MW v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2026 CFSRB 12

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MW Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: January 16, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 12 Indexed as: MW v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (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)1, 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on December 19, 2025.

3The Respondent submitted its Response on January 6, 2026, which included a detailed timeline and summary of the events and communications proceeding the complaint.

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application based on the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.

ISSUES

5The issues drawn from the Application and Response are:

a. Is the Applicant’s complaint eligible for review by the CFSRB; if yes

b. Did the Respondent refuse to proceed with a complaint made by Applicant under subsection 119 (1) as required under subsection 119 (2);

c. Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns and/or give meaningful reasons for the following:

i. the Applicant’s concerns that during a meeting she had with the Respondent 5 or 6 years prior where she reported abuse, she felt unheard and unsupported,

ii. the Applicant’s concern that the Respondent allegedly claimed the above meeting did not happen,

iii. the decision to not provide the Applicant with the recourse she sought for these concerns.

RESULT

6I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear this matter. I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard and was provided reasons. As such, the Application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Background

7Approximately 5 or 6 years ago, the Applicant had a meeting with the Respondent where she allegedly reported abuse (“Original Meeting”). During that meeting, she submits that she was made to feel unsupported and was provided no services. The Applicant alleges that she reached out to the Respondent at the end of 2025 to discuss how she was treated during the Original Meeting. When she brought this complaint to the Respondent, she alleges that she was not heard, and that the Respondent denied the Original Meeting took place.

8The Respondent agrees that a file was opened in early 2020 to investigate concerns that the Applicant’s parents were unsupportive. The file was subsequently closed as unverified after the Applicant allegedly advised during the Original Meeting that there was no domestic violence, abuse or threats in the home. In 2021, the Applicant contacted the Respondent to request ongoing services. A file was opened, and services were provided to the Applicant.

9The Respondent continued to provide services to the Applicant until December 11, 2024, when there was a full transfer of the Applicant’s file to Toronto Children Aid Services.

10The Respondent agrees that on October 27, 2025, the Applicant contacted her original case worker at the Respondent’s society to make a complaint about how it had managed her file previously and requested assistance for current issues.

A) Are the Applicant’s complaints eligible for review by the CFSRB

11The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s complaints are ineligible for review by the CFSRB because: the Applicant’s complaint is currently being reviewed by the Respondent which has not made a decision yet, the complaint is a dispute of facts of whether the Original Meeting took place or not, the Applicant is not a current service recipient, and bringing the complaint after this many years is tantamount to an abuse of process.

12The Respondent submits that between October 27, 2025, and December 15, 2025, it was in contact with the Applicant at least 12 times in an attempt to assist the Applicant with current housing and support issues as well as to discuss the Original Meeting.

13Based on the Respondent’s Response, the Respondent is providing services currently to the Applicant. Further, it is not necessary to make a finding of fact on whether the Original Meeting took place or not. The Application itself is based on whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons in 2025.

14Last, it is not necessary for the CFSRB to wait until the Society has completed its review of the complaint in order to review the Application. Pursuant to section 120(1)(b), a person who first makes a complaint to the society under section 119, may submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.

15I find that the Applicant’s complaint may proceed to be reviewed by the CFSRB.

B) Did the Respondent fail to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119 (1) as required under subsection 119 (2)

16Pursuant to section 119 of the Act, a person may make a complaint to a society which shall be dealt with in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation.

17Sections 56 and 57 of the Regulation, O. Reg. 156/18, state that all complaints must be made using a prescribed form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP)”. The Society must then notify the complainant in writing within seven days if the complaint is eligible for review.

18The Applicant has attached the required form to her Application. The Respondent has not indicated whether the Applicant has been notified of whether the complaint is eligible for review.

19There is not enough information to conclude that the Respondent has failed to proceed with the 2025 Complaint.

20Although the Applicant has commenced the complaint process, and the Respondent submits that the complaint process has commenced, I find that I can consider the subject matter of the Application which is the 2025 Complaint as below.

C) Did the Respondent hear the Applicant’s concerns and provide reasons

21The Respondent argues that they have in fact heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons. Specifically, it has had multiple communications with the Applicant between October and December 20245 to discuss her concerns around the Original Meeting, to listen to current services she would like, and have provided reasons for why they can not provide the recourse sought.

22The Applicant first contacted the Respondent on October 27, 2025, with a complaint about how her file had been managed previously, the Original Meeting, and requested supports and assistance now.

23The Applicant spoke again to the Respondent of her concern about the Original Meeting on December 3, 2025, where she expressed that a previous intake worker had caused ongoing trauma and instability.

24The Applicant also spoke to the Respondent’s manager about the Original Meeting and the recourse and supports she now needed because of it on December 8 and 12, 2025.

25The Respondent alleges that during the above discussions, the Applicant sought the following recourse to address her complaint: contact information for her former foster parents, an apology from the Respondent and the names of workers who had met with her during the investigation. The Respondent submits that it told the Applicant that it was not possible to provide her the foster parent’s contact information for privacy reasons, but a note would be placed upon the foster parents’ file. It also advised the Applicant that it could not follow up directly with the workers she previously dealt with as they were no longer employed by the Respondent but the complaint would be documented and communicated to the Human Resource Department.

26It is beyond the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to review the clinical wisdom or decisions of the Respondent. Further, it is beyond the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to order the Respondent to provide names and contact information. The CFSRB is limited to reviewing whether an opportunity to be heard was provided and reasons for decisions given.

27Given the above meetings the Applicant and Respondent have had to discuss the Original Meeting and possible ways to address those concerns, I find that the Applicant has been given an opportunity to be heard. I also find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision on the recourse it would provide.

CONCLUSION

28The Applicant has been provided with opportunities to be heard about her concerns and reasons for the Respondent’s decisions.

ORDER

29The Application is dismissed.

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.

Christine Staley

Christine Staley

Member