RG v. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, 2025 CFSRB 122

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RG Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: September 05, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 122 Indexed As: RG v The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

RG, Applicant Self-represented

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Respondent Mark Hecht, 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”). The CFSRB determined the Application was eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

2The Applicant is the paternal grandmother and former kin caregiver to the child, ZL (the “Child”) who lived with the Applicant under the Respondent’s supervision between April 2023 and August 2024.

3In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s complaints were before the Superior Court of Justice (“Court”) between April 11, 2023 and April 7, 2025 during child protection proceedings in which the Applicant was a party. The Respondent requested that the CFSRB deny its jurisdiction to review the Application. The Respondent filed with its Response an Endorsement of the Court dated March 6, 2025 (“Court Endorsement”) and a Final Court Order dated April 7, 2025 (“Court Order”).

4In its Case Management Direction dated July 31, 2025, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to make written submissions on whether her complaints in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. The Applicant filed submissions addressing that issue. As part of her submissions, the Applicant also reiterated her complaint from the Application that the Respondent failed to hold an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) as she requested.

5The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to provide reply submissions but it did not.

6I reviewed the Application and Response, along with the supporting documents filed with each, and the Applicant’s submissions on jurisdiction in making this Decision.

ISSUES

7The issues are:

a. Is the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to hold an ICRP eligible for review by the CFSRB?

b. Are the Applicant’s complaints in her Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?

RESULT

8The Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to hold an ICRP is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

9The CFSRB finds that, on the material filed, three of the Applicant’s complaints have not been issues before the Court. Those complaints may proceed to a hearing. The remainder of the Application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The Applicant’s Complaint that the Respondent Did Not Hold an ICRP is Not Eligible for Review by the CFSRB

10In the Application and her submissions related to jurisdiction, the Applicant complains that the Respondent failed to proceed with an ICRP.

11Section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (the “Regulation”) states:

A complaint to a society under subsection 119(1) of the Act must be made in the form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)” and dated 2020/11, available on a website of the Government of Ontario.

12Subsection 119(2) of the Act requires that a complaint to a children’s aid society be made in the format set out in the Regulation. This includes the filing of a specific “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)” form. Under subsections 120(4)1, 120(4)2, and 120(4)3 of the Act, the CFSRB may review the way a children’s aid society has dealt with a section 119 complaint only when the complaint has been made in the required format.

13As part of her Application, the Applicant included an email to the Respondent dated July 12, 2025, in which she writes “to formally lodge a complaint” against the Respondent. However, the Applicant did not file or provide information in her Application to support that she made a complaint to the Respondent in the form required by the Regulation.

14Accordingly, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review whether the Respondent refused to proceed internally with the Applicant’s complaint and whether the Respondent did not follow its complaint review process or timelines. The CFSRB’s Notice of Eligibility dated July 24, 2025 reflects the CFSRB’s prior determination of this issue. The Application was deemed eligible to proceed only under subsections 120(4)4 and 5 of the Act, and not subsections 120(4)1, 2 or 3.

Relevant Legislation and Case Law related to Issues Decided by or Before the Court

15Subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act sets out that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a section 120 complaint if the subject of the complaint “is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

16The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 held that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

17Accordingly, the application of subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act to the review of an applicant’s complaints is essentially a two-part review. First, the CFSRB must consider what constitute the “substantive issues” before a court, and second, whether the applicant’s complaints in an application are “separate and different” from those substantive issues.

Issues before the Court

18Under Rule 21.2(a) of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure, where a children’s aid society takes the position that the CFSRB cannot review an application because the subject of the application is an issue that has been decided by the Court or before the Court, the society must provide submissions in support of its position and attach all relevant documents and any Court orders with its response.

19In this Application, the Respondent provided a brief Response challenging the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Application. The Respondent submits that:

The case that the Applicant is complaining of was before the Court from April 11, 2023 to April 7, 2025. The Applicant was a Party to the proceedings. She attended all Court appearances and made her concerns about the other Parties, including the Society, known to the Court.

20The Court Order and Court Endorsement filed by the Respondent in support of its position confirms that the Applicant was a party to the Court proceedings and that those proceedings related to issues of custody of the Child, decision-making responsibilities of the Child’s father, and access of the Child to various persons, including the Applicant.

21In her submissions, the Applicant submits that her Application “isn’t about relitigating custody, or access” but instead about how the Respondent “treated [her] during the time [she] was responsible for [the Child]”. In her materials, the Applicant outlines five main complaints, each of which is considered separately below.

The Applicant’s Complaints

1) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns for the Child including about neglect, punitive parenting, deprivation of food and stimulation and behavioural issues corroborated by professionals, and the Respondent did not provide reasons for its decisions relating to those concerns

22In her Application and supporting material, the Applicant complains that since 2017 and including during the time she was a kinship caregiver to the Child, she raised multiple concerns to the Respondent about the Child’s health, safety and well-being. The Applicant identifies in her Application, but without specific details, that her concerns relate to “neglect, punitive parenting, deprivation of food and stimulation, and behavioural issues corroborated by professionals”. In her submissions, the Applicant complains that the Respondent ignored or minimized specific concerns (i.e., “suicidal behaviour, animal cruelty, aggression, property damage, and trauma after parental visits”), and the Respondent did not explain why it made the decisions it did relating to the Applicant’s concerns.

23Under section 120(1) of the Act, the CFSRB may review complaints in respect of a service sought or received from a children’s aid society. Subsection 2(1) of the Act lists what is included in the definition of “service”.

24It is unclear from the Applicant’s material what “services” for the Applicant or Child were sought or received from the Respondent that relate to the above concerns.

25The Respondent did not file any Court documents (e.g., Affidavits, Plans of Care) to demonstrate that the Applicant’s complaints about not being heard or provided with reasons relating to the above concerns were raised by the Applicant during the Court proceedings or were issues before the Court. The Court Endorsement and the Court Order do not identify these as issues before the Court. Accordingly, I am unable to find that these complaints were issues before the Court.

26In the absence of documentation to support that the Applicant’s complaints were before the Court, I find that these complaints, insofar as they relate to services sought or received from the Respondent, are within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

2) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about its decision to exclude her from planning conversations related to the Child or provide her with reasons for this exclusion

27In her submissions, the Applicant states that the Respondent “cut [her] out of planning conversations, even though [she] was the one caring for [the Child] day in and day out”.

28The Respondent did not file any Court documents to demonstrate that the Applicant’s complaint about not being heard about her exclusion from planning conversations was raised by the Applicant during the Court proceedings or it was an issue before the Court. Accordingly, I am unable to find that these complaints were issues before the Court.

29I find that this complaint is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

3) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about its failure to provide her with a Kinship Service Agreement (“KSA”) during her provision of kinship care to the Child between April 2023 and August 2024 or provide her with reasons for this failure

30In her submissions, the Applicant complains that the Respondent did not provide her with a KSA during her provision of kinship care to the Child, and despite her requests for one.

31The Respondent did not file any Court documents to demonstrate that the Applicant’s complaint about not being heard about the Respondent’s failure to provide her with a KSA was raised by the Applicant during the Court proceedings or was an issue before the Court. Accordingly, I am unable to find that this complaint was an issue before the Court.

32I distinguish the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about not receiving a KSA during the time she was providing kinship care to the Child from a complaint that the Applicant did not receive disclosure of a specific document.

33Complaints related to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by service providers (e.g., children’s aid societies), are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”) under Part X of the Act. To the extent that the Applicant is seeking a copy (i.e., disclosure) of the KSA document, her recourse would be to the IPC.

34I find that the Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent not hearing her concerns about the need for a KSA and the reasons for not providing her with a KSA during the time she was providing kinship care to the Child is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

4) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent allowed access to “go forward” despite documented safety risks

35In her submissions, the Applicant complains that the Respondent “[l]et access go forward – even when they knew there were documented risks”.

36The Court Order contains a provision specifying access of the Child to several persons, including the Applicant, as agreed to by the parties in the Court proceedings and in keeping with the Child’s views, preferences and best interests.

37The Child’s access to others is clearly a substantive issue before the Court and about which the Applicant, as a party to those proceedings, would have been entitled to make submissions.

38I find that Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s decisions related to access has been or remains an issue before the Court. I find, therefore, that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review this complaint.

5) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent obstructed her access to Court digital audio recordings

39In her submissions, the Applicant complains that the Respondent has obstructed her attempts to obtain digital audio recordings of Court appearances.

40This complaint does not relate to a “service” as contemplated under section 120(1) and as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act. Thus, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to review it.

Conclusion

41For the reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent has not provided documentation as required by Rule 21.2(a) of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure to support that three of the Applicant’s complaints have been before the Court. Accordingly, the CFSRB may review the Applicant’s allegations that:

(1) the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about services sought or received from the Respondent related to neglect, punitive parenting of the Child, deprivation of food and stimulation to the Child, and the Child’s behavioural issues corroborated by professionals, and the Respondent did not provide reasons for its decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns about those services;

(2) the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its decision to exclude her from planning conversations related to the Child and it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for this exclusion; and

(3) the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about its failure to provide her with a KSA during her provision of kinship care to the Child between April 2023 and August 2024 and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for failing to provide her with a KSA.

42I find that the Applicant’s complaint about access of the Child to others is before the Court and the CFSRB may not review that issue.

43Finally, I find that the Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s failure to hold an ICRP was not deemed eligible to proceed in this Application and the Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s alleged attempt to thwart her access to Court digital audio recordings is not an eligible service complaint. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear either of these complaints.

Next Steps

44The CFSRB will schedule a further pre-hearing videoconference at which the CFSRB may further refine the three issues for the hearing with additional particulars (e.g., in respect of Issue 1, the Applicant must clarify the services sought or received to which her allegations relate), and the parties will be offered the opportunity to engage in mediation toward the resolution of the Application.

ORDER

45The Application is upheld in part and shall proceed to a hearing on the following three issues:

(1) the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her concerns about services sought or received from the Respondent related to neglect, punitive parenting of the Child, deprivation of food and stimulation to the Child, and the Child’s behavioural issues corroborated by professionals, and the Respondent did not provide reasons to the Applicant for the Respondent’s decisions relating to the Applicant’s concerns about those services;

(2) the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s decision to exclude her from planning conversations related to the Child and it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for this exclusion; and

(3) the Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s failure to provide her with a KSA during her provision of kinship care to the Child between April 2023 and August 2024, and the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its failure to provide her with a KSA.

46The remainder of the Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

47Pursuant 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.