CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CD Applicant
-and-
Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jessica Lubrick Date: March 27, 2026 Citation: 2026 CFSRB 47 Indexed as: CD v Niijaansinaanik Child and Family Services (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 January 28, 2026, pursuant to subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3In a Response dated February 17, 2026, the Respondent submitted that the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction because the Applicant is not a service recipient within the meaning of the Act. In addition, in the event that the CFSRB concluded that the Applicant was a service recipient, the Respondent sought to have the Application dismissed on the basis that the issues raised are not separate or different from issues currently before the court in a child protection proceeding.
4In a Case Management Direction (“CMD”) dated February 19, 2026, the CFSRB directed the Applicant to file submissions addressing how her complaints relate to services sought or received from the Respondent. The Respondent could, but was not required, to file reply submissions.
5Both parties filed submissions in accordance with the directions and timelines outlined in the CMD.
6I have reviewed the Application, Response, the Applicant’s Submissions dated February 23, 2026, and the Respondent’s Reply Submissions dated March 2, 2026 in making my decision, below.
OVERVIEW
7The Applicant is the maternal grandmother of the child, J.D. (the “Child”).
8Immediately following the Child’s birth in December, 2025, the Respondent commenced child protection proceedings. At this time, the court made an interim without prejudice order placing the Child in the care of the maternal grandparents subject to supervision by the Respondent with terms and conditions. This order also provided for supervised access at the discretion of the Respondent for the Child’s mother.
9At the end of January, 2026, the court made an order adding both maternal grandparents as parties to the child protection proceeding.
10The interim without prejudice order placing the Child in the care of the maternal grandparents remains in effect and the child protection proceeding is ongoing.
ISSUE
11The issues are:
a. Did the Applicant seek or receive services from the Respondent?
b. If the Applicant did seek or receive services from the Respondent, should the Application be dismissed because the complaints are not separate and different from the substantive issues that were or are before the Court?
RESULT
12The Application must be dismissed on the basis that the Applicant did not seek or receive services from the Respondent.
ANALYSIS
13The Act sets out that only those who “sought or received a service” from a society may complain to the CFSRB in relation to matters under section 120(4). Such matters include allegations that service providers did not ensure that children, young persons and their parents had an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests were made (sections 120(4)4) or that the society failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects a complainant’s interests (section 120(4)5).
14“Service” is defined under section 2.1 of the Act and includes services for a child or a child’s family who is or may be in need of protection.
The Applicant cannot seek or a receive a service under section 15(2) and/or they are not entitled to raise an allegation under 120(4)4 of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html)
15The Applicant is the maternal grandparent of the Child. The Applicant has made complaints alleging that the Respondent denied her the opportunity to be heard in accordance with section 120(4)4.
16Section 120(4)4 refers to allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
17Subsection 15(2) of the Act limits the right to be heard to “children and young persons and their parents.” Grandparents are not included in this provision and they are not entitled to this service.
18As such, the Applicant’s complaints alleging the Respondent denied her the right to be heard must be dismissed as, pursuant to the Act, a grandparent is not eligible to have complaints of this nature reviewed by the CFSRB.
The Applicant did not seek or receive services from the Respondent for the purposes of [section 120(4)5](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html)
19The CFSRB has previously held that a society’s obligation to provide reasons for decisions and the corresponding right to make a complaint to the CFSRB is not limited to children, young persons and their parents as is the right to be heard. In contrast, the CFSRB has recognized that the right to reasons is a broad right that extends to other persons who are involved with children under the Act and can include individuals such as foster parents who are the subject of an investigation by the society and grandparents who have sought access to grandchildren from a society that controls access (H.L.B. v Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4).
20As the Applicant is the Child’s family member and a party to the child protection proceeding, the Applicant could, potentially, seek or receive a service from the Respondent as defined in section 2(1) of the Act. The Respondent submits, however, that the services that are the subject of the Applicant’s Application are services received from the Respondent by the Child and the Child’s Mother, and not the Applicant.
21I agree with the Respondent. The Respondent’s decisions for which the Applicant alleges she was not provided with reasons are decisions that affect the interests of the Child and the Child’s mother, not the Applicant. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that she was not provided reasons why the Respondent has allegedly facilitated only limited access visits between the Child and the Child’s mother, why the Respondent is requesting paternity testing of the Child, and why the Respondent has allegedly failed to offer appropriate cultural services for the Child. These complaints relate to services provided to the Child and the Child’s mother.
22In the Applicant’s submissions, the Applicant acknowledges that the subject of her complaints are the services provided to the Child’s mother and the Child, and not her. However, the Applicant submits that the Child’s mother requires an advocate due to a disability and states that, as a family member and the kin caregiver of the Child, the Applicant can seek CFSRB review of services received by the Child and the Child’s mother.
23I disagree with the Applicant’s submission. The Applicant is not seeking reasons for decisions affecting her own interests and so the CFSRB cannot review her complaints.
24I would also note that it is not necessary in the interests of accessibility for the Applicant to bring these complaints before the CFSRB in this manner. The Child’s mother may bring an Application before the CFSRB and, if she requires, the Child’s mother may request accommodations to make this process accessible for her. This could include having the Applicant participate as a support person in this process.
25It is also open to the Applicant, if the Child’s mother is unable to act on her own behalf before the CFSRB, to seek appointment as the Litigation Guardian for the Child’s Mother and to bring a fresh application before the CFSRB on behalf of the Child’s Mother. Further details with respect to the process and eligibility for naming a Litigation Guardian for the purpose of CFSRB proceedings can be found in the Social Justice Tribunals Practice Directive: SJTO | Litigation Guardians before Social Justice Tribunals Ontario.
26For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the Applicant did not seek or receive services from the Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
ORDER
27The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
28Pursuant 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 27, 2026.
Jessica Lubrick
Jessica Lubrick
Member