CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AE
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie
Indexed As: AE v The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region
(CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application (“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”). She filed her Application with the CFSRB on July 29, 2025. The Application was found eligible to proceed on August 1, 2025 under s.120(4)4 of the Act, based on 3 allegations, namely: that the Respondent had failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, to be heard when she had concerns about the services she was receiving, and under s.120(4)5 of the Act, based on allegations that the Respondent had failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.
3In its response dated August 11, 2025, the Respondent took the position that the issues contained within the Application are presently before the courts and provided extensive documentation in support of its position.
4On August 14, 2025, the CFSRB released a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) to the parties, seeking submissions on whether the issues noted in the Application are before the courts.
ISSUES
5The issues are:
a) Are the issues in the Application separate and different than the substantive issues that have been decided by the court or are currently before the court?
b) Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction over the Applicant’s complaints regarding disclosure of Child Protection Information Network (“CPIN”) notes and accuracy of records?
RESULT
6The issues in the Application are not separate and different than the substantive issues that have been decided by the court.
7The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over the Applicant’s complaints regarding disclosure of CPIN notes and accuracy of records.
ANALYSIS
8The role of the CFSRB in s.120 matters is to give applicants an opportunity to be heard on issues where the Respondent has made decisions affecting the applicant’s interests and to ensure that reasons are provided for such decisions.
9Under s.120(8) of the Act, the Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
10In her submissions in response to the CMD, the Applicant stated “If [the Respondent] followed the mandated investigation process as outlined by [the Respondent] and the [Act], the truth would have been presented right away and no court proceedings would have occurred”. Her allegations against the Respondent, as described in the Application and her submissions are as follows.
a) Respondent workers did not provide protection to the Applicant, her children, her family or her friends that reflected the Respondent’s mandate, policies, procedures and protocols.
b) Respondent workers did not advise the Applicant that she could access Child Protection Information Network (“CPIN”) notes. Additionally, Respondent workers created inaccurate CPIN notes.
c) The Respondent did not follow its own procedures and timelines for conducting investigations.
d) A Respondent worker told the Children that they could “record privately in [her] home” using the phone provided by their father.
e) The Respondent did not arrange for the Children to see a psychologist as requested by the Applicant. The Respondent did not arrange for reconciliation counselling for the Applicant and the Children.
Respondent Protection and Protocols
11I find that items 9a and c were previously addressed by the Court as part of the Child Protection Application heard on February 9, 2024. An affidavit filed by Respondent worker JT refers to the actions of the Respondent when the Applicant reported “physical and mental abuse toward her and the children”. The same affidavit also describes in detail the various investigations undertaken by the Respondent. While she was not consulted prior to child protection investigations being started, the Applicant was provided an opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent on these investigations in numerous court proceedings. This included querying the Respondent’s use of policies, procedures and protocols. Additionally, the Applicant addressed her concerns about the Respondent’s processes in her affidavit dated March 11, 2024, as part of the ongoing Child Protection Application.
The Children’s Cell Phone
12An endorsement from Justice Gregson dated August 19, 2022 gives permission for the father of the Children to provide a cell phone for the Children. The issue of recording parenting times exchanges was addressed in an Endorsement issued by Justice Bingham on August 9, 2023, and the Applicant also mentioned the issue of surreptitious recording in her March 11, 2024 affidavit filed for the ongoing Child Protection Application. Therefore, I find that item 9d, the issue surrounding the use of the phone to record in her home, was previously addressed by the court.
Counselling for the Children
13With respect to item 9e, counselling for the Children, Justice Gregson’s Endorsement dated October 11, 2024, specifically addressed reconciliation counselling and states “the issue of reconciliation counselling may be reviewed once the [Applicant] has undertaken the services/ programs recommended by the [Respondent]”. An affidavit filed by Respondent worker LR dated July 7, 2025, makes specific mention of a child psychologist. As such, I find that that the Applicant’s request that the Children see a child psychologist and that she and the Children participate in reconciliation counselling are both issues that were before the court.
CPIN Notes
14Item 9b addresses the Applicant’s concerns around the disclosure and correctness of CPIN notes. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaints with respect to the disclosure of CPIN notes and the accuracy of documents created and held by the Respondent. Part X of the Act clearly states that complaints about disclosure and the accuracy of documents fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”).
15For this Application, I find that the substance of the Applicant’s complaints have been before the court, and she has had an opportunity to be heard on issues that affect her interests and provided reasons for such decisions. The issues surrounding CPIN notes should be addressed to the IPC.
16I find that the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB as the issues contained within the Application have already been before the courts. Additionally, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction over the issues surrounding disclosure of documents and accuracy of records.
ORDER
14The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
15Pursuant 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