CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SO
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: September 25, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 131 Indexed As: SO v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
SO, Applicant Richard Mbokani, Counsel
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Respondent Catina Stillitano, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application (the “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 Applicant is the mother of a 16-year-old son (the “Child”).
2The Applicant filed her Application with the CFSRB on June 18, 2025. The Application was found eligible to proceed on June 19, 2025, as follows.
a. Under s.120(4)4 of the Act, in that the Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving.
b. Under s.120(4)5 of the Act, in that the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.
3A Pre-Hearing Mediation (PHM) was held on July 30, 2025. The parties did not reach a settlement, but a preliminary list of issues for the hearing was developed. A Pre-Hearing to prepare for the hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2025.
4Following the PHM, on July 30, 2025, the Applicant submitted a Litigation Guardian – Mental Incapacity Form 8 seeking to act as a Litigation Guardian for the Child in this matter. On August 6, 2025, the Respondent emailed the CFSRB to raise concerns about the Applicant acting as a Litigation Guardian for the Child, citing, and providing an existing restraining order prohibiting contact between the Applicant and the Child.
5At the August 7, 2025 Pre-Hearing, it was explained to the Applicant that the purpose of the Form 8 is to provide authorization to the Board in regards to an Applicant that may be legally incapable of making decisions and thus not capable of representing themselves before the Board. The Child is not the applicant in this matter. It is also not appropriate for an applicant to file a Form 8 on their own behalf as in these circumstances the applicant is presumed to be capable. There is no indication that the Child himself seeks to bring an application before the CFSRB. As such, I determined that the Form 8 submitted by the Applicant does not apply to these proceedings.
6The Applicant then expressed that she wished to have the Child as a witness to the proceedings as she alleges that the issues brought forward directly affect him.
7On August 8, 2025, the CFSRB issued its Pre-Hearing report. The Pre-Hearing report sought submissions from the parties on the following issues.
a. how the Child would be a relevant witness to the Application, specifically given that the Applicant’s complaints eligible to be heard by the CFSRB are allegations that the Respondent did not provide her with an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made or to be heard about her concerns about the Respondent’s services, and that the Respondent has failed to provide reasons for decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests.
b. how the Child could be a potential witness to these proceedings, given the current restraining order.
ISSUE
8The issue is: Shall the Applicant’s Child be included as a witness for these proceedings?
RESULT
9The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s Child shall not be included as a witness for these proceedings.
ANALYSIS
Applicant submissions
10The Applicant’s submissions in response to the PHR focus on the Child’s access to justice and right to be heard. She alleges that the Child is not being protected by the Respondent and that the Respondent has forced the Child to make false declarations against her. In support of her request to have the Child act as witness, she cites R. v. Khan, 1990 SCR 532, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the importance of receiving children’s evidence and adapting rules to ensure children’s access to justice. The Applicant also states that the Child has rights to be heard regarding decisions that affect him and speaks to the presumption of competence for children 14 and older. The Applicant did not address how the Child would be a relevant witness to these proceedings around the Applicant’s own right to be heard and to be provided with reasons from the Respondent.
Respondent Submissions
11The Respondent’s submissions identify that both the Application and those further issues identified at the PHM did not include mistreatment of the Child. Further, the Respondent opines that the Child can and has in the past, put forward complaints against the Respondent, specifically with a complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman. Finally, the Child is represented by the Office of the Children’ Lawyer (“OCL”), who meets regularly with him in private.
Section 120 Complaints
12The authorities held by the CFSRB for complaints filed under Section 120 of the Act are procedural, rather than substantive. For such complaints, the CFSRB does not act as an appeal body for decisions made by the Society. Rather, hearings held under s.120(4)4 and s.120(4)5 determine whether the Respondent provided the Applicant (emphasis added) with an opportunity to be heard when decisions that affect her interests were made and whether the Respondent provided the Applicant (emphasis added) with reasons for such decisions. As such, the hearing will focus necessarily on the communications between the Respondent and the Applicant when decisions were made, as opposed to the decisions themselves. The Board will not make findings regarding child protection or whether the Respondent coached the Child to make declarations against the Applicant because these issues do not fall within the Board’s jurisdiction.
13Further, the remedies available to the CFSRB for s.120 complaints are limited in scope. In applications found eligible under s.120(4)4 and s.120(4)5, the Board may order the Respondent to provide written reasons for a decision to the Applicant or dismiss the complaint. I reiterate, the Board cannot (emphasis added) overturn decisions made by the Respondent in s.120 matters.
The Child’s Right to be Heard
14Finally, the Child is both represented by the OCL and competent to put forward his own s.120 application to complain about the services that he is receiving from the Respondent. Section 15(2) of the Act specifically states that service providers must ensure that children and young persons have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made, and to be heard when they have concerns about services that they are receiving. The Child has a right to be heard and I find that he has the necessary supports in place to ensure that this right is protected.
15I find that the Child shall not be a witness to these proceedings. Given his age and his current representation by the OCL, the Child can make his own complaint to the CFSRB about the quality of services that he is receiving from the Respondent, if he chooses. Additionally, the only individual who can speak to the quality of the communications between the Applicant and the Respondent is the Applicant herself. As the Child will not be a witness to these proceedings, no determinations are necessary with respect to participation in the face of a restraining order.
ORDER
16The Applicant’s request to have the Child be a witness to these proceedings is denied.
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.
Dated, September 25, 2025.
Michelaine Lahaie
Michelaine Lahaie
Vice-Chair