in response to the application. The Respondent pointed to the CFSRB’s limited jurisdiction to consider matters circumscribed by Section 119 of the Act and Rule 20.1 of its Rules of Procedure. The Respondent submitted that that jurisdiction is limited to instances where the society has:
a. Refused to proceed with a complaint;
b. Failed to respond to the complaints within the prescribed timelines;
c. Failed to comply with the procedural requirements of its internal complaint review process;
d. Failed to ensure that children, young person, and their parents were given an opportunity to be heard and represented in decisions affecting their interest; or
e. Failed to provide reasons for decisions that affect an applicant’s interest.
12The Respondent characterizes the Applicant’s complaints as seeking a general review of “her perceived mistreatment.”
13The Respondent also argued that the Applicant’s assertion of false diagnoses of mental illness contained in the Respondent’s files fall within the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (since January 1, 2020) and that any complaints regarding the substance of the files should be directed to that body.
14The Respondent repeated these assertions of lack of jurisdiction in its Summary Reply to the application dated May 16, 2025.
ANALYSIS
15The Respondent does not argue that the Applicant is not a “service recipient” nor does the Respondent argue that the Applicant was not provided with a service when she requested and was provided with records compiled and maintained by the Respondent. Essentially, the Respondent argues that the Applicant is not entitled to be heard over her concerns about the way she was treated by the Respondent’s employee nor that she is entitled to reasons for such treatment.
16I disagree with the Respondent’s characterization of the Applicant’s complaint as being merely a request by the Applicant to have the CFSRB review her perceived mistreatment. The Applicant has asked that the CFSRB review the failure of the Respondent to hear her concerns about treatment by an employee in a circumstance where the Applicant’s very livelihood could be at risk.
17A separate issue not raised by the Respondent, but which nonetheless must be addressed, is the Applicant’s failure to attend the scheduled pre-hearing of June 23, 2025 and her failure to provide written submissions on the jurisdiction issue as directed by the June 24 Report.
18Having carefully reviewed the correspondence between the Applicant and the CFSRB staff, I find that the Applicant had a mistaken but honestly held belief that she had effectively communicated her unavailability to attend a pre-hearing anytime during the last two weeks of June.
19As is set out in the Rules of Procedure of the CFSRB specifically in Part A – Adjudicative Values and Interpretive Principles ( the “Rules”)) Rule A3.1: “The rules and procedure of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied”.
20In my view, the same purposive approach is required when considering preliminary issues before the CFSRB. The Applicant’s failure to provide a written response to the June 24 Report should not preclude the Applicant from having the merits of her complaint considered by the CFSRB particularly when it is found to have jurisdiction; however, the Application is directed to be aware of Rule A8 which allows the CFSRB to consider remedies if it considers a participant to engage in an abuse of its process. Should the Applicant fail to appear on another scheduled date, the remedies set out under this Rule are available to the CFSRB.
ORDER
21This Application shall proceed to a pre-hearing on a date which is confirmed, in writing, to be available to both parties.
confidentiality order
22Pursuant 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, August 05, 2025.
Christina Budweth
Christina Budweth
Member