CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SR Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: January 6, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 7 Indexed as: SR v The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
SR, Applicant Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent KW, 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 hearing of this matter was conducted on December 4, 2025. At the request of the Applicant, the hearing was conducted in-person.
ISSUE
3The issue to be determined is whether the Respondent failed to proceed with an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) despite the Respondent having received an ICRP form from the Applicant.
RESULT
4The CFSRB finds that the Respondent received an ICRP form from the Applicant and that the Respondent failed to consider the ICRP form and respond to the Applicant as required by the applicable Regulation, as detailed below.
ANALYSIS
5Subsections 120(4)1, 120(4)2, and 120(4)3 of the Act provide as follows:
120(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirement under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
6It is the Applicant’s position that he submitted a formal complaint to the Respondent seeking an ICRP and that the Respondent failed to convene one.
7In its Response, the Respondent took the position that there had not been a “proper submission” of an ICRP form by the Applicant. However, in its closing submissions, Respondent’s counsel submitted that the Respondent was not refusing to respond to the Applicant’s ICRP complaint, just that it had been difficult to do so. He argued that, in order to proceed with the internal review process, the Respondent needed to know the particulars of the complaint and, so far, the complaint had been about things that were out of the control of the Respondent. Notably, the Respondent’s closing submissions did not include any argument that the Applicant had not properly submitted his ICRP form.
Did the Applicant Make His Complaint in Accordance with the Regulations?
8Subsections 119(1) and 119(2) of the Act state:
119(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations (emphasis added).
119(2) Where a society receives (emphasis added) a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 120(2).
9Subsection 120(2) involves ICRP complaints that are being reviewed or are in progress at the time an Application is filed with the CFSRB. Subsection 120(2) is not relevant to this Application as the Respondent was neither reviewing nor otherwise acting on the Applicant’s complaint at the time of the Application.
10The procedures regarding a society’s ICRP process are detailed in Ontario Regulation 156/18 General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister (“the Regulation”).
11The Regulation requires that a complaint to a children’s aid society be in a specific format, “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)” form. There was no dispute that the format met the requirements of the Regulation.
12There is no specified requirement as to the mode of delivery of the ICRP form to a society. The ICRP Form prescribed by the Regulation and completed by the Applicant includes the following direction under the heading “How to Submit This Form”:
“After you have completed this form, you can submit it to your local society in person, by delivery, mail, fax or e-mail. If you need help filling out this form, let the society know and help will be provided to you.”
13As previously noted, the Applicant attached his ICRP form to the Application. The Application is dated June 13, 2025. The Respondent states in its Response, “…the Applicant never submitted an ICRP form to the Society until he served and filed his affidavit dated May 2, 2025” (emphasis added). Also attached to the Applicant’s May 2, 2025 Affidavit is a letter from the Ombudsman Ontario dated March 11, 2025 confirming contact between the Ombudsman Ontario and the Respondent regarding the Applicant repeatedly reporting to the Ombudsman Ontario that the Respondent was refusing to permit him to file an ICRP request.
14The evidence of every witness called by the Respondent as set out below was that the Applicant spoke with them about making a formal service complaint.
15AP(1) is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent. She testified that the Applicant told her he wanted to make a complaint about the Respondent on September 19, 2024 and that she provided him with a copy of the ICRP form. It was AP’s evidence that the Applicant advised her on subsequent occasions that he wished to make a complaint and that she told him that he had the paperwork and could follow up when ready.
16AP(2) is a child and youth worker employed by the Respondent. It was her evidence that the Applicant advised her on September 26, 2024 that he wanted to follow the steps for an ICRP but that, as a result of issues he said he had with his eyes, he could not email or complete anything online. AP(2) testified that she printed out the ICRP form and gave it to the Applicant. During cross-examination, AP(2) testified that she was not aware of the ICRP form attached to the Application.
17MH is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent. It was his evidence that he provided the Applicant with the ICRP form by way of email on September 29, 2025.
18TO-B is a child protection supervisor employed by the Respondent. It was her evidence that she was the supervisor on duty on September 26, 2025 when she was notified that the Applicant was at the reception desk asking for the internal complaint form. TO-B testified that she met with the Applicant who asked her for a printed copy of the internal complaint form and told her not to direct him to go online for the form. The Applicant indicated that he had been given the form in the past and filled it out but needed another copy.
19It was TO-B’s evidence that she consulted with a Service Relations Manager who advised her to ask the Applicant for the completed complaint form, provide him with a blank sheet of paper to note any additional concerns, and to then scan the material to the Service Relations Manager. TO-B testified that she relayed this to the Applicant who advised her that he did not have the completed form with him, despite having previously said he did. It was TO-B’s evidence that the Applicant refused to write anything for her to forward to the Service Relations Manager. According to TO-B, the Applicant became increasingly agitated and she advised him that he needed to leave the building or she would call the police to have him removed. He left the building.
20During cross-examination, TO-B testified that, throughout their discussion, the Applicant expressed his frustration about the Respondent refusing to conduct an internal review of his complaint.
21I am not persuaded that the Applicant submitted the ICRP form directly to the Respondent. Despite this, I find that, by its own admission, the Respondent eventually received the Applicant’s ICRP form by at least May 2, 2025 as an attachment to an affidavit by the Applicant. I further find on the totality of the evidence that the Respondent knew or ought to have known that the Applicant was requesting an internal review of his complaint.
Did the Respondent deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation?
22The Regulation mandates that within 7 days after receiving a complaint under s.119(1) of the Act, the children’s aid society shall determine whether the complaint is eligible for review. If the complaint is not eligible for review, the children’s aid society shall notify the complainant of its decision and the reasons for it in writing. If the children’s aid society determines that the complaint is eligible for review, it is required to notify the complainant in writing and establish an Internal Complaints Review panel.
23The Respondent did not review the Applicant’s ICRP form and make a determination as to its eligibility for review as required by the Regulation.
24I find that the Respondent did not deal with the Applicant’s complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by the Regulation.
ORDER
25Within seven days of the date of this Order, the Respondent shall determine whether the Applicant’s complaint in his ICRP form is eligible for review and follow the ICRP process in accordance with Ontario Regulation 156/18.
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, January 06, 2026.
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk Vice-Chair