CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
OO
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christina M. Budweth
Indexed as: OO v Children’s Aid Society of The Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)
OVERVIEW
1On February 2, 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 several children only one of whom is the subject of this Application (the “Child”).
3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act. Specifically, the CFSRB found the following allegation eligible to proceed:
- The Society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his/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 issues “decided by 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 have been decided in child welfare proceeding by the court and that, because of the application of section 120(8)(a), the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to consider these complaints.
ANALYSIS
6The Application sets out the Applicant’s allegation that the Child and two siblings were taken by the Canada Border Services Agency to the Respondent. The Applicant alleges that an employee of the Respondent (“C.O.”) took the children and changed their birth certificates without the Applicant’s consent. She further alleges that C.O. and he Respondent “went to court and sought adoption options without my consen.t” The Applicant alleges that all wrongs committed against her were perpetrated by individuals of “Indian” origin for “business interests.”
7The Applicant’s response to the Respondent’s jurisdiction argument states that she is seeking to regain custody “based on my role as the mother, which was not adequately recognized in the court proceedings.”
8The Respondent’s material reveals that on January 11, 2017, the Honourable Justice Sullivan granted a Final Order making the Child a Crown Ward, with a right of access to the Applicant by the Child.
9On June 7, 2018, the Applicant commenced a court application for Review of the Crown Ward Order (“the Review”). The Applicant was represented by counsel as was the Child.
10The Applicant’s Review was dismissed on August 27, 2019. The Applicant did not appeal the order of the court dismissing her application for Review.
11The Child remains a Crown Ward and has not expressed a wish to have contact with her mother since 2022. In fact, for the safety and protection of the Child her whereabout remain undisclosed to the Applicant.
12The Order making the Child a Crown Ward dates to 2017 and the dismissal of the Appeal of that Order dates to 2019. There are no new complaints or facts disclosed in the Applicant’s Application regarding the Respondent’s actions or behaviours
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 decided by the Court almost a decade ago. 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 16, 2026.
Christina M. Budweth
Christina M. Budweth
Member