CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SO
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Date: November 03, 2025
Citation: 2025 CFSRB 156
Indexed As: SO v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
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 CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3As part of its July 14, 2025 Response, the Respondent submitted that the Application was not eligible to proceed because the matter was before the court. The Respondent attached to its Response several court documents in support of its position.
4Three pre-hearings have been held in this matter.
5During the July 30, 2025, Pre-hearing, the Applicant’s complaints were refined to eight separate complaints.
6As part of a Pre-hearing report dated September 17, 2025, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to make written submissions by October 3, 2025, on whether four of the complaints in the Application were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court. The Respondent was to provide a Reply by October 17, 2025, if desired.
7Neither the Applicant nor the Respondent provided written submissions.
ISSUE
8The issue is whether the following complaints in the Application are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court:
a. Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why the conditions of the restraining order allowed the Child to contact the Applicant, but this was denied by the Respondent;
b. Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent is allegedly risking emotional harm to the Child by fostering a relationship with the Child’s father who allegedly has a history of abuse;
c. Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why in May 2025, the Respondent allegedly coerced the Child to make false allegations of abuse and abandonment against the Applicant; and
d. Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent has made allegations about the Applicant’s mental health without proof.
RESULT
9The CFSRB finds that the four complaints listed in paragraph 8 above, are not separate or different than matters that have been or will be before the court. As such, the four complaints are not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to hear.
ANALYSIS
10Under 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.
11The 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”.
12The Applicant’s complaints in her Application include 8 main allegations, four of which are listed above in paragraph 8, and are the subject of this decision.
13The Respondent submits that these four complaints have been decided by the Court and provided three Court Orders from the Superior Court of Justice in Kitchener as support: a Temporary Court Order dated February 11, 2025 (the “Temporary Order”); a Restraining Order dated March 4, 2025 (the “Restraining Order”); a Court Endorsement dated July 8, 2025 (the “Court Endorsement”).
Issue A) Whether the Applicant was heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent has denied the Applicant contact with the Child, despite terms of the Restraining Order has been before the court.
The Applicant complains that the Respondent did not hear her or provide reasons for why the Child was not allowed to contact her, notwithstanding that the conditions of the restraining order allowed the Child to contact the Applicant.
14The Respondent argues that this matter is currently before the courts.
15The Respondent has provided the Restraining Order dated March 4, 2025, which ordered that the Applicant was restrained from having any contact with the Child, either direct or indirect, except for access as authorized and supervised by the Society.
16The Respondent further provided the Court Endorsement of Justice Tweedie, which confirms that the Applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the Restraining Order on May 30, 2025. The Court Endorsement adjourned the attendance to criminal court to speak to these charges to September 2, 2025.
17Neither party has provided further information as to the status of this matter.
18Based on the criminal charges and Court Endorsement, I find that the issue of the application of the Restraining Order is or has been before the court. As a result, I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue B) Whether the Applicant was heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent is allegedly fostering a relationship between the Child’s father and the father, has been before the court.
19The Applicant complains that the Respondent has failed to hear her concerns that the Respondent is risking emotional harm to the Child by fostering a relationship with the Child’s father who allegedly has a history of abuse.
20The issue of whether the Respondent should be fostering a relationship with the Child and the Child’s father is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the Courts. In paragraph 3 of the Temporary Order dated February 11, 2025, access was granted to the Child’s father at the discretion of the Waterloo society. The matter of whether this was in the best interest of the child falls within the court’s sole jurisdiction and would have been considered in providing the Temporary Order.
21I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue C) Whether the Applicant was heard or provided reasons for why in May 2025, the Respondent allegedly coerced the Child to make false allegations of abuse and abandonment against the Applicant, has been before the court.
22Neither party has provided submissions on the jurisdiction matter pursuant to the direction of the pre-hearing report. As such, I am restricted to my review based on the limited information I have in the Application and Response.
23In the absence of anything submitted to the contrary, I have made the assumption that the Application’s allegations related to allegedly coerced false allegations made by the Child, is in relation to the Restraining Order and subsequent alleged breach of the Restraining Order as found in the Court Endorsement, both ordered in May 2025.
24In the absence of any evidence provided to the contrary, the credibility and reliability of the Child’s allegations would have been weighed by the court in those proceedings. Further, the allegations will continue to be weighed in the criminal proceedings in which the Applicant has been charged with a breach of that Restraining Order.
25Based on this, I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Issue D) Whether the Applicant was heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent has made allegations about the Applicant’s mental health without proof, was before the court.
26The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her or provide reasons for why they made false allegations about her mental health.
27Again, without evidence or submissions to the contrary, I have assumed that the allegations allegedly made by the Respondent about the Applicant’s mental health are in relation to the Protection Hearing which resulted in the Temporary Order.
28An Order was made on February 11, 2025, placing the Child in the Society’s temporary care and custody. The Respondent submits in its Response that since that time, the matter has been in Court, the Applicant has been represented by counsel, and she has had the opportunity to make submissions and respond to the Society’s position, in Court.
29The issue of whether children are in need of protection is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Based on my above assumption, the Applicant’s mental health would have been considered by the court as part of this proceeding.
30I find that the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it has been before the court.
CONCLUSION
31For the reasons set out above, I find that the four complaints in the Application are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court and are therefore not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction.
NEXT STEPS
32The CFSRB will schedule a pre-hearing videoconference during which the parties will confirm the issues for the hearing and address other matters related to preparing for the hearing.
ORDER
33The issues that formed part of the Application and are listed above in paragraph 8 above are dismissed.
34The Application will proceed to a pre-hearing on the remaining issues listed in the July 30 pre-hearing report.
35The parties are to inform the CFSRB by no later than 12:00 p.m. on November 7, 2025 of their availability for a one-hour pre-hearing during the weeks of 17 November 2025 and 24 November 2025.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
36Pursuant 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