CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SP
Applicant
-and-
The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tracy Foster
Indexed As: SP v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
(CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1This is an Application filed 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 a child (“KP”) named in the Application. KP is now 21 years old. The Applicant’s complaints involve the Respondent’s services and supports provided to her adult daughter.
3The Applicant has filed two previous CFSRB Applications with similar complaints (CA24-0046 and CA24-0227) against the Respondent. These Applications were withdrawn by the Applicant.
4The Application was filed with the CFSRB by the Applicant on October 14, 2025., The Respondent provided its response on October 24, 2025.
5The Application was found eligible to proceed under Sections 120(4)1, 120(4)2 and 120(4)3 of the Act. These sections involve whether a children’s aid society commenced an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) and whether it complied with regulated procedures, timing and notification requirements regarding the ICRP.
6Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application based on the Application and Respondent’s reply. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision. In addition to the Application and Respondent’s reply for the current matter, I reviewed the Applications, Respondent’s replies and further correspondence from the Applicant’s previous Applications.
CFSRB JURISDICTION
7In her Application, the Applicant requested the following relief from the CFSRB:
An immediate review of the Respondent’s administrative conduct and denial of supports, issue and Order compelling the Respondent to immediately secure KP’s government issued identification, establish a functional bank account and secure stable housing supports.
8The requested relief is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction. The remedies available to the CFSRB after reviewing a complaint are detailed under Section 120(7) and Section 119(10) of the Act:
120(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,
(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;
(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;
(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;
(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;
(e) dismiss the complaint; or
(f) make such other order as may be prescribed. (This refers to services prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other services have been prescribed within the Regulations).
119(10) Upon completing its review of a decision by a society in relation to a complaint, the Board may,
(a) in the case of a matter described in subsection 120 (4), make any order described in subsection 120 (7), as appropriate;
(b) redirect the matter to the society for further review;
(c) confirm the society’s decision; or
(d) make such other order as may be prescribed. (No other orders have been prescribed within the Regulations).
ISSUES
9The issues are:
a. Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act;
b. Did the Respondent fail to respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the timeframe required; and
c. Did the Respondent fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.
RESULTS
10I find that the Respondent:
a. Did not refuse to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act.
b. Did not fail to respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the timeframe required.
c. Did not fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.
ANALYSIS
11In her CFSRB Application, the Applicant attached a copy of the ICRP Application that was submitted to the Respondent. The ICRP Application is not dated, and no information was provided by either the Applicant or the Respondent with respect to what date it was sent to the Respondent.
12On October 24, 2025, the CFSRB emailed the parties for clarification on what date the Applicant submitted the ICRP Application to the Respondent. On October 24, 2025, the Applicant replied that she had sent the ICRP Application on October 9, 2025. On October 27, 2025, the Respondent submitted that it received the ICRP Application on October 10, 2025.
13The CFSRB Application also included a copy of the Respondent’s ICRP Eligibility letter dated October 14, 2025 (“October 14 ICRP Letter”), responding to the ICRP Application. The letter sets out the reasons for the Respondent’s determination that the Applicant’s concerns detailed in the ICRP Application were ineligible to be heard by an ICRP panel.
Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act
14Sections 119(1) and 119(2) of the Act state:
119(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.
119(2) Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 120(2).
15Section 120(2) involves ICRP complaints that are being reviewed or are in progress at the time an Application is filed with the CFSRB. Section 120(2) is not relevant to this Application as the Respondent had already made a decision that the Applicant’s ICRP complaint was not eligible to proceed prior to, and independent of, the CFSRB Application. Section 120(2) states:
120(2) If a person submits a complaint to the Board …after having brought the complaint to the society under section 119, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.
16The procedures related to a society’s ICRP process are detailed under Ontario Regulation 156/18 (the “Regulation”).
17Section 58 of the Regulation states:
- If the complaint is not eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing.
18In its October 14 ICRP Letter, the Respondent wrote:
“It has been determined that you are not eligible to have your concerns heard regarding [KP] for the reasons explained in previous communications. [KP’s] written consent is required in order for you to make a complaint on her behalf. We do not have consent, verbal or written, from [KP] for your involvement beyond receiving updates. [KP] has also been very clear with her worker, that she does not wish to file a complaint against the [Respondent].”
19In her Application, the Applicant states, “The decision to close the internal complaints process on the demonstrably false claim that my concerns have been "addressed" is precisely the uncooperative administrative behavior (sic) I have sought to resolve for four years.” The Applicant further asserts that the Respondent has failed to provide her daughter with stable, independent housing, that her daughter does not possess government issued identification or a bank account, and that this alleged negligence by the Respondent has prevented her daughter from accessing supports and maintaining stability.
20In its response, the Respondent states that KP is now 21, is a recipient of the Ready Set Go program and has a Respondent worker. The Respondent reiterates that it cannot share information about an adult without that person’s consent. The Respondent notes that it has provided the Applicant with the reason for its limitations to discussions and information sharing with the Applicant.
21It is clear that the Applicant is concerned about KPs wellbeing. However, although the Applicant may disagree with the information provided by the Respondent, it has explained that KP is an adult, and without her consent, the Respondent cannot share specific information with the Applicant. The Respondent further explains that KP has expressed to her worker that she does not wish to file a complaint against the Respondent, and the Applicant cannot do this on KPs behalf without her consent.
22I find that the Respondent did not refuse to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint and I confirm its decision. The initial step in proceeding with a complaint is to review the complaint for eligibility. The Respondent has reviewed the Applicant’s ICRP Application and provided a letter to her clearly articulating why it is not eligible for review by the Respondent.
Did the Respondent fail to respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the timeframe required
23Sections 57 and 58 of the Regulation state:
Within seven days after receiving a complaint under subsection 119(1) of the Act, the society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review
If the complaint is not eligible for review, the society shall notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing.
24The Applicant submitted that she sent the ICRP Application to the Respondent on October 9, 2025. The Respondent confirms that it received the ICRP Application on October 10, 2025. Using the earlier date on which the Applicant indicated she submitted the ICRP Application, the Respondent was required to notify the Applicant of its decision by October 16, 2025. The Respondent notified the Applicant of its eligibility decision on October 14, 2025.
25Therefore, I find the Respondent complied with the required timeframe to respond to the Applicant.
Did the Respondent fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements
26Section 120(4)3 of the Act sets out that the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to review allegations that the complaint review procedure or any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints were not complied with.
27Based on the findings above relating to whether the Respondent proceeded with the Applicant’s complaint and responded to her complaint within the timeframe required, I find there were not further procedural requirements of the Respondent.
28I find that the Respondent complied with the complaint review process and any other procedural requirements.
29In summary, I find that the Respondent did not fail to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, did not fail to respond to the Applicant’s complaint within the timeframe required and did not fail to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.
ORDER
30The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
31Pursuant 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.
Tracy Foster
Tracy Foster
Member