M-ML v. Tikinagan Child and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 111

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

M-ML Applicant

-and-

Tikinagan Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelaine Lahaie Date: August 15, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 111 Indexed As: M-ML v Tikinagan Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.109)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

M-ML, Applicant Kimberly Costa, Counsel

Tikinagan Child and Family Services, Respondent Matthew Angeconeb, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1These are Applications filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 109 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Applicant requested a review of the Respondent’s decision to remove the children (“the Children”) in her care from her home.

3Upon receiving the Eligibility Decision and the Notice of Hearing for these matters, Counsel for the Respondent contacted the CFSRB to advise that the Children have been under customary care agreements and not orders of extended society care. Counsel submitted that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear these Applications.

4The CFSRB sought submissions from the parties on the issue of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

5The issue is: Does the CFSRB have jurisdiction to hear these Applications?

RESULT

6The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear these Applications.

ANALYSIS

7On June 17, 2025, Counsel for the Respondent filed an affidavit with the CFSRB. The affidavit, dated May 28, 2025, stated that the Children have never been the subject of an interim society care order or an extended society care order under the Act.

8In an email to the CFSRB and Counsel for the Respondent dated July 15, 2025, Counsel for the Applicant replied that, based on the Respondent’s affidavit, the Applicant “concedes that there does not appear to be jurisdiction for the CFSRB to hear the Applications.”

9Under sections 109(7) and (8) of the Act, the CFSRB may review the removal of a child in extended society care if the child has lived continuously with a foster parent for two years and a society proposes to remove the child from the foster parent.

10It is a precondition to the CFSRB’s review of an application under section 109(8) of the Act that the affected children have been in extended society care. The Respondent has provided affidavit evidence that the Children have never been in the Respondent’s extended society care and the Applicant does not dispute this. Accordingly, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear these Applications.

ORDER

11The Applications are dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

12Pursuant 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 these Applications 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, August 15, 2025.

Michelaine Lahaie

Michelaine Lahaie Vice-Chair