MR v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 CFSRB 47

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: April 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 47 Indexed As: MR v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MR, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Katie Skinner, 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 CFSRB initially found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the Application should be dismissed because the complaints are outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.

4The CFSRB held a videoconference with the Parties on April 9, 2025, to better understand the Applicant’s complaint, and to determine if the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application.

ISSUE

5The issue is: Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to review this Application?

RESULT

6The CFSRB finds that it does not have jurisdiction to review this Application and the Application must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

7At the videoconference the Applicant explained that she has been trying to find her son, “DR”, and does not know what has happened to him in the last 10 years. The Applicant’s son was born in 1995 and is now 30 years old. He has special needs. The Applicant said that she has not seen him since 2012. The Applicant also explained that she had a previous Application at the CFSRB in 2012, and she needs the CFSRB’s assistance again. She described going to the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, and that she has a lawyer through Legal Aid Ontario, who was unable to attend the videoconference. The Applicant’s focus was on finding her now adult son, who she believes is being held involuntarily somewhere, and needs her help. She claims that although he is an adult, he is unable to speak or advocate for himself.

8In its Response, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had filed an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) complaint with the Respondent which was deemed ineligible for review because it pertained to an adult not in receipt of services from the Respondent, and because they could not share any information about the adult son without his consent.

9The Respondent also provided an Endorsement from the Superior Court of Justice dated December 3, 2024. The Endorsement sets out in part, “The Applicant (Monica Richards) brings this motion for a power of attorney for her adult son… age 29, production of his government documents and medical records and the CAST provide her with an address for his whereabouts and assist her to find him. She alleges that the CAST took her children, including DR, into care some years ago and she has not seen him or his siblings for over 10 years.” The Endorsement dismissed the Applicant’s motion for an order.

10The CFSRB can only review complaints about the Respondent if they relate to a service “sought or “received” by the Applicant or the Applicant’s children, as set out in section 120(1) of the Act. The Applicant’s complaint does not relate to a service. The Applicant has requested assistance from the CFSRB in her search for her adult son. The Act sets out the limited scope of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear complaints related to services sought or received from the Respondent. The Applicant received services from the Respondent in the period when her son went into care, but once the child reached adulthood in 2013, it no longer provided services. The Applicant is seeking assistance with her current concerns.

11Furthermore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review a matter if the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court, pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Act. As set out in paragraph 9 above, the subject of the complaint has been before the court and is therefore also outside the jurisdiction for the CFSRB to review.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

13Pursuant 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.