CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DS Applicant
-and-
Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiya Child and Family Services Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sonya Vellenga Date: April 01, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 51 Indexed as: DS v Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiya Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
DS, Applicant Self-represented
Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child and Family Services, Respondent TM, 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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)5 of the Act.
2In its response filed on March 2, 2026, the Respondent submits that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint because the Applicant is not a service recipient.
3On March 3, 2026, the Applicant filed a reply to the Respondent’s submission. In it she argues that “Section 120(4)5 of the CYFSA applies to any person whose interests are affected by a service provider’s decision, not only to parents or guardians.”
4In a March 3, 2026, Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed the Applicant to provide written submissions on how her complaints relate to services she sought or received from the Respondent. The Respondent was permitted to file an optional reply and did so. I have considered the parties’ submissions as well as the Application and the Response.
ISSUE
5Are the Applicant’s complaints as set out in her application and written submissions related to “services” she sought or received from the Respondent as defined under Subsection 2(1) of the Act?
RESULT
6The CFSRB finds that the Applicant’s complaints are not related to services the Applicant sought or received from the Respondent. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application, and it must be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
7The Applicant is the grandmother of the Child. The Applicant does not have custody of this child; however, she identifies that she provided care for him in March 2025 and has had “consistent contact with (her) grandson prior” to March 2025. The Applicant has concerns about her grandson’s placement with his mother and in her submissions, the Applicant makes numerous allegations of neglect by the mother. The Applicant’s complaint is that despite the allegations of neglect, the Respondent has not acted upon her concerns, nor have they provided details regarding the outcome of any investigation into these concerns.
ANALYSIS
What is a service?
8Subsection 120(1) of the Act states that a person may complain about a service they sought or received from a society in relation to a matter described in subsection 120(4) and that complaint may be made to either the society or the CFSRB, or both.
9For a complaint to be eligible for review by the CFSRB under section 120 of the Act, an Applicant must meet two threshold tests. First, an Applicant must demonstrate that they have sought or received a service, as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society or Indigenous child and family well-being agency. Once that is established, then the CFSRB must determine whether the Applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.
10Subsection 2(1) of the Act, defines “service” as:
a. a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,
b. a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,
c. a service related to residential care for a child,
d. a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,
e. a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,
f. counselling for a child or the child’s family,
g. a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,
h. a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or
i. a prescribed service; (“service”)
Did the Applicant seek services from the Respondent?
11The Applicant submits that the following services were sought by her: a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability, a service for a child who may be in need of protection, and a service for a child that is in the nature of support or prevention. She argues that she sought these services because she referred concerns about the Child to the Respondent.
12The Applicant has not provided evidence that she had legal custody and care of the Child; rather that she enjoyed access to the Child prior to March 2025. The services identified by the Applicant were services that she was seeking for the Child while in the care and custody of his mother.
13The Respondent states that “there is currently no court involvement and there is no plan or intention by the Agency to bring the mother or child to court. The extent of the Agency’s involvement is limited by providing support to the mother in her care of the child who has unique, complex needs”.
14The Applicant submitted documentation that speaks to her concerns about her grandson, and she includes in her documentation numerous allegations of neglect regarding the parenting of her grandson. She states that despite sharing these ‘concerns’, the Society has not “provided details of (the) investigation regarding these concerns”.
15The Respondent submits “It is worthwhile adding that the mother has directed the Agency not to share any information with the Applicant. The Agency is obligated to comply with the mother’s direction due to Part X, CYFSA. That said, the Agency cannot share any private information about the mother or child with the Applicant without the proper consent (which the mother will not provide)”.
16The Respondent has clearly noted that the mother has not provided written consent for the release of investigation details to the Applicant.
17The Applicant documents the services she believes are necessary for supportive or prevention intervention for her grandson and her complaint is that the Society has failed to demonstrate that they have followed up with the Child’s mother by providing these services.
18In response, the Respondent stated that “the Agency accepts the documents included with the Application many of which are letters of support from the services and supports for the child regarding continued IBI Therapy”. The Respondent does not have the authority to provide information about the implementation of these services to the Applicant without the written consent of the mother.
19H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) examines the issue of who is in receipt of services.
20In this case, the Board “…recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons”.
21The Applicant provided submissions that identified herself as the referral source for her communication to the Society regarding allegations of neglect and the need for developmental and preventative services for LL. The Applicant is not entitled to follow up information as the referral source, nor has she provided evidence in her submissions that she was the “subject of an investigation”.
22The Respondent has declared that the Society does not have any court involvement with the child and as such, they do not “control access”. The Respondent is therefore not compelled to provide reasons to the Applicant with regards to the services they are providing to the Child and his mother.
Conclusion
23Although it appears that the Child and the Applicant’s daughter are in receipt of services from the Respondent, there is no information in the Application nor in the Applicant’s submissions that demonstrate that the Applicant has sought or received any service from the Respondent as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act.
24For these reasons, I conclude that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s complaints as she has not sought or received services from the Respondent as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act.
ORDER
25The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
26Pursuant 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, April 01, 2026.
Sonya Vellenga
Sonya Vellenga Member