CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DR
Applicant
-and-
Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Martina Dwyer
Indexed As: DR v Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
DR, Applicant
Self-represented
FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICES OF ST. THOMAS AND ELGIN, Respondent
Shannon Dinh, 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”).
2On June 9, 2025, the CFSRB issued a Notice of Eligibility outlining the basis on which the Application was deemed eligible to proceed. On June 22, 2025, the Respondent submitted that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to hear the Application. The Applicant responded on the same day that the Application met the eligibility requirements.
3On July 14, 2025, a Case Management Direction provided instructions that the Respondent may file submissions on the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction on or before July 22, 2025. Both parties filed submissions on the issue jurisdiction. The July 18, 2025, written submissions of the Respondent and the July 19, 2025, written submissions from the Applicant were reviewed.
ISSUE
4The issue is whether the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
5The Applicant claims that the Respondent did not:
a. Give the Applicant a chance to be heard when he raised concerns.
b. Give the Applicant a chance to be heard when decisions that affected his interest were made.
c. Give reasons for its decisions that affected his interest.
6The Applicant is the father of an 11-year-old son. The Applicant claims he raised child safety concerns to the Respondent regarding the alleged ongoing emotional abuse of his son at the hands of the Principal and the School Board. Some of the allegations of emotional abuse are contained in the follow quotations from the Application:
a. This case also involves a significant power imbalance which puts the victim at greater harm.
b. Since that date, the emotional harm/abuse has continued against my son with the guilty party making up a fake, ring doorbell footage claiming to capture my son kicking rocks and throwing things at another student’s house.
c. My son has been repeatedly victimized by this adult in a position of power who has made my son feel targeted after already been a victim of a physical and sexual assault that was the direct result from inadequate supervision on the part of the school.
d. Additionally, this adult has trespassed me from school property (under entirely false pretenses) making it so my son does not have a strong support system and I cannot attend his basketball games.
e. This action further isolates my son and increases the power imbalance, allowing the adult to continue extremely emotionally harmful behaviour.
f. I requested an update from the Society (specifically asking for confirmation of whether the complaint was screened for investigation, whether an investigation had been completed or is ongoing, the outcome of the investigation as it pertains to my son, and any services, safety measures, or interventions being implemented)
7The Respondent advised the Applicant that his complaints about the Principal and School Board does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Respondent but does fall within the jurisdiction of the School Board. The Applicant asserts that the Application does fall within the Society’s jurisdiction because the Respondent has a duty to investigate when his son was being emotionally abused by the Principal and other school staff.
8The CFSRB finds that there is no jurisdiction to hear this Application, and the Application is dismissed for the following reasons.
THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
9The Applicant seeks to have the Respondent review and investigate the conduct of the school Principal and other members of the School Board. The Applicant specifically denies that he was seeking any "services" from the Respondent. He claims that he was making a referral on behalf of his son. The Applicant stated in his submissions to the CFSRB dated June 23, 2025:
My referral was made specifically on behalf of my son, B.R., who was, and continues to be, the subject of ongoing emotional abuse, retaliation, and systemic mistreatment by his school principal, (the Principal), and other members of the (School Board).
In response to (the Respondent’s) position that my April 1, 2025 referral was not a request for service under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), but rather a generalized child protection concern.
10The Applicant claims that he made a referral to the Respondent, and in that referral, he identified the Principal and others, at the School Board to be investigated. The Applicant claimed that his son is being subjected to emotional abuse, and that the retaliation and systemic mistreatment by the Principal and the School Board was not investigated by the Respondent after he brought his complaints to the Society’s attention.
11The Respondent takes the position that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application because in order for the CFSRB to have jurisdiction, the Applicant must demonstrate that the Principal and/or the School Board were service providers as defined in the Act. The Respondent states:
Firstly, the Board needs to determine whether the Applicant was in receipt of services as per Section 15(2) of the Act, which states:
Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving. (my italics)
Section 2 of the CYFSA defines “service” as:
“service” includes,
(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 a prescribed service; (“service”)
12In the Applicant's response dated June 23, 2025, he confirmed he was not seeking services for himself or his son from the Respondent; it was to advise the Respondent of a child protection concern which he believed would fall under the category of emotional harm of the eligibility spectrum. Accordingly, that characterization of his complaint may fall under Section 15(2) (d) as set out above.
THE LAW AND THE ANALYSIS
13S. 120 (4)-(5) of the Act reads:
Matters for Board review.
(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 requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15 (2).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Such other matters as may be prescribed.
Review by Board
(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter.
14Under Section 15(2) of the Act, I find that subsection (d) does not apply.
15The core of the Applicant's complaint is that it is the Principal and other members of the School Board are causing emotional harm to his child by their actions and/or inactions. However, (d) would be only operative if the Respondent were investigating whether a child is “in need of protection” within the meaning of that term in the Act.
16The definition of “a child in need of protection” makes reference to a child being in need of protection from a parent or a person who has the charge of the child. Neither the Principal nor “other members of the School Board” can be considered to have the charge of the child. The Principal may be considered to be a part time care giver and has certain responsibilities whilst the child is in the care at school. However, the concept of “charge” in the Act does not refer to this type of care giving. The concept of care giving in the Act deals with a relationship that is closer and more intimate. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Act requires a court to return a child within a certain time frame to the person who had the charge of the child immediately before the apprehension. That certainly cannot mean to a principal, teacher or a staff member.
17The definition of “a child in need of protection” is set out in s. 74 of the Act. That section makes reference to a child being in need of protection from a parent or a person who has the charge of the child. Parent is defined in the Act, however, a person in charge is not defined. In these circumstances the CFSRB has reviewed applicable case law and applied the principles of statutory interpretation to the relevant sections of the Act as a whole to find the meaning of “a person in Charge” and to make a determination if the section applies in this case. That is: can the Principal and other members of the School Board be considered to be a person in charge for the purposes of the child protection statute.
18As Justice Tobin stated in Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society v T.C., 2016 ONCJ 488 commencing at paragraph 34:
The term charge is not defined in the Act. It has been held to connote “authority and responsibility” over a child that is established, and not transient or temporary: Childrens Aid Society of Algoma v. G.(T.), 2002 52569 (ON CJ).
19At paragraph 36 Justice Tobin went on to site:
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v D. (S.) 2008 49155 where the Court held that to find a person had “charge” as is used in ss. 51(Sub 2) requires “…evidence that a person had an active relationship with the child that includes care and responsibility. It is something more than physical possession or limited instances of care.
20Neither the Principal nor “other members of the School Board” can be considered to have the charge of the child for the purposes set out in the Act because they do not fall within the definition of a parent or a charge of the child. For the Respondent to commence an investigation of whether a child is in need of protection there must be evidence that either a parent or the person having charge of the child by their actions or inactions have caused or there is a risk that the child will suffer harm under anyone of the enumerated headings of s 74. The Principal and the School Board are not parents, nor do they have charge of the child as defined in the Act.
21The Act provides a legislative pathway for what authority the Respondent and the Court have at section 101(1) when a child is in need of protection as follows:
a. The parent or person in charge may enter into a temporary case agreement;
b. The society may bring an application to the court to have the court find the child in need of protection and if so a number of things can happen;
c. The court can order that the child be returned to the parent or the person in charge under terms of supervision;
d. Order that the child be in the temporary care of the society for a term specified;
e. Order the child be in the long term care of the Society;
f. If any of the timelines come to an end the child must be returned to the parent or the person who had charge of the child immediately prior to the apprehension of the child.
22In this case the Applicant’s claim is that the child has, and there is a risk that the child will, suffer from emotional harm by the actions of or inactions of the Principal and other members of the School Board.
23In the absence of a specific legislative scheme, there is no authority for the Respondent to conduct a wide sweeping investigation relating to concerns about systemic imbalances nor does it provide any authority for the Respondent to do anything to the Principal or other members of the School Board. The Respondent does have a duty to investigate whether or not they should provide counselling or other services to the family. However, it is clear that this not what the Applicant was seeking.
24The Society suggested to the Applicant that he consider counselling for the child if was felt that his son was emotionally abused. The Applicant indicated that his son did not need counselling. In addition, he also went on to state:
If a person is trapped in a burning building, you do not begin treating their burns before pulling them out of the fire, the appropriate response is to eliminate the immediate danger. Likewise, a child who is being subjected to ongoing abuse by a school -an adult in a position of authority – must be removed from the harmful dynamic before effective intervention can begin.
25The Respondent has no authority to conduct an inquiry and as the Applicant wants, to deal with the “burning building”. Instead, the Respondent, having considered the Applicant’s concerns about his child, properly made a referral to the School Board to consider this matter and advised the Applicant of this referral. They then closed this file. Any remedies the Applicant might seek, may more appropriately fall within the Ministry of Education, Criminal Justice System, School Board and or the Civil Courts.
26For the sake of completeness, the Board has also reviewed the one section of the Education Act that gives the CFSRB jurisdiction over the actions of the school or School Board. That authority is clearly stated in Section 311.7 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E2. By that section, the CFSRB has jurisdiction to review expulsion decisions made by a school, principal, and school board. The Applicant’s claim does not pertain to the expulsion of his child and thus this section does not apply in these circumstancesunder Sections 119, 120 and 15(2) of the Act.
27The Applicant, in his submissions, also complains about the lack of confidential disclosure regarding the investigation of the School Board. Confidential disclosure has already been dealt with by CFSRB on a number of occasions. In addition, Tribunal member, Ms. Wowk recently ruled on May 29, 2025, that the Applicant was not to be considered to be a vexatious litigant on the information before her, however, she noted that if this sixth Application, that is the subject matter included requests for further disclosure she would have found the Applicant was abusing this Tribunal’s process. Although it was not in his brief Application that he filed, a further claim for disclosure was a part of his submissions to CFSRB.
28I conclude that the Application is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
ORDER
29The Application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the CFSRB.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
30Pursuant 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, August 18, 2025.
Martina Dwyer
Martina Dwyer
Member