CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SM
Applicant
-and-
Children's Aid Society of Algoma
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie
Indexed As: SM v Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CYFSA s.120)
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 mother of two children (“the Children”). The Respondent commenced a child protection application almost two years ago. The Children were placed with their maternal grandmother subject to the interim supervision of the Respondent with access to the parents on terms and conditions.
3The Applicant submitted two separate Applications with complaints about the same Respondent. The CFSRB found Application CA25-0120 eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Act and Application CA25-0126 eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act. A Case Management Direction dated July 4, 2025, directed that the two Applications would proceed together.
4In its response to the Applications, the Respondent submitted that “the [CFSRB] should not proceed with [the Applicant’s] outstanding CFSRB complaints. The substance of [the Applicant’s] complaints are matters that are before the court. [The Applicant’s] civil suit and these complaints represent a collateral attack of the outstanding child protection court proceeding that has proceeded to trial.”
5The CFSRB issued a Case Management Direction on July 17, 2025, seeking submissions from the parties on whether the issues in the Applications are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
ISSUE
6The issue is:
a. Is the Application eligible for review by the CFSRB?
RESULT
7The CFSRB finds the application is not eligible for review. The issues brought forward in the Application are substantively the same as the issues that have been addressed by or are currently before the courts.
ANALYSIS
8Pursuant to s.120(8) of the Act, the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court. In its submissions, the Respondent provided the following documents:
a. Ontario Court of Justice Interim Access Order signed by Justice H.A. Mendes dated January 15, 2024
b. Ontario Court of Justice Interim Access Order signed by Justice R. Kwolek dated May 13, 2025.
c. Ontario Court of Justice Interim Access Order signed by Reasons for judgment signed by Justice R. Kwolek dated June 23, 2025.
d. Superior Court of Justice Statement of Claim dated June 20, 2025.
9The Applicant’s submissions on whether the issues in her complaint are before the courts included six previous CFSRB decisions and a four-page document that summarized those decisions. She also stated the following.
a. Her concerns are regarding the conduct, behaviours, approach, actions and decisions of the Respondent’s employees.
b. The incredible unchecked negative bias and the lack of insight or oversight which would have otherwise mitigated the effects of this bias on the handling of her case.
c. Her 77-page Book of Documents was not accepted by the Courts. As these documents were not accepted, the Applicant submits that the issues that she raised within the Book of Documents were never resolved and her voice was not heard.
d. Many of the issues raised with the CFSRB applications pertain to events that took place after the trial and are not issues before the court.
e. The CFSRB applications address the provision of services by the Society, which was not considered an issue before the court. She cites failing to adhere to provincially mandated standards of care.
f. Access became a method of punishment and reprisal. She claims that her voice was not heard on access decisions, risk assessment and anything to do with herself.
10I have reviewed the court documents provided by the Respondent. I find that the issues raised by the Applicant concerning the conduct of the Respondent’s workers and the bias she claims to have experienced are both currently before the courts. In his reasons, Justice R. Kwolek addressed the Applicant’s relationship with the Respondent in his reasons for judgment. In her Statement of Claim filed with the Superior Court of Justice, the Applicant seeks general, aggravated, and punitive damages from multiple employees of the Respondent as well as the Respondent itself. As such, the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of the issues raised at paragraphs 9a and 9b above.
11I find that the Applicant’s submission regarding her 77-page book of documents was addressed in full in the reasons for judgment issued by Justice R. Kwolek on June 23, 2025. Paragraphs 50 - 71 of the decision provide a full summary and analysis of the book of documents submitted by the Applicant and its relevance. Therefore, the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of the issue raised at paragraph 9c above.
12The Applicant stated that many of the issues brought forward in her Application pertain to events that took place after the trial and are not issues before the court. The Applicant did not provide any specific details about these issues in her submissions. As well, in his June 23, 2025, reasons for judgment, Justice Kwolek refers to further submissions as to variation of parenting time for the Applicant. Given the lack of detail provided by the Applicant and the ongoing proceedings for the Court, the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of the issue raised at paragraph 9d above.
13I find that the issue surrounding provision of services and adherence to the provincially mandated standards of care was addressed by Justice R. Kwolek in his June 23, 2025 reasons for judgment. Paragraph 146 of the reasons for judgment speaks to the Applicant’s poor relationship with the Respondent’s workers. Justice Kwolek also addressed the provincial standards in his decision, speaking of the state of the maternal grandmother’s home and her decision making. This clearly shows that issues of standards of care were considered by the courts. Therefore, the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of the issue raised at paragraph 9e above.
14I find that the Applicant’s concern regarding access is an issue that is firmly before the Courts. In his order dated January 15, 2024, Justice Mendes directly addressed the access that Applicant shall have with her children. He provided specific details as to when the mother can have access to her children subject to specific terms and conditions. Additionally, the issue of access continues to be a matter before the courts, with further submissions regarding parenting time for the Applicant currently under consideration. Therefore, the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of the issue raised at paragraph 9f above.
15I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review Applications CA25-0120 and CA25-0126.
ORDER
16The Applications are dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
17Pursuant 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.
Michelaine Lahaie
Michelaine Lahaie
Vice-Chair