CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AB Applicant
-and-
Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth
Indexed as: AB v Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1On February 23, 2026, 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 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 is barred from hearing this matter because of section 120(8)(a) of the Act in that the issues raised in the application are “before the court. Submissions and supporting material on the issue of jurisdiction have been received and considered by the CFSRB.
RESULT
5I have found that the Applicant has made an application about issues that are before the court in her family law proceedings and that, because of the application of section 120(8), the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider these complaints.
ANALYSIS
6The Applicant and the father of her twin boys, L.Y., are Respondents to a child welfare proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding their twin one and a half year old sons (‘the Children”).
7The Applicant’s Application to the CFSRB included complaints that the Respondent: failed to provide a clear and measurable Reunification Plan; failed to acknowledge and document her progress; applied inconsistent standards to her supports and safety network; failed to explore reasonable reunification efforts before moving to permanency planning; and failed to consider the Emotional Impact on the parent-child relationship in their handling of the Child Protection file. There is also a complaint about access to the Children contained in the material.
8There have been several Order and Endorsements made by the Court in the Child Protection proceedings beginning on July 12, 2024 when the Children were placed in extended society care of the Respondent under the terms of an order by the Honourable Justice Labrosse. The Order of Justice Labrosse addressed the issue to access to the Children “at the discretion of the Society.” The matter was adjourned to July 18, 2024 at which time the Order of Justice Labrosse was confirmed and the matter adjourned to September 5, 2024. By an Order of the Honourable Justice Swartz the previous Orders were affirmed with the adjustment that increased the length of the twice weekly access visits from two to four hours.
9The matter came before Justice Somji on January 6, 2026 for trial; however, it appears from the Endorsement that the appearance ended in an adjournment at the request of the Applicant to allow her to retain counsel. The Endorsement reveals that a Trial Record has been prepared, an Agreed Statement of Facts has been executed by the Applicant and that a Joint Book of Documents has been prepared by the parties. The issue for trial is identified as being “a return of the children to AB care or Extended Society Care.” The issue of whether the children are in need of protection is resolved according to the Endorsement. 17 potential witnesses were identified and named in the Endorsement.
10A further appearance was made before Mr. Justice Tranmer on January 29, 2026. The matter could not proceed to trial on that date because the Applicant had still not retained counsel. Justice Tranmer wrote “AB is concerned about the FCS changing the access locations. She was advised to speak to DC who is present today re bringing a Motion in that regard and if she does it should be heard on an urgent basis. Leave granted to permit her to bring such motion.”
11A motion was brought by the Applicant and the Endorsement in regard thereto was made on February 27, 2026. I have reproduced it in its entirety:
This is the Respondent Mother’s, Ms. AB, Motion for, among other things, an Order requiring the Society to maintain her access with the Children, C.R.Y., born July 6, 2024 and C.J.Y., born July 6, 2024, (“the Children”) in Perth as opposed to Smiths Falls.
This matter is scheduled for trial commencing March 17, 2026. The balance of the relief requested in AB Notice of Motion is triable issues.
As the affiant for the Society, C.G. explains in her affidavit sworn February 23, 2026, “the Society is unable to facilitate access in the Perth office currently related to a change in resources (staffing)”. Thus, the reason to curtail access in Perth is not personal to Ms. AB. Rather, it is due to budgeting constraints. While I am sympathetic to AB wish to continue to have access with her children in her home community for all the reasons she expressed, the financial reality of the situation simply does not allow for that. Perhaps the scheduling and location of access going forward can be addressed at trial on the full merits of the case. In the meantime, the Society has committed to providing transportation for AB to ensure access in Smiths Falls. Admittedly, the situation is not perfect but, in my view, the Society is doing its best to facilitate access in difficult financial circumstances. This motion is dismissed.”
12It is without question that the issue of access and the issue of Extended Care of the Children or return to the Applicant under conditions and what those conditions might be is squarely before the Court. Clearly, the question of the Reunification Plan and its constituent elements will be part of the evidence considered by the Court
13In fact, in the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that this Application constitutes a bold attempt to invite the CFSRB to weigh in on issues squarely before the Court. This is exactly the circumstance that the legislature attempted to address in formulating section 120(8) of the Act. I conclude that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.
ORDER
14This Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
15Pursuant 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, March 05, 2026.
Christina M. Budweth
Christina M. Budweth
Member