CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JT Applicant
-and-
Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: February 11, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 18 Indexed as: JT v Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1On January 19, 2026, the Applicant filed this Application 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”).
2On January 26, 2026, the CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Subsection 120(4)4 pertains to the Applicant’s entitlement to be given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he received. Subsection 120(4)5 pertains to the alleged failure of the Respondent to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interests.
3The Respondent filed its Response on February 4, 2026.
4Pursuant to Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, the CFSRB may decide an application solely based on the application and response. The Board is not required to hold a hearing.
5I find that I have sufficient information to decide this Application based on the Application and Response, both of which included numerous documents.
6The Applicant is the father of a child, (the “Child”) who he alleges has been alienated from him, the older siblings, and entire extended family over the course of years. The Application describes an investigation conducted by the JF&CS in 2022 wherein the Applicant alleges he was not provided an opportunity to be heard.
ISSUES
7The issues before me are:
a. Was the Applicant provided an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he received?
b. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interests?
RESULT
8The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard, but the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interest.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
CFSRB Jurisdiction
9The Applicant set out in his Application that “The ICRP stated, in advance, they would not act. The hearing was a waste of time.” Given the Applicant’s frustration with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”), I find it necessary to clarify the limited jurisdiction of the CFSRB. As a creature of statute, the CFSRB derives its jurisdiction entirely from the statutory provisions which govern it. Section 120 of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB (section 120(4)) as well as what orders the CFSRB can make (section 120(7)):
After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,
(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;
(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;
(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;
(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant
(e) dismiss the complaint; or
(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.
10A review of section 120(7) shows the limited powers of the CFSRB. The CFSRB is not empowered to order the Respondent to reopen an investigation. Pursuant to subsection 120(7)(d), the CFSRB may order the Respondent to provide written reasons for its decision.
ANALYSIS
11In his Application, the Applicant sets out that in 2022, the Respondent investigated allegations of threatened violence by the Applicant against the Child’s mother, which had allegedly taken place three years earlier. The investigation concluded that the Child had been exposed to violence. The Applicant alleges that he was not interviewed as part of the investigation, and nor were the other adults living in the home. He further alleges the Respondent’s attempts to contact him were fabricated, because the CPIN notes indicate that there was no voicemail at the home number, when there was voicemail during the period in question. The Applicant states that his cell number, work number, and email were known to the Respondent, and they provided no explanation for why no other effort was made to contact him.
12The Applicant included the November 17, 2025 letter he received following his ICRP meeting on November 7, 2025. The letter sets out in detail, the concerns brought forward at the ICRP meeting. The first concern listed is the issue “You requested evidence that shows the child welfare worker attempted to contact you when your family was receiving service in March 2022.” The letter points to the CPIN notes dated May 17, 24 and 27, 2022, that indicate there was no voicemail available. Importantly, the panel concluded that “alternate attempts should have been made to contact you through your work.”
13It is evident from the November 17, 2025 letter that through the ICRP process, the Applicant’s concerns about not being contacted by the Respondent were heard at the ICRP meeting. The panel agreed with the Applicant, that the Respondent should have made greater effort to contact him. The panel heard the Applicant’s concerns and agreed with him. As such, the ICRP meeting provided an opportunity for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard.
14While the Applicant’s concern about not being contacted, and consequently, not having an opportunity to be interviewed in the 2022 investigation was heard, the ICRP did not require that the Respondent provide an explanation for why it did not make a greater effort to contact him. As such, I find that the Respondent did not provide reasons for the decision to conclude its investigation in 2022 without making a greater effort to contact the Applicant.
ORDER
15Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Respondent is to provide the Applicant with:
a. Written reasons for its decision to conclude its investigation in 2022 without making greater effort to speak with the Applicant.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant 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.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand
Vice-Chair