MB v Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto, 2026 CFSRB 78

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MB Applicant

-and-

Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: May 19, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 78 Indexed as: MB v Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the “Act”).

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on April 15, 2026.

3In its Response dated April 24, 2026, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was or had been before the Court. As such, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to hear.

4An email from the CFSRB to the Applicant on April 24, 2026, clarified that the Applicant was to provide written submissions on why she believed that the CFSRB was not barred from reviewing her Application by May 4, 2026.

5The Applicant provided submissions on April 27, 2026.

ISSUES

6The issue is: are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court?

RESULT

7I find that the issues in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court. As a result, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application, and it must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

8The Applicant submits that the issues in her Application are within the jurisdiction of this board to hear. She submits that she is not asking to reinvestigate or overturn the outcome of the Protection Application but determine whether decisions made by the Respondent were supported by sufficient evidence, and whether they interfered with her parental decision-making ability. Specifically, she alleges that: a) the Respondent did not allow her to make parental decisions about her children, including about their medical and therapeutic supports, and b) the Respondent did not identify evidence from its investigation to support is assertion that she was not making appropriate medical decisions in its Application to the Court, dated April 16, 2024.

9The Applicant further requests that the CFSRB obtain and review the additional information and records the Respondent has collected and decide whether it sufficiently considered her longstanding ability to meet her children’s needs. She is also asking for allegedly inaccurate information provided to the Respondent by the Toronto Police to be corrected.

10First, the issues the Applicant has listed in both her Application and written submissions, and outlined in paragraph 8 above, are not within the authority of the CFSRB to review. The Board is limited in what it can hear by section 120(4) of the Act. Further, it has already been determined that the Application is eligible to proceed only under sections 120 (4) 4 and 120(4) 5, being, was the Applicant provided an opportunity to be heard, and was she provided reasons for decisions that were made. It is outside of the CFSRB’s authority to look at whether the decisions made by the Respondent were correct or based on sufficient evidence.

11Second, even if the issues were found to be within the purview of the CFSRB’s authority, the remedies being sought by the Applicant are not ones that can be provided. Reviewing the evidence and information used in an investigation or ordering the correction of non-party records, is beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to provide.

12Third, and the core issue at hand, under subsection 120(8)(a) of the Act, 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. It is with this limit on jurisdiction the remainder of this decision will be based.

13The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, 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”.

14As evidence for its submission that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review this Application, the Respondent provided numerous court documents, including, 6 Court Endorsements with the corresponding Applications and supporting Affidavits, as well as 3 Answers and Plan of Care, a Status Review Application and Agreed Statement of Facts.

15In reviewing the abundance of documentation in connection with the various court proceedings, the Applicant’s parenting decisions, including those focused on medical and therapeutic decisions for the children, remained a primary focus and concern.

16J. Himel’s Endorsement of April 16, 2024, explicitly states “M.B. expressed that she did not agree with the evidence filed and she wished to have an opportunity to tell her side of the story…. However, based on the evidence filed, [the child] appears to be at significant risk of harm… The Society is concerned that, while M.B. clearly loves her daughter, she has not been able/willing to monitor [the child] to the extent necessary (due in part because of [the child’s] refusals).”

17All subsequent Endorsements and Orders specifically directed and made decisions in regard to the medical and therapeutic supports to be provided to the children and the role of the Applicant and Respondent in applying and monitoring those decisions.

18The Applicant’s Answers and Plan of Care documents as well as the parties Agreed Statement of Facts provided details about what medical and therapeutic supports would be provided and the Applicant and Respondent’s role in making and monitoring decisions.

It is clear that the complaints alleged by the Applicant have been squarely before the court.

CONCLUSION

19For the reasons set out above, I find that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the matter

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.