MG v. Family Services of Grand Erie, 2026 CFSRB 14

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MG Applicant

-and-

Family Services of Grand Erie Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth Date: January 23, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 14 Indexed as: MG v Family Services of Grand Erie (CYFSA s.120)

OVERVIEW

1On November 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted this Application (the “Application”) to 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 is the mother of one child (the “Child”).

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, the CFSRB found the following allegations eligible to proceed:

• The Society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the Applicant.
• The Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interest were made, or a chance to be heard when he/she raised concerns about the services he/she is receiving.
• The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

THE ISSUE - JURISDICTION

4The Respondent takes the position that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to consider this matter on 2 bases:

(i) The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in items 1 through 4 and 6 of the Application. (ii) That the allegations contained with this Application were “before the court” during the family law proceedings and addressed in the Superior Court of Justice Decision of R.F. MacLeod, J released June 16, 2025

RESULT

5I have found that: (i) the Applicant has sought relief that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction; namely in items 1 – 4 and 6 of her application; and, (ii) that item 5 relating to the Respondent’s denial of her request for an ICRP is ineligible to proceed under section 119(11)(a) as “an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.”

ANALYSIS

(i) Outside the scope of jurisdiction

6Regarding my finding that the Applicant has sought relief that is outside the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, it is instructive to first specify the jurisdiction and then to evaluate the relief sought by the Applicant in the light of that jurisdiction.

7The CFSRB is provided with jurisdiction to make specific and limited orders. Section 120 of the Act sets out the matters that may be reviewed by the CFSRB as well as what orders it can make. Specifically, section 120(7) states:

After reviewing the complaint, the CFSRB may,

a) Order the society to proceed with the complaint by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure establish by regulation; b) Order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the CFSRB; c) Order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by the regulation or with any other requirements under this Act; d) Order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to the complainant; e) Dismiss the complaint; or f) Make such order as may be prescribed.

8The Divisional Court has recently confirmed the limited powers of the CFSRB in the case of H.C. v Children’s Aid Society of Toronto et al 2025 ONSC 3742 at paragraph 58.

9The remedies sought by the Applicant from the CFSRB in items 1 through 4 and 6 of her application can be summarized as follows:

Item 1 - Declare the recommendation of the ICRP process of February 2023 invalid on the basis that those finding were procedurally invalid, based on a conflict of interest and reliance on false information. Item 2 – Direct the Respondent to reinstate finding of sexual harm against the father of the Child. Item 3 – Direct that the Respondent follow specific procedures should the finding in Item 2 above be reconsidered. Item 4 – Make a declaration of unlawful behaviour against the Respondent regarding its failure to process a new ICRP in October 2025. Item 6 – Recommend that the Ministry conduct an external review of the Respondent’s complaint handling process in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse.

10The issues as defined by the Applicant are outside the limited jurisdiction of the CFSRB as set out in the Act. The legislation does not confer on the CFSRB the power to effectively replace the findings of ICRP proceedings with its own decisions. It does not confer the power to direct societies to make certain findings. It does not confer the power to direct the procedures of societies as it relates to findings of child welfare. It does not confer the power to allow the CFSRB to make findings that a society has engaged in unlawful behaviour; and it does not confer on the CFSRB the mandate to direct the Minister of Ministry to conduct external reviews of societies processes.

11The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to address the complaints in items 1 through 4 and 6 of the Application.

ii) An issue decided by or before the court

12In 2023, A.N. the father of the Child, initiated an ICRP proceeding. The ICRP took place on January 24, 2023. The results of the hearing were communicated to A.N. by letter dated February 7, 2023. The ICRP panel made 6 recommendations including #3 which addresses the issue of a finding of sexual harm made against A.N. The original conclusion of the Respondent was that further to a complaint made to the Ontario Provincial Police, A.N. had acted in a manner which caused “verified” sexual harm to the Child. The recommendation of the ICRP was that that determination be amended to “inconclusive”.

13The Applicant was advised of the ICRP decision by letter dated February 16, 2023, sent to her by email. The letter specifically advised that the outcome of the child protection investigation would be revised from verified to inconclusive. The letter identified the members of the ICRP panel by name.

14At the time of receiving the February 16 letter, the Applicant was aware that one member of the ICRP panel (D.V.) had some involvement with her family in 2019. The Applicant’s material contains a letter dated May 23, 2019, which is co-signed by D.V. the Child Welfare Supervisor. The letter stated that the co-signing Child Protection Worker, M.S., had met with the Applicant several times because of a referral from Early Years Centre where conflict between the parents was observed. The letter confirmed that there were no concerns about the Applicant’s interactions with her daughter. The worker made several suggestions for resources that would assist the parents in minimizing conflict around the parenting issues. The Respondent’s file was closed.

15The Applicant disagreed with the finding of the ICRP detailed in the letter of February 16 and initiated an application to the CFSRB on March 3, 2023 (the 2023 Application). The 2023 Application was resolved by way of a Mediated Agreement arising from a pre-hearing held on April 5, 2023. The parties agreed that the Respondent would provide the Applicant with written explanation for 11 points of concern raised in the Application. The Implementation date for the Agreement was May 19, 2023, and the Non-Compliance date was May 26, 2023.

16Among the 11 issues addressed in the Mediated Agreement were concerns about the change in status of verification of the alleged sexual harm. These concerns were addressed in Items 2, 3, 4 and 5. In summary, the Applicant questioned the meaning of the term “inconclusive”, the depth of the Respondent’s investigation leading to the verification change, the Respondent’s failure to include her in the ICRP process and questioned why she was only informed of the verification decision shortly before the beginning of the family law proceeding trial.

17The Respondent provided the written explanations required by letter dated April 28, 2023.

18The Applicant did not allege non-compliance with the terms of the Mediated Agreement.

19The family law proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice commenced on May 12, 2025 and continued to May 16, the trial was re-convened and continued on May 20-23, May 26 and 27, and May 29 and 30, 2025, two years following the delivery of the findings of the ICRP, the communication of results to the Applicant and the conclusion of the Applicant’s first application to the CFSRB.

20Both parents were represented during the trial.

21The court clearly considered evidence about the issue of the alleged verification of sexual harm to the Child in paragraphs 53 to 60 and again at paragraph 103. Justice MacLeod squarely addressed the change in status from verified to inconclusive. On the plain reading of this extensive decision, evidence was heard and arguments made on this issue. In her Application, the Applicant included transcripts from the testimony of Respondent worker, C.P. a member of the ICRP panel. The applicant had the opportunity to cross examine C.P. and could have challenged the ICRP findings based on Conflict of Interest or Bias during that proceeding.

22Justice MacLeod’s decision makes strong statements about parental alienation by the Applicant and awards sole custody of the Child to her father. Access of the Applicant to the Child was ordered to be at the sole discretion of the father A.N. as set out in paragraph 174.

23This is a case in which there can be no doubt that the issue which forms the basis of item 6 of the Application, namely the request for a new ICRP was “decided by the court”. In fact, in the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that this Application constitutes a bold collateral attack on the decision of the court. This is exactly the circumstance that the legislature attempted to address in formulating this section of the Act. As the Application seeks remedies that are beyond the CFSRB’s jurisdiction and the matter of the composition of the ICRP was before the court, I conclude that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

ORDER

24This Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

25Pursuant 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, January 23, 2026.

Christina M. Budweth

Christina M. Budweth Member