CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
RW Applicant
-and-
Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: December 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 181 Indexed as: RW v Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
RW, Applicant Self-represented
Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, Respondent JVH, 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 the father of three children (“the children”). He filed his Application with the CFSRB on November 25, 2025, and it was found eligible to proceed on November 28, 2025 under section 120(4)4 and section 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Respondent filed its response on December 8, 2025 submitting the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction?
ISSUE
4The issue is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application.
RESULT
5I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application, and it must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure directs that the CFSRB will either make its decision based on an application and response or decide to hold a hearing within twenty days of determining eligibility. I find that I have sufficient information before me to render a decision in this matter.
7In his Application, the Applicant complained about the actions of a specific case worker in the Respondent’s employ. He stated that the case worker in question did not take timely and appropriate action when she received reports from the children that there was “no food at all” in the Applicant’s home. He cited sections 125(1), (3), (5) and (6) of the Act which deal with the case worker’s duty to report a child in need of protection. He alleged that the Respondent worker did not direct an investigation when the children complained there was no food and instead, brought forth for the first time the children’s complaints about a lack of food during family court proceedings, thereby denying the Applicant due process before the court. He alleged that the Respondent worker breached her statutory duty by not safeguarding the children when the complaints were allegedly received.
8The Applicant seeks the following outcomes:
a. A written response acknowledging the failure of the Respondent to fulfill statutory, professional, and ethical obligations;
b. Confirmation that a full review or investigation will be undertaken by the Respondent;
c. Clarification of corrective steps to prevent such omissions and abuse of process in the future; and
d. A formal apology and acknowledgement to be entered in the court record.
9In its response, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter as the Applicant was not a service recipient. The Respondent alleges that the Applicant never sought or received services from it, and this is proved by the lack of documents on file when the Applicant filed a request for disclosure under Part X of the Act. The Respondent also states that the case worker in question is the Applicant’s former spouse.
10The Respondent also stated that, even if the Applicant had sought out services from it, the practice in Ontario is to have a children’s aid society from a different jurisdiction lead any investigations or provide services where an employee of the children’s aid society in the jurisdiction is involved. This prevents any real or perceived conflict of interest.
11Further, the Respondent argues that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter as the remedies sought by the Applicant fall outside of the remedies available to the CFSRB, under s.120(7) of the Act.
Service Recipient
12Subsection 120(1) of the Act states that a person may complain about a service they sought or received from a society and that complaint may be made to either the society or the CFSRB, or both.
13For 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 subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society or Indigenous child and family well-being agency. Once that is established, then the CFSRB must determine whether the Applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.
14Section 2(1) of the Act defines “service”:
(a) a service for a chid 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. (This refers to services prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other services have been prescribed within the Regulations).
15Both the Applicant and Respondent provided back-and-forth emails between the Applicant and Respondent case worker A.M., that began on November 10, 2025, when the Applicant submitted a request for records seeking “any and all records with reference to myself or my children” for the year 2024. To assist with locating any existing records, A.M. asked the Applicant to identify the case worker. The Applicant responded that the case worker was C.W., who is his former spouse, and who is also a case worker at the respondent society. A.M. indicated that there were no openings involving the Applicant and that “we have no records to provide to you” and apologized for any confusion. In his response email on the same day, the Applicant stated, “there’s no confusion at all” and proceeded to complain about the actions of his former spouse C.W. because the absence of service reports supported his conclusion that she had not reported the children’s complaint that there was “no food at all” in the Applicant’s home.
16Based upon the lack of records held by the Respondent and the Applicant’s admission that his concern was about his former spouse, I find that the Applicant did not seek or receive a service from the Respondent. While I appreciate the Applicant takes the position that it was incumbent on C.W. a respondent case worker to statutorily and professionally report allegations of child abuse, this duty does not give rise to a service sought by or received by the Applicant. Because the Application does not meet the first threshold test for being a service recipient, there is no need to proceed to the second part of the test. The Application must be dismissed as the Applicant was not in receipt of services from the Respondent.
17Finally, I am concerned by the Applicant’s decision to make use of the CFSRB process to complain about his former spouse. Tribunals like the CFSRB have limited resources and exist to support the citizens of the province, not as a forum to complain about the actions of former spouses. The Applicant should be mindful of this if he chooses to file other applications with the CFSRB in the future.
ORDER
18The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
19Pursuant 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, December 10, 2025.
Michelaine Lahaie
Michelaine Lahaie Vice-Chair