TR v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 153

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: October 29, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 153 Indexed As: TR v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

TR, Applicant Self-Represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Sadia Chowdhury, 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”).

2When the Application was filed initially, it did not contain enough information or context to allow the CFSRB to determine eligibility. The CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide details about the Respondent’s services to him and the Respondent’s decisions that affected his interests. The Applicant provided some additional information, and the Application was amended accordingly.

3The CFSRB thereafter found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Broadly, these sections relate to whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with the opportunity to be heard about service concerns and whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions during the Respondent’s provision of services to the Applicant.

4In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submits that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the complaints in the Application. The Respondent states that the Applicant’s allegations relate to incidents after the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant had ended in 2000. The Respondent also states that the Applicant’s complaints do not relate to services provided by the Respondent.

5The Respondent included with its Response, a chart of the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant between 1997 and 2000. The Applicant was a child during that involvement.

6In its September 25, 2025 Case Management Direction (“September CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide details about how the complaints in his Application relate to services sought or received from the Respondent and how the Respondent was involved with him after November 2000. As the Applicant did not respond to the September CMD, the CFSRB issued a further Case Management Direction dated October 6, 2025 (“October CMD”) seeking the requested information. The Applicant provided submissions further to the October CMD and the Respondent provided reply submissions.

7I have reviewed the Application, the Response, and the parties’ respective submissions further to the October CMD in making my decision below.

ISSUE

8The issue is:

Does the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application?

RESULT

9The CFSRB finds that it does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.

ANALYSIS

10In his Application, the Applicant states that he was “in care” in 1999 and 2000. He alleges Respondent child and youth workers have “interfered” with him, including through “jealousy and falsehoods regarding mental health”, fraud committed by the Respondent related to personal information, and that a Respondent child and youth worker attended at the Applicant’s workplace, residences and university in 2006. The Applicant alleges that Respondent workers’ actions have resulted in harm to him since 2006, including by police services in 2014.

11In the Applicant’s submissions further to the CFSRB’s October CMD, the Applicant does not provide any additional information to support that his complaints relate to services he sought or received from the Respondent or to the time during which he was receiving services from the Respondent.

12Instead, the Applicant describes the alleged conduct of a former Respondent child and youth worker at a university in 2006 during which time that worker allegedly provided private information about the Applicant to others. The Applicant complains that the disclosure of that information resulted in various types of harm against him. The Applicant further complains that two Respondent workers allegedly communicated with others about him, including private health information, between 2007 and 2016. The Applicant describes harm to him by police and alleges that since 2000 the Respondent has been involved “directly or indirectly” in denying him “medical care” and “lack of fair employment”, and in the assaults allegedly committed against him by others.

13Further to its Response to the Application, the Respondent reiterates in its reply submissions that the Applicant has not provided information to support that his complaints relate to a service sought or received from the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s allegations relate to time periods after the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant had ended, when the Applicant was no longer a child, and there is no nexus between the Applicant’s complaints and the Respondent’s services. The Respondent disputes any involvement by its current or former employees in any matter relating to the provision of services to the Respondent after 2000.

14Subsection 120(1) of the Act states that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society” and the complaint “relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

15Subsection 2(1) of the Act defines what constitutes a “service” under the Act. This includes:

(a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,

(b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

(c) a service related to residential care for a child,

(d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

(e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

(f) counselling for a child or the child’s family,

(g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

(h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

(i) a prescribed service; (“service”);

16For a complaint to be eligible for review by the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act, an applicant must meet two threshold tests. First, an applicant must demonstrate that they have sought or received a service, as defined under the Act, from a children’s aid society. Once that is established, the CFSRB must determine whether the applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.

17While the Applicant states that he was in the care of the Respondent in 1999 and 2000, and the Respondent confirms it provided services to the Applicant from 1997 to 2000, the Applicant makes no complaints about the Respondent’s services to him during that period. Instead, the Applicant makes numerous allegations about the actions of Respondent workers between 2006 and 2025 but during which time there is no evidence that he was seeking or receiving a service from the Respondent.

18In any event, the Applicant’s complaints related to allegations of fraud, assault, and the Respondent’s denial of medical care and employment to the Applicant are not service complaints that are reviewable by the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act.

19To the extent that the Applicant is concerned about his private information in the Respondent’s records (relating to the time he received services) and the use or disclosure of those records by Respondent workers or former workers, this is not a matter that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review. Complaints about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by a children’s aid society are within the sole jurisdiction of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (“IPC”) under Part X of the Act. This includes, under section 285(6) of the Act, records in the custody or control of a children’s aid society that were made before Part X of the Act came into force in 2017. Should the Applicant be unable to resolve any concerns with the Respondent about his records held by the Respondent and the use of those records, his recourse is to the IPC not the CFSRB.

20For the reasons above, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.

ORDER

21The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant 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.

Tamara Jordan

Tamara Jordan Vice-Chair