CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
MG
Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan
Indexed As: MG v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
MG, Applicant
Self-Represented
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Respondent
Ayana Hutchinson, 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”).
2The Applicant is an aunt to a child who is receiving services from the Respondent. The child’s mother, the Applicant’s sister, is also receiving services from the Respondent.
3In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submits that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the complaints in the Application as the Applicant is not a service recipient.
4In its November 4, 2025 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide written submissions to the CFSRB on whether she sought or received services from the Respondent based on the definition of “service” in subsection 2(1) of the Act. In the CMD, the CFSRB directed that the Respondent may provide reply submissions. Both parties provided written submissions within the timelines outlined in the CMD. After the Respondent filed its optional reply submissions, and outside of the timelines imposed in the CMD, the Applicant emailed several additional documents to the CFSRB.
5I reviewed only the Application, the Response, and the parties’ respective submissions filed within the timelines of the CMD in making my decision, below.
ISSUE
6The issue is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application.
RESULT
7I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.
ANALYSIS
8There was no evidence filed to demonstrate that the Applicant was seeking or receiving a “service” from the Respondent as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Act.
9The CFSRB initially deemed the Applicant’s complaints eligible under subsections 120(4)1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Act.
10Subsection 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.
11For 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. If that is established, the CFSRB must, second, determine whether the applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received. If an applicant does not meet the first threshold test, the CFSRB is not required to consider the substance of the complaint.
12The Applicant has attended some family meetings with her sister and Respondent representatives. She has also helped with the coordination of and transportation for visits between her sister and the child, and appointments for the child. Documentation provided by the Applicant demonstrates that the Applicant provides support to and advocacy on behalf of her sister and the child. The Applicant has had access to limited information from the Respondent through a consent signed by her sister and filed with the Respondent (i.e., for the purposes of attending family meetings with her sister). The Applicant has sought additional information from the Respondent about its involvement with her sister and the child which has not been provided.
13The Applicant appears to be playing an active role in the lives of her sister and the child by supporting them in their receipt of services from the Respondent and advocating for them in their relationship with the Respondent. The Applicant has also sought but not obtained information from the Respondent, about the ways in which the Respondent is responding to her sister and the child. However, none of these actions constitute a “service” or demonstrate that the Applicant is receiving or seeking a “service” from the Respondent, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act.
14Contrary to her assertions in her submissions, the Applicant has also not sought services as a kinship care applicant from the Respondent. While email messages filed by the Applicant (dated after she filed her Application) demonstrate that the Applicant considered becoming a kinship caregiver to the child, the Respondent did not commence a kinship care assessment of the Applicant or offer any services to the Applicant relating to her expression of possible interest. Indeed, in her October 27, 2025 email correspondence to the Respondent (and others), the Applicant clearly indicates that she “will not be pursuing kinship care through CAS”. The Applicant articulates several concerns surrounding children’s aid societies’ historical and ongoing harm toward Indigenous families as her reasons for this and that she is seeking placement of the child with her outside of the “authority”, and therefore the services, of a children’s aid society.
15As the Applicant has not received or sought a “service” as defined under the Act, the Application does not meet the first threshold test for a section 120 review and the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.
ORDER
16The Application is dismissed.
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.
Tamara Jordan
Tamara Jordan
Vice-Chair