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 Date: December 05, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 177 Indexed as: MG v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)
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 in the temporary care of the Respondent. The child’s mother, the Applicant’s sister, is also receiving services from the Respondent.
3The Applicant filed the Application while she had another application before the CFSRB in file number CA25-0177. In my decision dated November 26, 2025, I dismissed the application in file CA25-0177 after finding that the Applicant was not seeking or receiving a service from the Respondent as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Act (“CA25-0177 Decision”).
4On November 20, 2025, the CFSRB determined that the current Application was eligible to proceed under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act.
5The Respondent filed its Response on December 1, 2025.
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, and it must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides that within 20 days of determining eligibility, the CFSRB will either make its decision based on an application and response or decide to hold a hearing. In this matter, a decision can be made based on the Application and Response.
9In her Application, the Applicant describes some new concerns she raised with the Respondent related to its care of the child and the child’s well-being. The Applicant also seeks information from the Respondent about its services to the child and the child’s mother and her new concerns. The Applicant states that a consent to release form signed the child’s mother enables her to receive more information than she has been provided by the Respondent.
10The Applicant appears to be a significant support person to, and advocate on behalf of, the child and the child’s mother. The Respondent notes that in current court proceedings related to the child, the Applicant has provided an affidavit in support of the child’s mother.
11In its Response to the Application, the Respondent seeks that the Application be dismissed as the Applicant’s complaints are not related to services sought or received from the Respondent. The Respondent also submits that while it has provided some information to the Applicant related to the child and the child’s mother as the Applicant is involved in transporting the child to some appointments, the Respondent is limited in the information it can provide to the Applicant due to Part X of the Act.
12As I set out in the CA25-0177 decision, for 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.
13The Applicant has not provided any information in her Application that supports that she is receiving or seeking services as defined under section 2(1) of the Act.
14The Applicant communicated concerns to the Respondent relating to the child, which she characterized as her “duty to report”. As the CFSRB has previously found, a person who makes a referral to a children’s aid society with concerns about a child is not a service recipient.
15With respect to the Applicant’s complaint about the Respondent’s failure to provide specific personal information to her relating to the Respondent’s services to the child and the child’s mother, this is not a complaint that the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to hear. Since January 1, 2020, complaints related to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by children’s aid societies are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario under Part X of the Act.
16For the above reasons, the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s complaints.
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.
Tamara Jordan
Tamara Jordan Vice-Chair