CR v. The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2026 CFSRB 22

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CR Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick Date: February 20, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 22 Indexed as: CR v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (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 determined the Application was eligible to proceed on November 24, 2025, pursuant to subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3In a Response dated December 4, 2025, the Respondent sought to have the Application dismissed on the basis that issues raised are not separate and different from issues currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.

4In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated December 4, 2025, the CFSRB directed that a Pre-Hearing be scheduled. Rule 7.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure sets out the purpose of a Pre-Hearing. Rule 23.6 identifies that parties have the option to engage in mediation and potentially resolve an Applicant’s complaints at a Pre-Hearing. In such cases where the matter does not resolve, the CFSRB may provide further direction regarding submissions on the jurisdiction issue raised in the Response.

5A Pre-Hearing was held on December 19, 2025. The parties did not reach a settlement.

6In a Pre-Hearing Report (“PHR”) dated December 19, 2025, the CFSRB, in accordance with Rules 3.3 and 5.5, directed the Respondent to bring forward a motion by January 12, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear this matter. The Applicant’s responding submissions were to be emailed to the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, by January 19, 2026 at 4:00 p.m. with such submissions to detail how the issues before the CFSRB differed from the issues before the court. The Respondent’s reply submissions, if any, were to be filed by January 23, 2026 at 4:00 p.m.

7The Respondent filed the motion on January 12, 2026 in accordance with the PHR. Though the Applicant emailed the CFSRB on January 29, 2026, the Respondent was not copied on this correspondence. Following receipt of the email, the CFSRB advised the Applicant that the Respondent must be copied on all correspondence with the CFSRB in order for the correspondence to be accepted. Though given the opportunity, the Applicant did not resend the email and copy both the CFSRB and the Respondent. As such, the Applicant’s January 29, 2026 email was not considered a submission in accordance with the PHR and so it was not reviewed for the purpose of deciding the matter on jurisdiction.

8No further submissions were filed by either party.

9I have determined that, based on the Respondent’s motion materials, the CFSRB has sufficient evidence to decide whether the complaints are separate and different from the issues before the court. I have reviewed the Application, Response, and the Respondent’s Motion Materials in making my decision, below.

OVERVIEW

10The Applicant is the parent of the children, J., M., C., and N., who are the subjects of the Application before the CFSRB.

11Child protection proceedings were commenced in relation to the child, C., in July, 2025 (“July 2025 Protection Application”) and in relation to the children, J., M., and N., in August, 2025 (“August 2025 Protection Application”).

12Both the July 2025 Protection Application and the August 2025 Protection Application are ongoing.

13The child, C., is currently in the temporary care and custody of an adult sibling, K.R., in accordance with a July, 2025 Interim Order.

14The children, J., M., and N., are currently in the temporary care and custody of N.B., an extended family member, in accordance with an August 2025 Interim Order.

ISSUE

15The issue is:

a. Should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?

RESULT

16The CFSRB finds that the Application may proceed in part.

17Concerning the issues of whether the Applicant was heard in relation to her strengths as a parent, her request for a change of worker, her concerns about the Respondent’s alleged lack of timely communication and the issue of whether the Applicant was provided reasons regarding the Respondent’s alleged refusal to assess an alternate kin plan, the Application may proceed.

18All other issues that the Applicant seeks reviewed must be dismissed as they are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.

ANALYSIS

19As detailed in the PHR, the Applicant alleges that she was not heard by the Respondent regarding the following issues:

a. Her concerns regarding her children being in kinship care with N.B. and her desire for the children to be removed from N.B.’s care;

b. Concerns regarding poor supervision of the children by N.B. when she was out at a strip club in the early hours of the morning and failure to supervise the children properly in the community;

c. Her concerns regarding the impact of an increasingly strained relationship with N.B. and the impact of this strain on the degree of cooperation from N.B. and the care of the children;

d. Her wishes for the children to either be returned to her care or placed with another family member, either her son or her uncle;

e. Her difficulty exercising access to the children via videocalls due to N.B.’s lack of internet and other technology for videocalls, including videos during school hours;

f. Her concerns that the child, N., is regressing in language and other areas in N.B.’s care;

g. Her concerns regarding N.B.’s lack of respect for confidentiality of her family situation;

h. Respondent has not heard her regarding her strengths as a parent.; and

i. Respondent has not heard her regarding her request for a change of worker and slow pace of Respondent’s responses to her concerns.

20The Applicant also alleges that the Respondent has not provided reasons for decisions affecting her interests, including:

a. Why the Respondent placed the children with N.B.;

b. Why the Respondent has continued the placement with N.B. despite N.B.’s housing being inadequate for this number of children and N.B.’s partner;

c. Why the Respondent has not responded to the children’s expressed desire to be reunified with the Applicant; and

d. Why the Respondent has not agreed to assess an alternate kin plan with another relative.

The Applicant’s complaints outlined in paragraphs 19(a)-(g) and 20(a)-(c) are not separate and different from the issues before the court

21Section 120(8)(a) of the Act prevents the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

22The CFSRB is not necessarily barred from reviewing complaints where the parties are or were involved in a court proceeding. However, before the CFSRB can embark on a review of a complaint about services from a Children’s Aid Society, the CFSRB must be satisfied that the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court (Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D., 2011 ONCA 411).

23The complaints outlined in paragraphs 19(a)-(g) and 20(a)-(c) above pertain to the appropriateness of N.B. as a caregiver for the children as well as why the children cannot be returned either to the Applicant’s care or that of another family member. Given that protection proceedings are ongoing, and the court addresses the suitability of caregivers and placement of children as part of this process, these complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues currently before the court. More specifically, as indicated in Urgent Motion Endorsement dated August 27, 2025 appended to the Respondent’s Motion Materials, the issue of whether N.B. is an appropriate temporary caregiver has already been before the court and extension of any caregiving arrangements involving N.B. continue to be before the court at this time.

24As the issues outlined in paragraphs 19(a)-(g) and 20(a)-(c) above are currently before the court, in accordance with section 120(8)(a) of the Act, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review them, and these complaints must be dismissed.

The Application may proceed on the issues outlined in paragraphs 19(h) – (i) and 20 (d)

25The three remaining complaints outlined in paragraphs 19(h) – (i) and 20 (d) do not relate to issues that are or have been before the court. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant regarding her strengths as a parent, her request for a change of worker and her concerns about the Respondent’s alleged lack of timely communication. The Applicant also alleges that she was not provided with reasons as to why the Respondent would not assess an alternate kin plan.

26In the motion materials, the Respondent acknowledges that these three issues do not fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice. The Respondent also does not dispute that these complaints have not previously been considered by the CFSRB. The Respondent does, however, seek that the CFSRB dismiss these complaints in any event on the basis that these issues have already been sufficiently addressed with the Applicant by the Respondent.

27Except for the allegation in paragraph 19(h), which the Respondent claims was addressed in a letter sent to the Applicant’s counsel prior to the CFSRB deeming the Application eligible to proceed, the Respondent states that these complaints were addressed following the commencement CFSRB proceedings.

28These complaints are not before the court and so are within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to address. It would, however, be premature to make a finding on the merits of the complaints at this stage.

29As these complaints are not before the court and within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB to determine, I find that the Application may proceed on the issues outlined paragraphs 19(h) – (i) and 20 (d) above.

ORDER

30The Application may proceed on the issues of whether the Applicant was heard in relation to her strengths as a parent, her request for a change of worker and her concerns about the Respondent’s alleged lack of timely communication and on the issue of whether the Applicant was provided reasons regarding the Respondent’s alleged refusal to assess an alternate kin plan.

31The balance of the issues are dismissed.

DIRECTIONS

32The CFSRB will issue further directions as necessary.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

33Pursuant 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.