CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JZZ
Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed as: JZZ v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
JZZ, Applicant
Self-represented
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent
LS, Counsel
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”). The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed unders.120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
2In a CFSRB Pre-Hearing report dated October 20, 2025, the parties were directed to provide written submissions setting out their respective views on the appropriate format for the hearing of this Application. The Applicant wants an in-person hearing while the Respondent requests the hearing be conducted in writing. The Respondent submitted written submissions as directed. The Applicant filed an Accommodation Request and no written submissions.
3This decision explains why the CFSRB has decided the hearing will proceed in writing.
ANALYSIS
4Rules 8 and 24 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure provide that the CFSRB may conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference and may conduct a hearing in a combination of formats.
5In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB is required to consider the following:
a. Whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties;
b. The costs and efficiency of the process;
c. The potential for a more expeditious resolution;
d. The convenience of the parties;
e. The consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate;
f. Whether facts or evidence may be agreed upon;
g. The estimated duration of the hearing;
h. Whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues;
i. Whether oral testimony is likely to be needed;
j. Any objections to the format of the hearing.
6The CFSRB Updated Practice Direction on Hearing Formats provides that all matters will proceed as written or electronic hearings with two exceptions:
The first exception is that an in-person hearing may be provided if a party can establish that an in-person hearing is required as an accommodation for an Ontario Human Rights Code-related need.
The second exception is where a party can establish that the hearing format will result in an unfair hearing.
7A party requesting a hearing format other than written or electronic for non-accommodation reasons is responsible for establishing that the hearing format ought to be changed. In deciding the hearing format, the CFSRB must balance the various rights and interests to arrive at a decision that will provide the parties with a hearing format that is fair, effective, accessible and provides timely access.
The Applicant’s Position
8In her Accommodation Form, the Applicant states,
“I request the CFSRB to hold a in-person hearing which let the CAS “workers” who took part in persecuting my son and me fact me in person to confront them about the crimes they committed against us, and resolve the issues and take responsibility for the crimes against humanity they committed to my sone and me, instead of forcing me to leave teleconference hearing at any time they want without addressing any problems and crimes the CAS “workers” made and committed to my son and me”.
9The reasons given by the Applicant for requesting an in-person hearing do not constitute an accommodation for an Ontario Human Rights Code-related need.
The Respondent’s Position
10The basis for the Respondent’s request for a written hearing included the following:
The repeated and significant difficulty exhibited by the Applicant during electronic attendances for pre-hearings. There were issues with her focusing on the issues, understanding the nature of the proceedings, and difficulties following the directions of the adjudicators as to how to participate in the hearing.
Given the passage of time and the historical nature of the events related to the issues to be determined, the Respondent would only be calling one witness and would otherwise be relying on business records.
The Applicant has expressed her intention to pursue findings against the Respondent and relief that are beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.
11The Respondent submits that a written hearing is more likely to be fair, accessible, efficient, and focused on the pertinent issues.
A Written Hearing is Appropriate
12As previously noted, Tribunals Ontario holds in-person hearings only where doing so is necessary to accommodate a Human Rights code-related need or when another hearing format would result in an unfair hearing. The Applicant has presented no persuasive argument that an in-person hearing is necessary for either of these reasons.
13The Applicant has remained steadfast that her intention in this proceeding is to prove that the Respondent committed crimes against her, and to seek financial remedies. The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to conduct or require an investigation into the actions (or inactions) of the Respondent nor does it have jurisdiction to grant financial relief. Therefore, the focus of the hearing will not be on alleged crimes of the Respondent or damages suffered by the Applicant. Instead, the focus will be on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with meaningful reasons for decisions which affected her interests.
14The Applicant’s allegations are with respect to services provided to her by the Respondent in 2015-2016 and 2019. At the October 16, 2025 Pre-Hearing, the Applicant indicated that she wanted an in-person hearing as she expected the Respondent to produce all the child protection workers involved in her case and she wanted to look them in the face when they testified. However, given the historical nature of the Applicant’s allegations, most of the Respondent’s evidence will be by way of business records. The Respondent indicates that it would only be calling one witness in the event the CFSRB directs that this hearing proceed by way of video-conference or in-person.
15English is not the Applicant’s first language. She has required a Mandarin interpreter attend the two pre-hearings that were conducted in this matter. Consideration must therefore be given as to whether a hearing in writing would be a fair process for the Applicant. A CFSRB Case Management Direction dated July 15, 2025 provided directions for the parties to make written submissions with respect to a preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the CFSRB in this case. The Applicant made written submissions that were clear and focused.
16The Applicant has not indicated that she believes she would be disadvantaged by an electronic hearing due to a language barrier.
17In my view, a written hearing will be more efficient and focused than a videoconference hearing. The Applicant has demonstrated an ability to communicate effectively in writing. A hearing in writing will provide her with the opportunity to identify specific events, communications, and documents where she feels her concerns were not heard an the specific decisions for which she alleges she was not provided with reasons.
18For these reasons, I conclude that a hearing in writing is an appropriate format for hearing and determining this Application.
ORDER
19The hearing will proceed in writing.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
20Pursuant 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, December 8, 2025
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk
Vice-Chair