JF v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 30

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JF

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: March 06, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 30

Indexed As: JF v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on February 14, 2025.

3The Respondent submitted their Response on February 21, 2025.

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide a section 120 application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.

ISSUES

5The issues before me are:

a. Does the CFSRB have the jurisdiction to review the Application?

b. If the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application, did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concern and provide reasons regarding why it would not provide the Applicant with records pertaining to his children?

RESULT

6I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application as the subject matter of the complaint is within the sole purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under Part X of the Act. The Application must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

7The Applicant alleges that he has not been heard or provided reasons as to why the Respondent will not provide records to him pertaining to his children. He also complains that the reasons provided are “uncommon throughout other similarly mandated agencies”. The Applicant asks that his request be reviewed and that he be provided with all records pertaining to his family.

8The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s request for information has not been denied, but rather, it requires him to obtain the consent of the children’s mother before the information can be released. Further, the Respondent argues that the Applicant’s complaint about this decision should properly be made to the Information and Privacy Commissioner pursuant to Part X of the Act.

The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.

9The Applicant has a shared parenting order for his three children with the children’s mother.

10On November 13, 2024, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent asking how he could submit a request for files pertaining to himself and his three children. The Respondent’s Records Management Clerk responded on November 18, 2024, with the necessary forms to be filled out. The form provides that where there is a joint custody arrangement, the requesting party must provide proof of custody as well as a consent for the release of the information from the child(ren)’s other parent. The Applicant has questioned the rationale of this requirement.

11The Respondent’s Record Management Clerk emailed the Applicant on December 4, 2024, confirming that it was the policy of the Respondent to require both parents’ consent. On the same day, the Applicant asked to escalate his request to the Executive Director. The Respondent’s Record Management Clerk confirmed that she would bring his concern to her supervisor.

12On February 5, 2025, the Respondent informed the Applicant by email that the matter had been discussed with the Respondent’s Counsel and that their position remained unchanged, which was “that with shared custody and decision making we require both parents consent in order to release records”.

13On February 7, 2025, Counsel for the Respondent emailed a letter to the Applicant in which it acknowledged that other agencies may have different policies, reiterated the policy the Respondent follows, and explained why it does so. The letter also advised the Applicant that any disagreement with the policies could be addressed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

14The information being requested is personal information. Part X of the Act establishes the rules that services providers must follow in relation to the collection, use, disclosure and managing of personal information. As of January 1, 2020, the Information and Privacy Commissioner rather than the CFSRB has jurisdiction over such issues.

15For this reason, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review this Application.

CONCLUSION

16As the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review this Application, it is unnecessary to review the second issue, whether the Application was heard and provided reasons for their complaint. The Application must be dismissed.

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.