CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
KH and JH
Applicants
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick
Indexed as: KH and JH 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 that the Application was eligible to proceed on December 11, 2025, pursuant to subsection 120(4)5 of the Act.
3A Pre-Hearing was held on January 16, 2026. The parties did not reach a settlement.
4In a Pre-Hearing Report (“PHR”) dated January 19, 2026, the CFSRB directed the Respondent to serve and file material and submissions on or before January 30, 2026 regarding the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear the Application. The Applicant’s responding materials and submissions were to be filed with the CFSRB on or before February 13, 2026 with CFSRB staff directed to serve this material on the Respondent. The Respondent’s reply submissions, if any, were to be filed on or before February 23, 2026.
5The Respondent’s material and submissions were filed on January 30, 2026 in accordance with the PHR. The Respondent advised the CFSRB the same day that they had attempted to courier the materials to the Applicants, as the Applicants do not use email, and that the materials were not accepted. The CFSRB subsequently directed the Respondent to send the documents by regular mail as this was the mode of communication that the CFSRB had previously used when contacting the Applicants. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the reply email from the CFSRB advising the correspondence to be sent to the Applicants by regular mail.
6The Applicants did not file submissions with the CFSRB as directed by the PHR by February 13, 2026. Furthermore, the only material that the Applicants have, to date, filed with the CFSRB is the Application dated December 8, 2025.
7In the absence of additional submissions from the Applicants, the CFSRB is satisfied it has sufficient evidence to decide whether the complaints are separate and different from the issues before the court. I have reviewed the Application and the Respondent’s Submissions dated January 30, 2026 in making my decision, below.
OVERVIEW
8The Applicants are the maternal grandparents of the children, T. and L. (the “Children”).
9The Applicants are also the grandparents of the child, I. The Applicants refer to I. in the Application but do not identify I. as a child affected by the Application. Accordingly, the CFSRB will not be addressing any complaints in relation to the child, I., in this Application.
10In May, 2021, the court placed the Children in the care and custody of the Applicants pursuant to a final order made in a child protection proceeding.
11In September, 2024, as a result of protection concerns relating to the Applicants, the court made an interim without prejudice order placing the Children in the temporary care and custody of their mother subject to supervision by the Respondent with terms and conditions.
12The Respondent removed the Children from the mother’s care in October, 2024 and the court subsequently made an order placing the Children in the temporary care and custody of the Respondent the same month. The court ordered access to the Children’s mother at the discretion of the Respondent with a minimum of one visit per week. It does not appear based on the documents filed with the CFSRB that the court ordered access for the Applicants at this time.
13The court made a further order in August, 2025 placing the Children in interim society care for five months with access to the Applicants in the Respondent’s discretion with respect to frequency, duration, location, mode and level of supervision. Such discretion also included the discretion to suspend access or provide no access.
14In December, 2025, the Respondent brought a Status Review Application seeking an order placing the Children in extended society care with access to the Applicants and the Children’s mother. The Respondent sought for access to occur a minimum of eight times per calendar year, taking into account the children’s views and preferences.
15The next step in the court proceeding is a motion scheduled for March 26, 2026 to address the Applicants’ access with the Children.
ISSUE
16The issue is:
a. Should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?
RESULT
17The CFSRB finds that the Application may proceed in part.
18Concerning the issue of whether the Applicants were provided reasons for decision regarding concerns outlined in paragraphs 20 (d) through (t) below, the Application may proceed.
19All other issues that the Applicants seek reviewed must be dismissed as they are not separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
ANALYSIS
20In the Application, the Applicants allege that the Respondent has not provided reasons for the following decisions affecting their interests:
a. Why the Respondent allegedly let the Children’s mother take the Children to her partner’s home in September, 2024 when the Children were not supposed to be in the mother’s care until court;
b. Why the Applicants are only provided one hour every other week of access with the Children when access is supposed to be every week;
c. Why court is always adjourned and has been going on for a year;
d. Why a former Respondent family service worker allegedly “broke” a six-month contract that was allegedly made with the Applicants in or around September 2024;
e. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to conduct a police check on the partner of the Children’s mother prior to allowing the mother to take the Children to her partner’s home in September 2024;
f. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly spoke to the partner of the Children’s mother and allegedly convinced the partner to ask the Children and their mother to leave his home in September, 2024
g. Why the Respondent allegedly cancelled access visits between the Children and the Applicants following one of the Applicants allegedly running into a Respondent family service worker with a scooter at an access visit in December, 2024;
h. Why a specified Respondent family service worker has failed to supervise any access visits for the Applicants with the Children;
i. Why T. has allegedly missed six access visits with the Applicants without proper explanation;
j. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to provide the Applicants the opportunity to speak to a worker during a plan of care meeting for the Children in or around Winter 2024;
k. Why the Respondent is not agreeable to changing the Respondent family service worker currently supervising the Applicant’s visits with the Children;
l. Why T.’s LEGO that the Applicants purchased for him for Christmas were allegedly thrown away;
m. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly locked T. in a room when he had a “melt down” during the Applicants’ access time and did not facilitate access;
n. Why the Respondent allegedly failed to take x-rays (or, if x-rays were taken, failed to advise the Applicants of the results of any x-rays) of T.’s allegedly injured knees;
o. Why the Children appear to not have showered for days;
p. Why the Respondent allegedly accused the Applicants of taking nude videos of the Children;
q. Why a Respondent family service worker allegedly made up lies about the Applicants and provided negative reports about visits;
r. Why the Respondent allegedly indicated to the Applicants that the Respondent was unconcerned by behaviour suggesting that T. may be depressed;
s. Why the Respondent has repeatedly asked one of the Applicants for her medical records; and
t. Why Respondent’s counsel allegedly indicated to new counsel contacted, but apparently not retained, by the Applicants that the Respondent had no case against the Applicants in relation to the child protection proceeding.
The Applicants’ complaints outlined in paragraphs 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 441).
23In paragraph 20(a), the Applicants complain that the mother was allowed to take the Children to her partner’s home when the Children were not supposed to be in the mother’s care until a court appearance in September, 2024. As outlined in the court documents attached to the Respondent’s motion materials, both Children were placed with the mother on a temporary supervision order at the end of September, 2024. Given same, the issue of appropriate caregivers for the Children was clearly before the court when the court made this order and is not an issue that can be reviewed by the CFSRB.
24In paragraph 20(b), the Applicants allege that it was not explained why their access with the Children has only occurred every other week when it is supposed to be every week. As there is a motion addressing the Applicants’ access with the Children returnable March 26, 2026, addressing any ongoing alleged failures by the Respondent to effect access is clearly an issue for the court to determine and not the CFSRB. This compliant is not separate or different from an issue before the court.
25Paragraph 20(c) outlines the Applicants’ concerns relating to delays in the court process. On each occasion that any parties to the court proceeding may have requested an adjournment, the court would have needed to address such a request. Accordingly, assessing the sufficiency of a party’s reason for making such a request would have been a substantive issue before the court and so cannot be reviewed by the CFSRB.
26As the issues outlined in paragraphs 20(a) through (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 20(d) – (t)
27The remaining complaints outlined in paragraphs 20(d) – (t) do not relate to substantive issues that are or have been before the court. Specifically, the Applicants allege that they were not provided reasons for decisions made relating to the following topics:
a. A contract that the Respondent allegedly broke with the Applicant (paragraph 20(d));
b. The residence of the Children at the home of their mother’s partner in September, 2024 (paragraph 20(e), and (f))
c. How the Respondent facilitated the Applicant’s access with the Children including explanations for cancelled or missed access visits (paragraph 20(g), (h) and (i)), explanations for failing to provide the opportunity to speak with a Respondent worker (paragraph 20(j)) and explanations for refusing to allow a change of access supervisor (paragraph 20(k));
d. The Respondent’s care of the Children (paragraphs 20(l), (m), (n), and (o))
e. Communication with the Applicants in relation to the Children while the Children have been the Respondent’s care (paragraphs 20(p), (q), and (r));
f. Questions asked by the Respondent in relation to the medical records of one of the Applicants (paragraph 20(s)); and
g. Comments allegedly made by the Respondent to counsel for the Applicant regarding the Respondent “having no case” against the Applicants in relation to the child protection proceeding (paragraph 20(t)).
28The Respondent concedes that these complaints do not fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court of Justice and have not been addressed by the court. 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.
29I agree with the Respondent that these issues do not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court.
30The concerns outlined in paragraphs 20(d) through (f) relate to the time period prior to the temporary care order made in October, 2024 and, if the court had chosen to address, would have been before the court at this time. These are neither issues that have been before the court nor are currently before the court.
31With respect to paragraphs 20(g) through (r) these complaints relate to how the Respondent has exercised the discretion granted by the court in caring for the Children including how the Respondent has facilitated access between the Applicants and the Children. The Respondent confirms that these are not issues that have been before the court and, given that the Applicants’ access with the children is currently at the sole discretion of the Respondent pursuant to a court order, they are not currently before the court either.
32Concerning paragraphs 20(s) and (t), there has been no information provided that would suggest that either of these concerns relate to a substantive issue that has been or is currently before the court.
33I find that the complaints outlined in paragraphs 20(d) through (t) 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 in paragraphs 20(d) through (t), above.
ORDER
34The Application may proceed on the issues outlined in paragraphs 20(d) through (t), above.
35The balance of the issues are dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
36Pursuant 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.
March 24, 2026
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member