RA v. Highland Shores Children's Aid Society, 2026 CFSRB 41

BETWEEN:

RA Applicant

-and-

Highland Shores Children's Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: March 19, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 41 Indexed as: RA v Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

RA, Applicant Self-represented

Highland Shores Children's Aid Society, Respondent CC, Legal 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 Applicant is the mother of a child (“MB”) who is the subject of the Application. On February 4, 2026, the Applicant filed a complaint with the CFSRB alleging that the Respondent has not heard her concerns regarding her cooperation and completion of the elements in her Safety Plan, and that the Respondent failed to provide her with an explanation of what further is required to be reunified with MB.

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, the CFSRB found the following allegations eligible to proceed:

The Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interest were made, or a chance to be heard when he/she raised concerns about the services he/she is receiving.

The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

4In 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.”

5In its February 19, 2026 Response to the Application, the Respondent submitted that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the complaints in the Application as the issues are currently before the Ontario Court of Justice (the “Court”) by way of a Child Protection Application.

6The Applicant provided written submissions on February 23, 2026.

7I reviewed the Application, the Response and the Applicant’s submissions relating to the jurisdiction of the CFSRB in this matter in making my decision below. The Response included the following court documents:

A Child Protection Application (“Protection Application”) naming the Applicant and her partner as Respondents, dated February 10, 2026; and
A Temporary Court Order (“Order”), made by Hon. Justice D. Gunsolus naming the Applicant and her partner as Respondents, dated February 10, 2026.

ISSUE

8Should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

RESULT

9I find that the 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

10 Section 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. This means that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this application if the complaint relates to a matter that is before the court.

11The 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.

12Accordingly, 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 constitutes the “substantive issues” before a court, and second, whether the applicant’s complaints are “separate and different” from those substantive issues.

Background

13The Respondent became involved with the Applicant in September 2025, three days after MB was born, due to concerns with the Applicant’s mental health as well as conflict between the Applicant and her partner.

14The Respondent has been involved with the Applicant and her partner previously in relation to a different child who is not part of this Application.

15When the Respondent became involved, the Applicant voluntarily developed a plan with the Respondent whereby the Applicant’s grandmother would care for the child temporarily and would fully supervise the Applicant and her partner when with MB.

16The Respondent worked with the Applicant and her legal counsel on various drafts of Voluntary Safety Agreements beginning in October 2025. None of these were formalized and signed.

17In November 2025, the Applicant’s relationship with her grandmother broke down and the Applicant’s sister temporarily removed MB from the Applicant’s grandmother’s care, against the original agreed upon safety plan.

18MB has been in the care of her paternal grandmother and her partner since November 2025. MB was placed with her paternal grandmother and her partner as a Place of Safety on February 5, 2026.

19A Protection Application was made and an Order was issued by the court on February 10, 2026, placing MB in the temporary care and custody of her paternal grandparents subject to the supervision of the Respondent. The court matter remains ongoing. The Order states the matter is returnable on June 4, 2026. In her submissions, the Applicant indicated there are further court proceedings scheduled on April 30, 2026.

20The Applicant was represented by her legal counsel during communications with the Respondent regarding the Voluntary Safety Agreements. The Applicant was also represented in court by the same counsel.

21The Respondent’s concerns listed in the Protection Application include:

concerns about the Applicant’s unaddressed mental health that impact her ability to be a safe caregiver;
concerns about domestic violence and the Applicant’s partner’s inability to care for MB on his own;
concerns that the Applicant has not been honest with the Respondent and the Respondent has observed conflicting evidence from the Applicant since it has worked with her on a voluntary basis starting in September 2025;
concerns about conflict between the Applicant and her partner resulting in police intervention; and
concerns that even though multiple voluntary family plans/placements have been created, this has not mitigated the protection concerns.

22The February 10, 2026 Court Order places MB in the temporary care and custody of her paternal grandparents subject to the supervision of the Respondent, and sets out the terms of the Respondent’s supervision based on the content of the Protection Application.

23In her written submissions, the Applicant does not directly address the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction in this matter. She submits that she was provided with a draft safety plan that did not match what was referred to in the Respondent’s affidavits, and that affidavits were filed containing inaccurate statements. She also submits that between December 2025 and February 2026, prior to the Protection Application, she was engaged in treatment, attended therapy, completed psychiatric assessments, completed the Triple P parenting program and cooperated with the Respondent through January 2026. The Applicant also writes about the impact on MB of being separated from the Applicant and her partner.

24It is clear from the Protection Application and the Order that the issues surrounding the Applicant’s compliance with the terms set out in the Order are before the court. Therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review these complaints.

25The Applicant’s complaint relates to the Respondent not explaining to her what remains outstanding to reunite with MB. The February 10, 2026 Order sets out what is required of the Applicant and her partner.

26I acknowledge that many of the requirements directed to the Applicant in the Order are ongoing and will be evaluated by the Respondent over time, including her participation in mental health counselling and following through with recommendations, demonstrating skills learned and engaging in recommendations for support services made by the Respondent.

27The substance of the Applicant’s complaint deals with the evaluation of her ongoing requirements in the Order. Therefore, I find that this issue is before the courts and the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review this complaint.

Conclusion

28The Applicant’s complaints focus on her compliance with the “safety plan,” and any further steps she must take for reunification with MB. The safety plan is essentially the terms listed on the February 10, 2026 Order.

29I find that the issues 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, I find that section 120(8)(a) of the Act applies.

ORDER

30The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

31Pursuant 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.

Tracy Foster

Tracy Foster Member