SR v. Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2025 CFSRB 132

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: September 25, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 132 Indexed As: SR v Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

SR, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent Kevin Williams, 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)1 through 120(4)5 of the Act.

2The Applicant is the father of the child, CR (the “Child”). The Child is in the care and custody of the Respondent with access to the Applicant.

3In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s complaints were before the Ontario Court of Justice (“Court”) in active child protection proceedings and seeks that the CFSRB deny its jurisdiction to review the complaints. The Respondent filed with its Response several Court documents including a Temporary Order dated December 12, 2023, Notice of Motion dated September 11, 2024 returnable September 23, 2024 (“September 2024 Notice of Motion”), Endorsement dated September 23, 2024 (“September 2024 Court Endorsement”), the Affidavit of a Respondent worker, CL, dated May 1, 2025 (“Respondent Worker’s May 2025 Affidavit”), and the Affidavit of the Applicant dated May 2, 2025 (“Applicant’s May 2025 Affidavit”).

4A pre-hearing in this matter was held on July 16, 2025. Following the pre-hearing, the CFSRB sent the parties a Pre-Hearing Report dated July 17, 2025 summarizing the pre-hearing and providing directions to the parties (“PHR”). As part of the PHR, the CFSRB directed that submissions on whether the Applicant’s complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court (i.e., a jurisdictional issue) would be heard in-person as an accommodation to the Applicant. The CFSRB directed that this was the only issue to which parties were to make submissions. As part of the pre-hearing and as directed in the PHR, the CFSRB also set out a separate process by which the Applicant could make his request to personally record CFSRB proceedings.

5An in-person hearing for the purpose of hearing submissions on the jurisdictional issue was held on August 26, 2025.

6In making this decision, I considered the oral submissions of the parties and reviewed the Application, the Response, and the attachments to both pleadings.

ISSUE

7The issue is:

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

RESULT

8The CFSRB finds that whether the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) is not a substantive issue before the Court. That issue may proceed to a CFSRB hearing.

9The Applicant’s complaints about records relating to the Child and Respondent workers who were involved in services to the Applicant, even if issues before the Court, are not complaints that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review. Complaints about the way in which Ontario children’s aid societies collect, use and disclose personal information, including records of service recipients, are within the sole jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

10The Applicant’s other complaints in the Application are issues that have been raised with and addressed by the Court and are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court.

ANALYSIS

Preliminary Procedural Issue

11At the outset of the submissions, the Applicant requested to make a personal recording of the proceedings. I denied this request.

12I redirected the Applicant to paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 the PHR, and the process described to him at the pre-hearing should he wish to request to record CFSRB proceedings as an accommodation (i.e., he needs to submit a formal request for this specific accommodation after which the CFSRB would issue a decision related to that request).

13The Applicant did not submit an Accommodation Request Form as directed following the pre-hearing. The Applicant has filed only one Accommodation Request Form on June 19, 2025, prior to the pre-hearing, and it did not include a request to record proceedings. I explained to the Applicant that he may still file an Accommodation Request Form should he wish to seek an accommodation to personally record the next hearing.

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

14Subsection 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”.

15The 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.

16Accordingly, 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 are the “substantive issues” before a court, and second, whether an applicant’s complaints in an application are “separate and different” from those substantive issues.

Issues before the Court

17Under 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.

18As listed above, the Respondent filed five documents that describe several issues before the Court that involve the Applicant, a party to the Court proceedings. Those issues include custody of the Child and the Child’s access to the Applicant, including the location, duration, and level of supervision of that access. Several issues related to the Child’s access with the Applicant including the Applicant’s concerns about the nature of his access with the Child, the actions of Respondent workers surrounding access, and the Applicant’s interactions with Respondent workers are also addressed in the Court documents filed.

19The Respondent’s September 2024 Notice of Motion supports that the Respondent brought a motion to Court relating to several issues as between the Applicant and Respondent workers, including surrounding the Applicant’s access with the Child, and in response to the Applicant’s concerns about that access.

20In the September 2024 Endorsement of the Honourable Justice Philip J. Clay, the Court summarizes evidence and submissions provided to the Court. The Endorsement includes the following excerpts at page 3:

• The affidavits filed showed that the relationship between [the Applicant] and society workers has been fraught with difficulties. It is not necessary for me to set out all of the issues as the affidavits are filed in the record…it is clear that [the Applicant] has strong views about [a Respondent] family service worker… [the Applicant] made his complaints well known to other staff and there were confrontations at access visits…The society supervisors quite properly refused to replace a worker without a meeting with the father at which his allegations could be addressed. The situation escalated and the father admitted taking videos at all access visits to record what he saw as evidence of the society’s mistreatment of him and his son.

• The society’s request that [the Applicant] comply with certain conditions when exercising access is also supported by the evidence. The society should be able to reduce or terminate access if such access leads to the abuse of workers. It appears that a change of worker may have led to a fresh start and it is hoped that it will not be necessary to reduce access to one day from two days. The order to be made simply ensures that the society has the flexibility to make changes in the best interest of the child, support its workers and preserve the integrity of the visits by ensuring that there are no video or audio recordings.

21Following the Respondent’s September 2024 motion, the Court made a temporary order as sought in the September 2024 Notice of Motion. The first two terms include:

1. The [Child’s] right of access to the [Applicant] shall be at the discretion of the [Respondent] as to location, duration, and level of supervision, but at a minimum frequency of once per week on the following terms and conditions:

a) [The Applicant] shall not engage in adult conflict during his access visits.

b) [The Applicant] shall engage with a worker from the [Respondent] with respect to parenting support and instruction.

c) Should [the Applicant] have concerns regarding his access visits, he shall speak to staff following his visit.

d) [The Applicant] shall not engage in adult conversations with [the Child].

2. Should [the Applicant] not follow the terms and conditions of his access, the [Respondent] may terminate his visit at that time.

22The Respondent Worker’s May 2025 Affidavit and the Applicant’s May 2025 Affidavit describe ongoing concerns between the parties that have been raised during recent Court proceedings. Respondent Worker CL outlines the Applicant’s complaints that the Respondent has “committed perjury”, Respondent workers have “falsified information and are obstructing court proceedings” and Respondent workers’ communication with the Applicant has been experienced by him as “harassing”. The Applicant outlines concerns in his Affidavit including about his parenting time and visitation, the Child’s custody and the Respondent’s ongoing “falsities and obstruction”.

The Applicant’s Complaints

1) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not proceed with an ICRP despite the Respondent having received a Formal Complaint from the Applicant

23In his Application and submissions, the Applicant complains that he submitted a formal complaint to the Respondent seeking an ICRP and the Respondent failed to convene one.

24Subsection 119(2) of the Act requires that a complaint to a children’s aid society be made in the format set out in Ontario Regulation 156/18 General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (“the Regulation”). This includes the filing of a specific “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)” form (“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 when the complaint has been made using an ICRP Form.

25The Applicant attached to his Application a copy of a completed ICRP Form that is in the form required by the Regulation. Prior to submitting his Application, the Applicant attached to his May 2025 Affidavit in the Court proceedings at least the first page of that ICRP Form. The Applicant also attached to that Affidavit, a letter from the Ombudsman Ontario dated March 11, 2025 that confirms contact between the Ombudsman Ontario and the Respondent related to the Applicant’s attempts to file with the Respondent his “request” for an ICRP.

26The Respondent submits that it did not directly “receive” a copy of the Applicant’s ICRP Form and that it only became aware of the existence of it during Court proceedings. The Respondent states in its Response that the “Applicant never submitted an ICRP form to the [Respondent] until he served and filed his affidavit dated May 2, 2025”.

27Information contained in an affidavit before a court does not in itself make that information a substantive issue before the court. This is the case here.

28Despite some information about the Applicant’s ICRP Form and his request for an ICRP being contained in the Applicant’s May 2025 Affidavit before the Court, there is no evidence that supports that the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent failed to convene an ICRP was an issue addressed during the Court proceedings.

29Accordingly, I find that the issue of whether the Respondent failed to proceed with the Applicant’s formal complaint was not a substantive issue before the Court and is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review. The matter of whether the Respondent “received” the Applicant’s ICRP Form will comprise part of that review.

2) The Applicant’s Complaints about Records in the Respondent’s Control

30In his Application and submissions, the Applicant describes his concerns about, and seeks, certain records in the Respondent’s control. These include: 1) records from the Respondent related to the Child; and 2) “attendance records” for “14 or more” Respondent workers involved with him, primarily during the Child’s access visits with the Applicant.

31There would be a process for disclosure of documents between the parties as part of the ongoing Court proceedings. The Respondent did not file documents to support that the Applicant has raised complaints about records before the Court.

32Regardless, whether the Applicant’s complaints about records related to the Child and Respondent workers are issues before the Court, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review them. Complaints 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 Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”) under Part X of the Act. The rights of service recipients and possible remedies afforded to them, as they relate to complaints about personal records, are also set out in Part X.

33Accordingly, I find that the Applicant’s complaints about records are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review. It is to the IPC that the Applicant would need to bring his complaints about records within the Respondent’s control.

3) The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concerns or provide reasons for its decisions relating to Respondent workers’ actions, including during and surrounding the Child’s access visits with the Applicant

34In his Application and submissions, the Applicant raises concerns about numerous workers involved in and interfering with access visits between the Applicant and the Child, protocols and procedures surrounding access, and harm done to himself and the Child by Respondent workers during the visits, including bias against him as a father.

35In his submissions, the Applicant described that he “continuously” raised in the Court proceedings “all” of the concerns he set out in his Application to the CFSRB. He submitted that the failure of the Court to respond to his concerns to his satisfaction, and the biased way he feels he has been treated in the Court proceedings, led him to make complaints to the Ontario Judicial Council and others.

36The Court documents related to the Respondent’s September 2024 motion to the Court, as described above, include an order that the Child’s right of access to the Applicant shall be at the discretion of the Respondent as to location, duration, and level of supervision. The documents also demonstrate that the Court heard and responded to concerns between the parties related to the Applicant’s “strong views” about his interactions with Respondent workers, including surrounding and during the Child’s access with the Applicant, and the workers’ alleged “mistreatment” of the Applicant and the Child. The temporary order made following the September 2024 motion provides conditions related to the interaction of the parties during access visits, including a process for the Applicant to address any “concerns” related to access with staff following a visit.

37As evidenced from some of the material in the Applicant’s May 2025 Affidavit and the Respondent Worker’s May 2025 Affidavit, the Applicant’s concerns about his interactions with the Respondent and his access with the Child continue to be issues before the Court.

38Accordingly, I find that the Applicant’s service complaints in his Application relating to Respondent workers’ interactions with the Applicant and Child, including surrounding and during the Applicant’s access with the Child, are not separate and different from substantive issues that have been addressed before the Court. As such, I find that these complaints are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

Conclusion

39For the reasons set out above, I find:

(1) The issue of whether the Respondent failed to proceed with the Applicant’s formal complaint seeking an ICRP is not a substantive issue before the Court and is within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review.

(2) There is no evidence that the Applicant’s complaints about the disclosure of records is a substantive issue before the Court. Nevertheless, these complaints are not ones that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review as they are within the sole jurisdiction of the IPC.

(3) The Applicant’s complaints in his Application relating to the actions of Respondent workers, including surrounding and during the Child’s access visits with the Applicant are not separate and different from the substantive issues that have been addressed before the Court.

ORDER

40The Application is upheld in part and shall proceed to a hearing on the following issue:

The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not proceed with an ICRP despite the Respondent having received an ICRP Form from the Applicant.

41The remainder of the Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

42Pursuant 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.