SS v. Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto, 2026 CFSRB 38

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SS

Applicant

-and-

Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick

Date: March 17, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 38

Indexed as: SS v Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

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 determined that the present Application was eligible to proceed on January 27, 2026, pursuant to subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In the Notice of Eligibility dated January 27, 2026, the CFSRB directed the Respondent to address in its Response the issue of whether the CFSRB is barred by from reviewing some or all of the Application pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the CYFSA on the basis that issues raised are not separate and different from issues currently before the court. If the Respondent took the position that the CFSRB is barred from reviewing some or all of the Application, the Applicant could make written submissions on this question no later than 10 days after receipt of the Response.

4In the Response dated February 4, 2026, the Respondent alleged that the CFSRB was barred from reviewing the Application pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the CYFSA.

5On February 16, 2026, the Applicant filed written submissions in accordance with directions in the Notice of Eligibility and an email from the CFSRB dated February 9, 2026.

6At the CFSRB’s request, on March 10, 2026, the Respondent also provided an endorsement from a February 13, 2026 motion to which both the Applicant and Respondent were parties. The motion was brought by the Respondent and sought to withdraw the Respondent’s status review application and end all existing child protection orders. The Child’s mother opposed the motion. The motion was dismissed by the court.

7I have reviewed the Application, Response, the Applicant’s Submissions dated February 16, 2026, and the Respondent’s email dated March 10, 2026 (including attachment) in making my decision, below.

OVERVIEW

8The Applicant is the parent of the child, A.S. (the “Child”).

9The Respondent commenced child protection proceedings in relation to the Child in September, 2020. At that time, the court placed the Child in the temporary care of the mother with access to the Applicant at the Respondent’s discretion. Prior to the initial protection application, the Child was sharing equal time with the Applicant and the Child’s mother.

10The court subsequently found the Child in need of protection in May, 2021 and, as a result of a deterioration in the mother’s mental health, the Child was brought into the care of the Respondent in September, 2021.

11The Respondent placed the Child in the care of other family members until July 2023 when the child was returned to his mother’s care subject to Respondent supervision.

12The Child currently resides in the care of the mother subject to the supervision of the Respondent pursuant to a Final Order dated May, 2024.

13The most recent Status Review Application was issued by the Respondent in September, 2024 and remains outstanding.

14In Fall, 2025, the Respondent brought a motion (“February 2026 motion”) seeking to withdraw its Status Review Application and terminating all Orders in the proceeding with no further court Order required. The mother opposed this motion.

15The motion was heard in February, 2026. The Respondent’s motion was dismissed with the existing child protection orders remaining in effect.

ISSUE

16The issue is:

a. Should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

17The CFSRB finds that the Application must be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant’s complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues that are before the Court.

ANALYSIS

18In his Application, the Applicant alleges that he was denied the opportunity to be heard by the Respondent as a result of the Respondent allegedly restricting communication between the Applicant and certain representatives of the Respondent beginning in November, 2025.

19The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent has not provided reasons for following decisions affecting his interests:

a. Why the Respondent allegedly did not conduct a substantive complaint review, a director-level review or provide the Applicant with a written decision addressing concerns that the Applicant raised in relation to Affidavits filed by the Respondent’s representatives in or around October, 2025;

b. Why the Respondent allegedly declined or ignored the Applicant’s requests made in or around October, 2025 to make corrections to Affidavits filed by the Respondent’s representatives as part of the court proceeding; and

c. Why the Respondent indicated to the Applicant in October, 2025 that his concerns in relation to care providers for the Child and adding a party to the court proceeding had to be raised with the court as opposed to addressed by the Respondent directly.

20Section 120(8)(a) of the Act prevents the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

21The CFSRB is not necessarily barred from reviewing complaints where the parties are or were involved in a court proceeding. However, before the CFSRB can embark on a review of a complaint about services from a Children’s Aid Society, the CFSRB must be satisfied that the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court (Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 441).

The Applicant’s complaints relating to the Respondent’s restriction on communication with the Applicant are not separate and different from issues before the court

22The complaint outlined in paragraph 18 above is not necessarily a matter that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. The Applicant submits that, in a November 3, 2025 email, the Respondent advised the Applicant that the Respondent would be restricting future communications with the Applicant. As such, the Applicant argues that this is a service-delivery issue within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

23On the issue of complaint characterization, I agree with the Applicant; the Applicant’s concerns do relate to the Respondent’s communications with him. However, the problem in this case with the CFSRB addressing complaints relating to the Respondent denying the Applicant the right to be heard following this email is that, though within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, these issues are also squarely before the court in this matter.

24The Respondent submits that, at time of this email correspondence between the parties, the Applicant was experiencing a deterioration in mental health and, in November 2025, was hospitalized. Affidavit evidence filed as part of the February 2026 motion and appended to the Respondent’s submissions references much of the same email correspondence put before the CFSRB. The Respondent’s Affidavit evidence notes both volume and frequency of the Applicant’s email correspondence with the Respondent to illustrate the deterioration in the Applicant’s mental health.

25Based on the endorsement from the February 2026 motion, it is clear that the concerns relating to the Applicant’s mental state, which were demonstrated through forms including the email correspondence, contributed to the court concluding that protection concerns remain ongoing and that the withdrawal of the Respondent’s status review application was not in the Child’s best interests at this point in time. Should the CFSRB conclude that the Respondent’s November 3, 2025 email denied the Applicant the opportunity to be heard, the findings of the CFSRB could conflict with that of the court. As such, the CFSRB complaints relating the Respondent’s communications with the Applicant are not separate and different from the substantive issues currently before the court.

The Applicant’s complaints relating to the Respondent’s Affidavit material are not separate and different from the issues before the court

26The complaints outlined in paragraphs 19(a) and (b) in relation to the Respondent’s Affidavit materials are not separate and different from issues before the court.

27In his submissions, the Applicant characterizes his requests for the director to review and make changes to Affidavits filed in 2020 and 2022 by the Respondent’s representatives as part of the child protection proceeding as requests for a record correction. The Applicant complains that the Respondent did not provide a director-level review or provide a written response to the Applicant’s disagreements with the substantive contents of the Affidavits when requested by the Applicant in October, 2025.

28Whether an Affidavit filed as part of an ongoing court proceeding contains incorrect information and requires correction is a matter for the court to determine. Furthermore, any requests for a party to review or correct its Affidavit material or provide a written response to a disagreement with the contents of an Affidavit should be made through the court. As such, the Applicant’s concerns about the Respondent’s Affidavit material and request that the Respondent ought to provide a review and response to these concerns is an issue that is before the court and cannot be reviewed by the CFSRB.

The Applicant’s complaints relating to care providers and adding a party to the court proceeding are not separate and different than issues before the court

29The Applicant complains that the Respondent failed to provide reasons why the Applicant needed to address a request to add a party to the court proceeding or express care provider concerns through the court and not with the Respondent directly.

30Both the decision of whether to add a party to the court proceeding as well as addressing concerns relating to a care provider for a Child as part of an ongoing child protection proceeding are issues that are currently before the court. As such, I find that the CFSRB cannot review these complaints.

ORDER

31The Application is dismissed

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

32Pursuant 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.