MR v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2026 CFSRB 82

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MR

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley

Date: May 25, 2026

Citation: 2026 CFSRB 82

Indexed as: MR v Children’s Aid Society of 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)1 and 120(4)5 of the Act on May 5, 2026.

3The Respondent submitted its Response on May 15, 2026.

4Within the Application and Response, the parties have submitted various documents including texts, emails, letters, and applications for housing.

5Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.

ISSUE

6The issues arising from this Application are:

a. Is the Applicant’s complaint eligible for review by the CFSRB; if yes

b. Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2) of the Act; and

c. Did the Respondent fail to provide the Applicant with reasons for why it made the decision to not sign her Special Priority Program (“SPP”) application

RESULT

7I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear this matter and that the Respondent refused to proceed with the complaint. However, I find that the Applicant was provided with reasons for its decision to not sign the SPP application. As such, the Application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Is the Applicant’s complaint eligible for review by the CFSRB

8Subsection 120(1) of the Act the states that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society and the complaint relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

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 the Act, from a children’s aid society. If that is established, the CFSRB must, second, determine whether the applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received. If an applicant does not meet the first threshold test, the CFSRB is not required to consider the substance of the complaint.

10The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s complaint does not relate to a service sought or received as the investigation that was conducted related solely to concerns regarding pets in the Applicant’s home and whether the condition of the residence created an unsafe environment for the child. Further, it submits that the current complaint happened after the investigation and file were closed.

11The Applicant submits that she sought services from the Respondent for herself and her child who are and were in need of protection as alleged victims of abuse.

12The Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant began on February 9, 2026, when it received a complaint from a third party about the Applicant. It proceeded to conduct an investigation and concluded that there were no protection concerns. The Respondent advised the Applicant that it was closing its file on March 2, 2026.

13On April 13, 2026, the Applicant sent the Respondent an email requesting confirmation that her circumstances gave rise to a SPP application for her, which would provide her with Rent-Geared-to-Income housing. She sought the Respondent’s signature in regard to her SPP application.

14The Respondent emailed back the same day explaining that it could not sign the SPP application. Reasons for its decision were provided in this email.

15The Applicant submitted a complaint to the Respondent on April 24, 2026, requesting a review of her matter before the Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”).

16The Respondent sent letters on April 30, 2026, and May 1, 2026, advising the Applicant that her ICRP Application was not eligible for review by the panel as the complaint was not in relation to child welfare services, but rather a refusal to sign a housing application.

17The stated purpose of the SPP as listed on the application form is to “give priority ranking to social housing applicants and/or tenant whose personal safety, or whose family’s safety is at risk because of abuse by an individual with whom they currently or recently lived with….” The Applicant alleges that she and her child were in need of protection, and this is why she asked the Respondent for assistance.

18“Services” is defined under section 2 (d) of the Act as including: a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family.

19As such, I find that the complaint about the Respondent’s failure to sign the SPP describes “services” that were “sought” by the Applicant that likely relate to those captured under section 2(d) the definition of “service” in the Act.

20I disagree with the Respondent’s position that once the file was closed, services were no longer being provided and/or that the request to sign the SPP application would not be considered a service. The Act is specifically broader than that and may include services “sought,” not just received.

21I find that the Applicant was seeking services as defined under section 2 of the Act and the CFSRB may review the Applicant’s complaint.

Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant

22Pursuant to section 119 of the Act, a person may make a complaint to a society which shall be dealt with in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.

23On May 1, 2026, by way of email, the Respondent advised that it would not be proceeding with an ICRP as it found the Applicant’s complaint ineligible, therefore refusing to proceed with the complaint.

24Sections 119(10) and 120(7) of the Act together set out the decisions that the CFSRB may make upon a review of allegations under section 120(4)1 that a society has refused to proceed with a complaint. This includes, under section 120(7)(a), ordering a society to proceed with the complaint, ordering the society to provide written reasons for a decision, or dismissing the complaint.

25I find that there is sufficient evidence to review the merits of the complaint and will proceed to review whether the Respondent met it obligation under section 120(4)5.

Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with Reasons for why it made the decision to not sign the Applicant’s SPP Application

26The Applicant’s complaint was deemed eligible under section 120(4)5. The right to reasons under the Act means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests.

27The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to apply the legislation correctly in making its decision to not sign her SPP application.

28The Respondent submits that it has in fact provided the Applicant with its reasons for not signing the SPP application.

29In response to the Applicant’s request for the Respondent to sign the SPP application, the Respondent submits that it first contacted the Applicant on April 13, 2026, and advised that it could not assist with the SPP application.

30On April 21, 2026, the Respondent submits that the Applicant spoke with the Respondent’s Intake Supervisor on the telephone who explained that her file was closed, and she was not a candidate for Special Priority housing. An explanation of the process used to approve the SPP application was provided.

31On April 21, 2026, the Applicant sent a written complaint to the Respondent’s Manager about the decision to not sign the SPP application. The Respondent’s response on April 24, 2026, included the following: “We are unable to sign your SPP application and letter that you forwarded to us as the information you have requested falls outside the scope of the protection investigation that was conducted and the Society does not have direct knowledge of the facts required”.

32On April 29, 2026, the Respondent’s Director of Intake responded via email to the Applicant’s complaint. The email states:

“with respect to your request, CAST is not able to complete or sign SPP verification forms in this circumstance. This is because we are not in a position to independently verify or attest to the specific information required for SPP eligibility, particularly where it falls outside the scope of our mandate or is based on information not directly observed or verified through our involvement. While CAST had prior involvement with your family, that involvement was limited to assessing child protection concerns under CFFSA. As such, it would not be appropriate or within our authority to provide the type of verification required for SPP applications.”

33Given the above, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not sign the SPP application.

34It appears that the Applicant’s real issue is that she does not agree with the rational for the Respondent’s decision. However, the Act does not permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the validity of decisions.

CONCLUSION

35I find that:

a. The Applicant sought services from the Respondent as defined by the Act;

b. The Respondent refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint; and

c. The Applicant was provided with reasons for the Respondent’s decision to not sign the SPP Application.

ORDER

36The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

37Pursuant 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.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley

Member