CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
WE
Applicant
-and-
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand
Indexed As: WE v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1On October 7, 2025, the Applicant received a letter from the Respondent, explaining that his request for an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“IPRC”) was deemed ineligible.
2On October 13, 2025, the Applicant filed this Application 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”).
3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)1 and 120(4)3. These subsections of the Act pertain to the Respondent’s alleged refusal to proceed with a complaint and the Respondent’s alleged failure to comply with the complaint review procedure.
4The Respondent submitted its Response on October 28, 2025.
5Pursuant to Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB may decide an Application solely based on the Application and Response. The Board is not required to hold a hearing.
6I find that I have sufficient information to decide this Application based on the Application and Response. In addition to the Application and Response, I have before me an email from the Applicant dated October 28, 2025 and a letter from the Applicant to the Respondent dated October 27, 2025, which the Respondent shared with the CFSRB.
ISSUE
7The issues before me are whether the Respondent:
a. refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act
b. failed to comply with the complaint review process or with any other procedural requirements.
RESULT
8The CFSRB finds that the Respondent complied with section 119(11)(b) of the Act when it determined the Applicant’s complaint was ineligible for review, and the Respondent did not fail to comply with the complaint review process or any other procedural requirements.
9The Application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
10The Applicant’s internal complaint to the Respondent describes breaches of his privacy with regard to his personal medical information being improperly shared in 2024. The complaint sets out that despite earlier assurances from the Respondent of being more careful, the personal medical information was shared during a 2025 CFSRB proceeding (CA25-0075). The Applicant alleges the sharing of the information prejudiced the CFSRB, created an atmosphere of prejudice and misunderstanding and harmed him. The Applicant further complains that the sharing of information was discriminatory, and he asks that the Respondent acknowledge and take concrete steps to prevent this type of breach from happening again, both for himself and others. Lastly, the Applicant sought to know how the outdated personal information was still accessible to the Respondent and not safeguarded, and expressed his concern about how private medical information is stored by the Respondent and what measures the Respondent will take to ensure it is better safeguarded going forward.
11In its letter to the Applicant on October 7, 2025, the Respondent explained that the Applicant’s complaint was deemed ineligible because the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”) of Ontario had opened a complaint based on the information the Applicant had provided and that ongoing process would result in a decision by the IPC. The Respondent relied on sections 119/120 of the Act, which set out that complaints relating to an issue that is the subject to another decision-making process under the Act are not eligible for review by a Children’s Aid Society.
12In response, the Applicant filed the herein Application to the CFSRB. In his Application, he explained that the Respondent “refused to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Process (ICRP) about how my personal, medical, and case information was handled. (The Respondent) said it could not review the matter because the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) was investigating. That reason was improper. My complaint concerns fairness and discrimination, not privacy law.” In “Appendix A”, included with his Application, the Applicant further explains that after the Respondent’s October 7, 2025 letter, he requested the Respondent reconsider because “my complaint was about fairness and discrimination, not privacy alone...By failing to conduct an ICRP and by not following its own complaint-review procedures, CCAS denied me a fair and transparent process to correct false information... .”
13As referenced in the Respondent’s October 7, 2025 letter, section 119(11)(b) sets out that the society shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is subject to another decision-making process under the Act. Part X of the Act addresses Personal Information. Complaints related to the use of personal information by the Respondent can be brought to the Information and Privacy Commissioner under this section.
14As set out in paragraph 11 above, the Applicant explained that his complaint was not about “privacy alone” but also about fairness and discrimination. While this may be so, the issues of fairness and discrimination the Applicant describes flow from the use of his personal information. The Applicant’s complaints center around his information being “improperly shared.” The Applicant describes this sharing to be discriminatory and leading to various negative impacts on himself and his children. I find the Applicant’s complaints directly pertain to the use of his private information and that they have appropriately been brought to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for resolution.
15As such, pursuant to section 119(11)(b), the Respondent explained that the complaint was not eligible to be heard before an ICRP. This was not a question of refusing to hear the Applicant’s complaint, but rather, not having jurisdiction to do so, given the involvement of another decision-making process under the Act.
16I find the Respondent complied with the complaint review procedure and requirement when it determined that the Applicant’s complaint was ineligible to be heard and advised him accordingly.
ORDER
17The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
18Pursuant 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, November 03, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand
Vice-Chair