CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
EL
Applicant
-and-
Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Lise Henrie
Indexed as: EL v Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
EL, Applicant
Self-represented
Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, Respondent
AR, Executive Director and Representative
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 a child who is receiving services from the Respondent. On February 5, 2026, the Applicant filed a complaint with the CFSRB that the Respondent has not heard his concerns, including those regarding kinship placements and regarding the child’s treatment and environment, and that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for its decisions.
3In the February 9, 2026 Notice of Eligibility, the Respondent was asked to “address in its Response the issue of whether the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) of the Act from reviewing some or all of the Application. If the Society takes the position that the CFSRB is barred by section 120(8)(a) from reviewing some or all of the Application, the Applicant may make written submissions on this question no later than 10 days after receipt of the Response.”
4In its February 19, 2026 Response to the Application, the Respondent submits that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the complaints in the Application as the Applicant’s matter is currently before the Ontario Court of Justice (the “Court”). The Applicant provided his written submissions on March 2, 2026. On March 3, 2026, the CFRSB asked the Respondent if it intended to have two of its four annexes be the same document (a December 2024 court order appeared twice). As a result, the Respondent filed an amended Response to include a May 2025 order in addition to the December 2024 court order). In response, the Applicant filed amended submissions to include new tabs I, J and K. I reviewed the Application, the Response, and the parties’ respective submissions (as amended) relating to the jurisdiction of the CFSRB in this matter in making my decision below.
ISSUE
5The issue is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review the Application.
RESULT
6I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application.
ANALYSIS
7In paragraph 6 of the Application, where an applicant identifies why they have applied to the CFSRB, the Applicant checked off the following boxes:
The Society did not give you a chance to be heard when you raised your concerns.
The Society did not give you a chance to be heard when decisions that affected your interests were made.
The Society did not give you reasons for its decisions that affect your interests.
8Section 120(8)(a) of the Act provides that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint, is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court. For greater clarity, the effect of this provision on the present matter is that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this application if the complaint relates to a matter that is before the court.
9The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441 held 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.
10Accordingly, the application of subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act to the review of an applicant’s complaints is essentially a two-part review. First, the CFSRB must consider what constitute the “substantive issues” before a court, and second, whether the applicant’s complaints are “separate and different” from those substantive issues.
Background
11The Respondent became involved with the child on March 8, 2024 when a teacher reported that the child witnessed an altercation between his mother and father. The Respondent was unable to contact the child’s mother, and a missing persons investigation was commenced. To date, neither the Respondent nor the authorities have been able to make contact with the mother, and she was noted in default in the Court proceedings.
12The initial post-apprehension order was made on March 13, 2024 with the Court placing the child in temporary care (in a foster home). Another order made on June 5, 2024 placed the child in the care of the maternal aunt and uncle. There was another temporary care order on July 4, 2024, placing the child in temporary care again. On December 24, 2024, the Court placed the child in the maternal grandmother’s temporary care. A May 15, 2025 order of the Court, grants summary judgement with respect to statutory findings and protection findings. This order is further evidence that the Applicant’s concerns are before the Court. Notably, the judge refers to the Applicant’s claims and the evidence of interactions between him and the Respondent, including the worker, LG, that the Applicant raised in his application. Finally, the Respondent informed the CFSRB that the matter was still before the Court with a fifth day of trial occurring on February 18, 2026 and a further date set for continuance. The substantive issues before the Court refer to the placement of the child and related matters, including the Applicant’s concerns about Respondent staff, access facilitation and the child’s environment, as is evidenced in the various orders made by the Court.
Respondent’s position
13The Respondent submits that an Application for temporary care was issued on March 12, 2024, four days after the Respondent opened the file regarding the child. The Respondent asks that the Application be dismissed as the Applicant’s matter has been before the Court for most of the time that the Respondent has been involved with the child, and the matter remains before the Court.
Applicant’s position
14In his Application, the Applicant writes that he has been trying to reunite with his son since September 2024. He writes that he just wants his son back and that he should never have been placed with his maternal grandmother. He makes submissions that suggest that the child’s environment is less than ideal. For example, he writes that the child is subject to bed bugs and alleges that the child may not be treated well, notably by his uncle. He raises concerns about medical and dental treatment as well as other concerns about his child’s placement. The Applicant further submits that he cannot see his child due to the lack of transportation supports.
15In his March 2, 2026 written submissions, the Applicant does not directly address the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction in this matter. The Applicant writes that due to issues with his rental, he did not have access to court documents and was not properly prepared for the June 2024 temporary care hearing.
16In his submissions, the Applicant writes about an agreement with the Respondent, about the ICRP process and about the court process. Throughout his submissions he refers to a plan of care (including his parental rights and interest in reunification) and facilitation. The Applicant raises concerns about how he was not notified (for example of court proceedings) or heard. The Applicant’s submissions included evidence relating to his parental abilities (medical notes, test results, letters from the Respondent). Such evidence is relevant to the issues that have been and continue to be before the Court, and support a finding that this Application relates to essentially the same matters that are before the Court.
Conclusion
17In Children's Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated: “In my view, before the CFSRB can embark on a review, it must be satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint is neither (i) an issue that has been decided by the court nor (ii) an issue that is currently before the court. The language of the section is mandatory.”
18The CFSRB finds that the Court has been involved with the child almost from the outset of the Respondent’s involvement. The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s substantive issues are essentially the same as those before the Court and that he was able to raise his concerns in Court.
19The CFSRB finds that, at its core, the Applicant’s complaints center on his reunification with his child. The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s concerns, as stated in his submissions, relate to decisions regarding his child’s care, including the child’s placement, how the Respondent should facilitate the Applicant’s parenting time, as well as how the Respondent communicated (or did not communicate) with the Applicant. Evidence from the Court orders show that these substantive issues are essentially the same as the issues before the Court. The CFSRB finds that they are not separate and different from those addressed by the Court. As the decisions were ultimately made by the Court and that the matter remains before the Court, the CFSRB finds that section 120(8)(a) of the Act applies. The legislation is clear that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application as the matter is before the Court.
ORDER
20The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
21Pursuant 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, March 09, 2026.
Lise Henrie
Lise Henrie
Vice-Chair