CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
TS
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand
Indexed as: TS v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
TS, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, Respondent
Self-represented
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”).
2In its Response to the Application, the Respondent submitted that the Application should be dismissed because the complaints in the Application are before the court.
3In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated October 31, 2025, the CFSRB directed that the matter would proceed to a pre-hearing mediation, and if it did not resolve, the Respondent could pursue the issue of jurisdiction at that time. Following an attempt at mediation, the CFSRB provided direction to the parties on the jurisdictional issue raised by the Respondent in the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report (“PHMR”) dated November 18, 2025.
4The Respondent moved to have the Application dismissed in accordance with the timeline set out in the PHMR. The Applicant’s responding submissions were three days late. The CFSRB allowed the late filing of these submissions, and provided the Respondent time to provide responding submissions, which it did. I have considered these submissions in making my decision.
ISSUE
5The issue is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application.
RESULT
I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the service complaint relating to the child protection worker set out in the Application. I find the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear all other complaints raised in the Application and submissions.
ANALYSIS
6The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed in numerous ways, regarding the Applicant’s access with the child, the safety of the child, and the demands the Respondent has placed on the Applicant.
7There are ongoing child protection proceedings at the Ontario Court of Justice. The Applicant has been represented by counsel at these proceedings, and the child is represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
8Section 120(8)(a) of the Act sets out that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court. The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
Are the complaints separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?
9I find with one exception set out below, the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
10At the pre-hearing on November 17, 2025, the CFSRB helped frame the Applicant’s concerns. They were set out in the PHMR and will not be repeated here, but are summarized as:
I. issues relating to the Applicant’s access to the child regarding scheduling changes, logistics, and being included in decisions,
II. failing to hear the child’s concerns about access,
III. failing to hear the Applicant’s concerns about the conduct of a child protection worker toward her,
IV. failing to provide reasons for requiring alcohol testing as a term of access
V. failing to provide reasons why the Respondent did not accept the Applicant’s course completion certificates.
11The Applicant added new allegations pertaining to disclosure in her submissions that followed the PHMR. It was not appropriate to raise new issues in responding submissions and as such, new issues were not considered in this decision.
12The Applicant’s complaints relating to access are substantively related to the issue of access before the court. The child is represented by counsel in the court proceedings. Any concerns the child might have regarding access will be heard in the court proceedings. The complaints concerning alcohol testing and course completion certificates pertain to terms of access arrived at through the court proceeding. As such, Issues I, II, IV, and V are squarely before the court. The Applicant’s submissions provide numerous allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent, all of which relate to the issues set out above. These are not separate and distinct issues, and therefore, they are not in the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
13The Applicant also complains about the conduct of a particular child protection worker toward her. The issue is set out in the PHRM as “The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to hear her concerns about its employee (named employee) and his failure to hear her ongoing concerns about her daughter.” Whether the Applicant’s concerns about a particular child protection worker were heard is a separate service concern and is distinct from the other complaints raised in the Application. The Respondent provided a response to the allegations but has not submitted that this issue is before the court. This complaint is eligible for review by the CFSRB.
ORDER
14The Applicant’s complaint regarding whether she was heard regarding her concern about a particular child protection worker is within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
15All other complaints made by the Applicant are substantially the same issues as those before the court and therefore, are dismissed.
NEXT STEPS
16The CFSRB will issue a Case Management Direction that will set out the next steps for the review of the Applicant’s complaint.
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.
Dated, December 19, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand
Vice-Chair