CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AM Applicant
-and-
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Tracy Foster Date: November 10, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 162 Indexed As: AM v Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).
2The Applicant describes a child (“ACK”) named on the Application as her “daughter’s boyfriend.” The Applicant also names two other children on the Application who she describes as her daughters. The Applicant states that ACK has been living in her home for approximately two years.
3The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided support to her, her children and her daughter’s boyfriend.
ANALYSIS
CFSRB Jurisdiction
4For 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 subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society or Indigenous child and family well-being agency. Once that is established, then the CFSRB must determine whether the applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.
5It is unclear from the Application whether the Applicant sought or received services from the Respondent.
6On October 28, 2025, the CFSRB sent a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) directing the Applicant to provide written submissions to the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, on whether she sought or received services from the Respondent based on the definition of “services” as defined under subsection 2(1) of the Act by October 30, 2025.
7The Respondent was provided the opportunity to reply to the Applicant’s submissions by November 5, 2025.
8The CMD stated: “If the CFSRB does not receive submissions from the Applicant… the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.”
The Applicant did not provide written submissions and requested an adjournment
9The Applicant did not provide written submissions as directed in paragraph 6.
10On November 4, 2025, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB:
“Hi there. I was unaware when I made the complaint again (sic) [the Respondent) that there is a lengthy process involved. I am going to obtain a lawyer to help me. Can we please adjourn this matter to a later date.”
11Later, on November 4, 2025, the CFSRB emailed the Applicant (“November 4 Email”):
“The CFSRB does not generally adjourn matters as our Rules of Procedure require us to move matters forward quickly. For example, pursuant to Rule 15.2, within 7 days of receipt of an Application, the CFSRB must determine whether the Application is eligible for review. Under Rule 22.1, the CFSRB must render a decision within 20 days of determining eligibility or decide to hold a hearing. The first hearing must be held within 40 days of determining eligibility. We are now beyond those timelines.
As the CFSRB has not yet determined eligibility, you may withdraw your Application without prejudice and reapply later.”
12As of the writing of this decision, the Applicant has not responded to the CFSRB’s November 4 Email.
13The CFSRB does not have enough information to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to review the Application under Section 120 of the Act.
ORDER
14The Application is dismissed without prejudice.
15The Applicant may reapply to the CFSRB at a later date.
confidentiality order
16Pursuant 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.
Tracy Foster
Tracy Foster
Member