CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
TG Applicant
-and-
Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Caroline Sand Date: November 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 169 Indexed As: TG v Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
TG, Applicant Self-represented
Dnaagdawenmag Binnoojiiyag Child & Family Services, Respondent Thomas Milne, 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”).
2The Applicant states that she and her spouse run a private therapeutic foster home. The Application identifies a child (the “Child”) that was in the care of the Applicant and her spouse. A different Society from the one named as Respondent in this Application placed the Child in the Applicant’s foster home for his first eleven months until his birth mother was able to take care of him. The Applicant and her spouse maintained close ties and a supportive role with the Child and the Child’s mother.
3Over a year after the Child and mother were reunited, the mother asked the former foster parents if she and the Child could temporarily reside with them, commencing in August, 2025. The Applicants agreed. Although they initially came to the home together, after a short time, the Child remained in the home without the mother. The Respondent became involved, after the Applicant reported concerns about the mother to the police.
4From August through September, the Applicant and her spouse cared for the Child in their home. During this time, the Applicant communicated with the Respondent, and the Respondent visited the Applicant’s home. The Applicant asked the Respondent for financial support for the care they were providing to the Child. The Respondent explained that the arrangement had been informally made with the mother, and the Child had not been placed with them by the Respondent. The Child was returned to the mother’s care in late September 2025. The Applicant filed a complaint for review by the Respondent’s Independent Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”). The ICRP found the complaint ineligible for review, because the Applicant did not have a service relationship with the Respondent. The Applicant then filed the herein Application.
5In its Response, the Respondent requested that the Application be dismissed because the Applicant had not sought or received a service from the Respondent.
6The CFSRB directed the parties to provide submissions on the question of whether the Applicant sought or received services from the Respondent while the Child was in the Applicant’s care. The parties provided submissions as directed, which I considered, in addition to the Application and Response, in making this decision.
ISSUE
7Did the Applicant “seek or receive” services from the Respondent while the Child was in the Applicant’s care?
RESULT
8The CFSRB finds that although the Applicant had many interactions with the Respondent, no services were “sought or received” as defined under section 2(1) of the Act. As such, the Application must be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
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 subsection 2(1) of the Act, from a children’s aid society or Indigenous child and family well-being agency. Once the first threshold test is established, the CFSRB must determine whether the applicant’s complaint set out in their application relates to the service they sought or received.
10Section 2(1) of the Act defines “service” as including:
a. a service for a child with a development 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 family or others
f. counseling 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 young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act or
i. a prescribed service. (If prescribed within the Regulations to the Act. No other services have been so prescribed)
11The Applicant states that from August to September, 2025, the Applicant and her spouse provided assistance to the mother and Child, upon request of the mother. After they reported concerns to the police about the mother and the Respondent became involved, they were involved with the Respondent. The Applicant and her spouse expressed concerns about the mother to the Respondent. They also requested financial support for providing care to the Child.
12While the care they provided to the Child may have looked and felt like foster care, the Child had not been placed in the care of the Applicant by the Respondent. The Applicant and her spouse volunteered to assist, as caring grandparents might step up in a similar situation. While the Applicant may understand that her communication with the Respondent was “seeking and receiving service,” a service relationship did not exist between the Applicant and the Respondent. The Respondent had not deemed the child to be in need of protection while in the care of the Applicant and her spouse. The Applicant’s communication of concerns to the Respondent about the Child in this situation is similar to what a community member may do when they have concerns about the wellbeing of a child. These are considered referrals to a child protection agency. Referents do not “seek or receive service” under section 120 of the Act. The Applicant sought compensation from the Respondent for providing care to the Child. This is not a “service” under section 2(1) of the Act.
13I understand the Applicant believes the Respondent took advantage of her and her spouse’s emotional connection to the Child and goodwill. This is not within the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review.
14For the above reasons, the Application must be dismissed.
ORDER
15The Application is dismissed.
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.
Dated, November 20, 2025.
Caroline Sand
Caroline Sand Vice-Chair